States’ Rights = Racism?
I’m so sick of hearing this. How many things can you name that were once supported primarily by racists? How about: abortion, religion, the war on drugs? Is everything that was ever supported by a racist person inherently racist itself?
Is this just a really clever way of avoiding real debate?
What about the inherently racist federal laws like Coke vs Crack and using HUD to marginalize minorities? Are medical marijuana advocates in California all racist because they want their state to have power to regulate the law?
Does anyone else realize the absurdity/emptiness of the accusation?
I understand that Mike O, but how does it justify the accusation today, when the federal government is the major perpetrator of racist law?
Anyone out there who can defend this logic?
Of course, any reasonable clear thinking person would realize how absurd that thinking is………..
If you notice, the term racist is always applied by liberals to People that are not swayed by their illogical arguments. When they call me that I consider it a badge of honor
States’ Rights was the argument used in the southern states against civil rights legislation in the 50s and 60s. That is how the connection was made.
It is a historical reference.
Nope,States Rights=States Rights. As in those things the Federal Government has no Constitutional power to control,which is supposed to be everything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Unfortunately most people have no idea what the Feds are supposed to do,they want them to be the worlds biggest baby-sitter.
AD
All of us thinking Conservatives recognize that the accusation of someone being a racist is a ploy by the fascist leftists in the country. It is used to silence those they disagree with. But it no longer works. It has lost it’s punch. The sad thing is that real racism is going unchallenged because the of the “boy who cried wolf” democrats.
Actually, most voters today are so badly educated they don’t have a frigging clue what the US of A is founded on. They have no American History knowledge and do not realize that The Republic of the United States was set up so the government would not interfere with states’ rule.
If we go changing that like the bleeding liberals who want to morph Americans into non-Americans–and give our country away–have no clue what the Bill of Rights says–Civil Rights-Constitution–Declaration of Independence.
Everyone is a racist–its part of being human–discriminating for or against others based on age-or color-or school grade-or academic studies-or athletics-or height-or weight-come on.
Who is exempt!?
States must obey both their own Constitution and the Federal Constitution. After that they have the right to do anything they want.
Also another analogy similar to tossing the word “racism” around, is like arguing with a Jew and he or she drops the word “Nazi” on you. You just get hot in the face and even madder when you’ve gotten yourself all worked up by arguing with a “hack”.
If you argue from the point where instead of explaining a political viewpoint, you use emotionally charged terms to accuse the other person of something unrelated to what their viewpoint is then I define that as someone who is a “hack”.
“States’ Rights = Racism” is just a cheesy bumper sticker slogan and isn’t anything meaningful
Yes, Mike O, we know that. It’s a simple reference yet incorrectly applied. Furthermore when you use emotional-charged phrases like that it cheapens the REAL meaning of the words in the proper historic context.
nah…. it’s just a really unclever way of avoiding real debate
This is a VERY common “debate” strategy, and an informal logical fallacy. It has been given the title ‘Argumentum Ad Hitlerum’ (amongst others of the same variety), which is a humorous corruption of the Latin phrase, Argumentum Ad Hominem, and is a form of guilt by association, where the object of abuse is compared to Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Party, or any number of peripheral parties, such as Neo-Nazis or the Confederate South. Besides being a cheap, juvenile means of debate, it falls apart as quickly as any other form of guilt by association in rhetoric: Hitler was an ardent vegetarian; are all vegetarians therefore tantamount to Hitler? This fallacy is also known as ‘Reductio Ad Nazium (or Hitlerum)’, from the ‘Reductio Ad Absurdum’ that should be well known to anyone familiar with the rigorous, axiomatic Greek method of mathematical proofs.
The reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy assumes the form of “Adolf Hitler (or the Nazi party) supported X; therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad, etc”; or, less commonly, “Adolf Hitler was against X; therefore X must be good, desirable, praiseworthy, etc.” This fallacy is often effective due to the near-instant condemnation of anything to do with Hitler or the Nazis. It is important to understand that those policies advocated by Hitler (or the South) and his party which are generally considered evil are all condemned by themselves, not because Hitler supported them. In other words: genocide and Aryan white supremacism (for example) are not considered evil because Hitler advocated them, but rather Hitler is considered evil because he advocated them.
Logical fallacies invalidate your argument before you’ve even begun. That doesn’t mean, however, that 99% of the posts you see on this site don’t make use of at least one. When I was in grad school I knew a philosophy grad student who TA’d the introductory logic course. He made students bring in real world examples of fallacies from the Yahoo message boards (when they were still up). He said it was always the most entertaining class of the semester.