Подтвердите e-mail

Для публикаций, комментариев, реакций и сообщений подтвердите адрес.

←

Публикация

Jack Graham

Yes. It shows (yet again) how utterly pointless it is to argue with fascists. You will not get them to hear you, let alone persuade them, because they have chosen to start their reasoning from fundamentally different, skewed conceptions of value, meaning, social good, etc.

Adam Serwer

It is funny that this person thinks “immigrants defended the union while native born whites sought to destroy it in the name of slavery” is an argument against immigrants being Americans. This is precisely the point, nothing about being born here makes you better bsky.app/profile/aphc...

Обсуждение

1 прямых ответов · 3 сообщений

Jack Graham

I mean, in this specific case, Johnston's underlying conceptions are not hard to divine. He starts from the assumptions of white supremacy. Crudely, you won't persuade him that immigration is good because immigrants helped destroy slavery because... he supports it.

Ответ для Jack Graham
Jack Graham

I suspect he'd deny that he supports slavery if this were put to him. But you can't support the ideological underpinnings of an institution, defend those who practiced it and tried to save it, criticise those who destroyed it, downplay its evils, etc etc etc...

Ответ для Jack Graham
Jack Graham

...and then meaningfully say "But I don't support the institution". That's gibberish. Like all right-wing arguments, it's nothing but a word game. Put this person in an equivalent social position in the past, at the time, and what would their open stance inevitably be?