I actually watched your video and then I watched his video to see where your base material came from and you are easily engaging in fallacy. THe Hair example is an example of principal of about crediantism and licenising and he does not have to give a example of every possible kind hence it would not be a generalization. He could of used auto mechanics or something and the principal would still be sound. There is other things but limit of words, Iwill check the comments between you guys. K
I don't think he was suggesting that black women ONLY know how to do that, I think he was just giving an example of a potential business that could not be started because of government barriers to entry on the poor.
that doesn't suggest that shanedk is racist, it suggests that he's wrong.
I really don't see where your racism argument comes in.
While I agree that the government should have had better levies (and a number of other improvements) built in that area of New Orleans, I think the reason they were there in the first place was because of a racist government. The people who were in charge of the federal housing were locals. The locals were racist, ergo racist whites chose where the blacks went.
I myself have problems with Shanedk, specifically his tendency to love historical revisionism in favor of "free market" and of course, the simple inability to distinguish plain old criticism and refutation of plain old pseudo-facts spewed by the right-wing suckers as ad hominem attacks and of course, rageblocking, but I can't see why he's racist from here.
I am sorry I had to thumbs down your video. Shanedk may have problems, but he is still my friend. I cannot empower the enemies of my friend even if they are in the right and my friend is in the wrong. I will try to right my friend's wrong, but I won't abandon him.
You have done a superb job of isolating Shane's ethno-centrism and ego-centricity, that he tries hard to mask using revisionist history, name calling and silencing of discussion in his channel.
I am going to repost this video on my channel. Shanedk blocked me and removed my comments accusing me of calling him a racist. I did no such thing. Not even close. All I wanted was an open discussion on the libertarian opposition for the Civil Rights Legislation and the Ron Paul newsletter controversy. It was too much for him. He did not go even as far with me as he did with you. Now I will help expose his racism.
@dhimmi099 Thanks for sharing this video with me. I found it hard to believe you when you said it. But unfortunately you are correct, Shane has internalized ethno-centrism as part of his world view that he neither willing to acknowledge or confront to the extent that any aspect of reality that conflicts with it gets ignored completely and discussions on it are banned on his channel.
widdip's the real racist.he clearly believes that blacks are incapable of helping themselves. he implies that blacks can't start a business, employ others or compete with other races. i bet widdip is the guy who's overly friendly to black people at parties. he behaves like this because he believes he is dealing with someone who doesn't pose a cerebral threat, someone who he sees as inferior. the sooner black people realize that it's the widdips of this world who are to blame for their problems!
Not only have you failed to show that ShaneDK is a racist, but you've made a fool of yourself by revealing your own ignorance of history. Racist laws after the Civil War were enacted specifically in response to private companies who were not racist in business practice, because of COMPETITION. These laws restricted that competition. For just one example, look at the behavior of Northern unions in response to black migration north after the war.
So government (which has most of the firepower) was just a "helpless victim"? The only way that is true is that the people were unsuccessful at limiting the power of government and so government grew.
He showed one example of an opportunity (whatever the magnitude of value) to increase the welfare and wealth of some people. Do you think braiding hair is a degrading career or not worth doing? I don't get your opposition. You racist labeling is obviously just you reacting to someone challenging your dogma. Go read books in the field of social well-being and economic prosperity for the poor and come back.
I will stop around 1.30 because I can't be bothered to listen anymore rubbish.
The example of the Cosmetology licence was an example of Government barriers to entry for businesses. Therefore, preventing many people from setting up their own businesses in areas of low employment. He was not using it as a blanket reason for all black deprivation as you suggested.
he's not saying that the majority of the southerners were not racist, he's just saying that without the jim crow laws, they would not have been able to impose their will on the african americans, and they would just have to cope with not having what they wanted. without these laws, racists may have died out faster than they have so far. If you think about it, many of the examples you stated, such as sitting on the back of the bus, were legalized because of the jim crow laws.
The united states is not a democracy. Our laws do not reflect the will of the people. Thats what shanedk was saying. The jim crow laws are a prime example of why we are not a democracy. The majority of the people at the time were racist, and voted for the laws. Thus the majority imposed their will on the minority, overshadowing their inherent rights. These laws were unconstitutional, thus it was the governments fault for not following the constutution.
Sooo... You think that bus companies voluntarily chose to alienate a majority of their costumers? Out of a motive for profit? What, did they have underpants gnomes for financial advisors?
the cosmetology license is just an example of things the government has done. Some people go to school and get peaces of paper to say they can do something. Other people are trained by other people to learn without having to pay to ho to school. Those who paid for a peace of paper bitch to government because jobs are being taken by people with the experience of being hands on trained. The government sides with those that have money, those that were able to pay for a piece of paper.
This is retarded. Really retarded. Ether Widdip is ignorant of the well known economics that shanedk based his argument video on or he is deliberately setting out to slander him. My guess is both.
eduacted or not educated ,i,m simple mean the litttle watchers seen & follow the big events the means in the wordl ,escrow, killers ,rippers ,fighters how many front ,& conflits aroun the wordl for exploited this my my opinions
He is very nasty to anyone whom he percives has the slightest disagreement with him. Maybe dealing with Internet people has made him bitter or something so he is now unable to discuss things in a civil manner but its really going too far to call him a racist and you should be be ashamed of that.
it's pretty funny how professional internet master debaters use slurring invective at anyone who disagrees with them as a go-to and barely address the logical line put forth by someone arguing against them.
By funny I mean disturbing and evidence of complete internalization of the flash over substance presentation of our debased media. If you call someone a "fucking scumbag liar" and repeat repeat repeat that they're wrong without ever actually saying why or how you'll still "win"
His actual argument was destroyed repeatedly in comments, his response was "LIAR LIAR LIAR!" And at that point he looked pretty pathetic but then he was saved because videos like this one were made, which call him a racist, and he could use that win sympathy for his side.
It calls him a racist and that's a pretty hefty accusation to make but it doesn't stop at just slurring him, it does a good job explaining why his attitudes and revisions are from a racist point of view.
What is it with internet libertarians and I guess conservatives in general shouting LIAR and claiming victory and righteousness without actually getting into any sort of mechanics of a cohesive argument?
Your agument is this: ShaneDK places blame on government policy instead of of private society for racist policies. You disagree. Therefore Shane is racist.
You're missing a few points in your derivation...
You even contradict your own unsound argument by immediately by hilighting how utterly unprepared the govt was in Katrina.
You then go on to deliberately misrepresent his example of cosmetology licensing.
Try again, and perhaps try another topic this time.
@rbairos1 Agrees. I don't see how this makes him racist. I mean I guess if you're trying to up views by getting him to react, I suppose.
Also, groups like the Klan, in the past (and possibly present, who knows) had members in high seats in US government, which is how these old racist laws came to be. In a way, shandedk and Widdip are both right.
shane is a beardy ignorant twat born with a silver spoon rammed right up his white anglo saxon protestant arsehole.
He is an arsehole to boot.
btw - the moon landing conspiracy theorists are the ones that are correct because the moon hoax was a deliberate disinfo psy-op campaign on the part of the US intelligence services 'revealing' exactly how they faked the fanatsy story that covers for covert military missions in space.
I happen to know that healthcare costs can ruin people if they don't have insurance and it has nothing to do with how well you manage your money. My mother was very sick with diabetes and heart disease and she accrued over 1M in hospital bills alone, not including all the medication costs.
Shane is impossible to argue with and I don't bother. I responded to a video that had my name in it and I quoted a book (with name) in the comment and he gave me a warning, so I usually don't comment now.
Simply put, the video would have been better off if you simply brought into question some of the tactics, such as blocking and deleting, and why he believes some of the things he does. You don't seem to have anything to support your claim of racism.
This is really quite poor. You strawman him more than a few times in this video making him sound like he is being racist when he isn't. You also jump to conclusions far too quickly here.
You made it out as if Shane said the only way for them to earn money was to braid hair which he never. You made it out to be a deprecating comment, which it wasn't.
He used it as an example of government intervention causing difficulties for ethnic minorities.
His newest video blows this video's argument out the water. It shows he isn't a racist, and that the government is racially inequal
I agree. It's getting suffocating here in America with all the senseless laws and regulation the gov't has been enacting year after year to stifle our freedom. My home owner's association sovereignty was infringed on last year by the feds after they determined that we broke their "anti-discrimination" laws. WE were the ones who truly got discriminated against just because we wanted our neighborhood to be crime-free and full of respectable people
As someone who saw the original video, the only evidence given to Shane being a racist is a twisting of his words from the original video. What ever happened to intellectual honesty?
The absolute best this video has done is show a dissension of views about history. Quite a few times, in this very video, we was arguing against racist ideology.
This video has made me question if one of the debaters is a racist and it isn't Shane I am questioning. =/
Your dishonest tactics, such as the braided hair strawman, brings into question if your point is anything more then projection.
Nothing you gave in the video was evidence of him being racist. Yes, there is a question of turning a blind eye to the racism that existed in the general populous as a cause of such laws but a disagreement of causes hardly shows him to be a racist bigot.
Again, all I saw of him was an argument against racism.
Quote Mining. It's the practice of quoting someone out of the original context of their argument. Your racism claims centre entirely around the argument that he is making statements about black people's abilities. Put his words back in their original context and they mean nothing like what you imply. "Just quoting his words" indeed.
I live in a large city with a large population of blacks and a large population of blacks in poverty and the government has made it worse year after year. The democrats have somehow convinced both blacks and poor people that they are the party of the poor, while they create more poverty than anything else. High city taxes force the jobs out of the city. My city has had D city gov for nearly 60 years and every year it gets worse.
I dont think Shanedk was saying that racists werent in the majority at one point.
The jim crow laws helped these racist ideas survive. Businesses that were against racial interalerance would have been able to practice the way they wanted. Because of this there would have been more intermingling of the different races which would have cleared up misconceptions both sides had and would have led to less people being racists in the long run.
The laws helped maintain these racist conceptions.
in his video, what is the free market, shanedk repeatedly and explcitly said in the comments that racists were not in the majority during the time of jim crow laws. Explicitly.
He also states that slavery was not the reason for secession--even though, if you compare the US constitution and the secessionists constitution, the only changes that were made were about slavery. Shanedk has internalised revisionist, racist history, and it's saddening that such a mind has been muddied this way.
But the main reasons why most people wanted to secede wasn't people of slavery. The issue was the people who were richest had the most power in the government of the south and also owned and wanted to continue to own slaves. This doesn't mean the vast majority of them were racist. It may have been more of an issue than Shanedk made it out to be but it still wasn't nearly as meaningful as the economical differences that clashed between the north and the south.
"the only changes that were made [to the Confederate constitution] were about slavery."
This is a flat-out LIE. Only FOUR of the changes were about slavery: Article I Section 9 Clause 2, which banned slave imports from slaves (after taking the reference to 1808 from Clause 1, making the slave trade ban permanent). Clause 4 protected ownership of slaves. IV(2)2 extended the right of state passage to slaves (with their masters). IV(3)3 said that new states would be slave states.
ALL of the other references to slavery were there in the US Constitution (the CSA even used the word "slave" explicitly where the US Constitution danced around it: e.g., "all other persons" in I(2)3.
The other changes (some good, some bad) were:
Preamble: emphasizes the sovereign nature of the states; invokes God (the only reference anywhere)
I(2)1: No foreigner can vote without becoming a citizen
I(2)5: Any Federal officer can be impeached with a 2/3rds vote of both houses
I(8)3: Clarifying the Commerce Clause so that government cannot interfere in state-to-state commerce (the original intention in the US Constitution but beginning to be perverted)
I(8)4: Congress cannot nullify its own debts.
I(8)7: The post office must be self-funding after 1863
I(9): The Bill of Rights is incorporated
I(9)9: Appropriations must be by 2/3rds vote of both houses
V: Congress plays no role in passing amendments; three states may summon convention; 2/3rds to ratify
VI(1)1: CSA has continuity with provisional government
I did you a favor and discluded all the bookkeeping changes (United States to Confederate States, updating grandfather clauses, etc.). So, instead of being the ONLY changes, they were FOUR OUT OF THIRTY (13%).
wow so a few procedural changes that wouldnt have had a huge effect and a largely word-for-word copy otherwise... apart from this protection of states rights (for the purpose of further maintaining slavery) and a protection of slavery itself. bear in mind they didn't actually NEED to import slaves - freeing slaves was difficult/outlawed so they had enough to breed more.
im sorry but i dont have the time or patience to go through why the changes here are superficial or ultimately tie back to slavery. there are many websites that detail this so I don't feel I have to, thank god
I OMITTED the superficial changes!!! One subject at a time! No protectionist tariffs! Etc. Those are NOT superficial!!! And they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with slavery, either.
Did you even READ the list? Or will your dogma simply not allow you to consider the genuine facts?
V: Congress plays no role in passing amendments; three states may summon convention; 2/3rds to ratify
VI(1)1: CSA has continuity with provisional government
I did you a favor and discluded all the bookkeeping changes (United States to Confederate States, updating grandfather clauses, etc.). So, instead of being the ONLY changes, they were FOUR OUT OF THIRTY (13%).
How is it hypocritical? They favored it in the US, they kept the clause in their Constitution. (And, as I pointed out, it helped prop up slavery as market forces made it less and less profitable/) So, where's the hypocrisy?
because it's an obvious violation of states rights? it was a result of a compromise to prevent the inevitable secession over slavery? the northerners were not happy at all about it
How does any of this make him a racist? If you want to say he is wrong then that is one thing, but to speculate on his rationale and draw the conclusion that he is racist is just stupid. Shane is kinda rough with people and I can see how he pisses people off, but that doesn't make him racist.
People are just calling him a racist because they disagree with him and want to put him on the defensive.
I think part of the reason people will say this about you is you seem to took a lot of Shanedk's comments out of context. You may just misunderstand what he said, but the issue is a lot of people thought it was quite clear. This makes it appear that you were misquoting him on purpose to make him look worse. Most people don't take quote mining lightly, and I can understand why this would appear to be the case even if it wasn't intentional.
The issue with quote mining relays mainly to specific points brought up. Though he did a decent job dealing with a lot of the issues, instead of Widdip actually address Shanedk's point on how government can hinder people in poorer computers to make money he made it seem like Shanedk was saying that one job was all black women could do (perhaps Widdip just misunderstood shane). This appears to be shameless quote mining and makes him lose some credibility to some of the commenter's.
Not where the benefits outweigh the detriments, no. In cases where there are benefits certification works a lot better. Look at UL, or Good Housekeeping.
Well let me see then if I can imagine a situation where licensing would make sense. How about in the use and handling of controlled or hazardous substances with extremely high externalities. Such as nuclear waste handling, top secret materials, or the handling of ultra dangerous viruses that turn people into zombies which eat the flesh of the living?
Sure that last one may be unlikely, but a good system test always involves extremes.
I don't know about "top secret" stuff, but if it involves something that poses a clear and present danger, then I can see the need for government stepping in, although I'm not sure licensing is the best way to go about it. All you have to do is look at the War on Drugs to see how bad the government is at restricting people from having and using things.
I don't believe the war on drugs is a good example of government trying to restrict behaviour. I mean it wouldn't be hard to imagine a system which restricted drug usage a lot more effectively.
Seems to me that just as a party of the poor needs to keep people poor, the anti-crime party would need to maintain a certain level of crime. Being tough on crime gets votes, but at the same time tends to cause more crime. Seems the old problem of an ideological, rather than results based approach.
because i don't believe your example of the government stopping people from braiding hair. it's ludicrous and it doesn't happen.
and there is a real need to regulate where and when and what responsibilities people that are serving alcohol have. I don't want a bar next to a preschool or in a quiet neighborhood
I still don't see how any of these points counteract how the regulation he presented negatively effected poor communities. Shane's arguments on how the specific regulations he was trying to counter negatively effected minorities was much better argued and had more evidence than this video does. I don't agree with many of his views but that is no reason for trying to make mocking through quote mining and misrepresenting his position as acceptionable behavior.
You've repeatedly defended the Southern people even as we've shown many cases where they supported racist firebrands, persecuted blacks, and even murdered them. But no, your fundamentalist dogma means that no matter the facts, government was responsible! Next, maybe you can explain how Genesis must be true, therefore the speed of light is decaying and carbon dating is a lie. Seems to meet your standard of "PROVING it", anyway.
Presumably because most people don't think those things are important enough to be enforced by law. Those are reserved for things that are legally enforced: laws against murder, against theft, against endangering others. I don't know if the majority is in favor of laws against murder, but I certainly hope so!
No, it's because they don't HAVE to enforce them by law! They don't NEED a law, say, pre-empting regular programming for basketball games because a lot of people like basketball!
But they DID have to do it for segregation. And even when they did, few places complied--they had to threaten them DIRECTLY (not just the blacks who disobeyed) with prosecution to scare them into submission.
Consider bans on gay marriage - even though the majority apparently supports them, they apparently do feel the need to pass laws preventing any same-sex marriage. Likewise, segregationists saw racial separation as a moral imperative, so they passed laws to impose it on anyone.
You said the first 2 repeatedly (well, the 1st, equivalent statements). also, you havent proven anything at all. you can't just put PROVEN in caps and miraculously make it so, you child
I said it wasn't SOLELY about slavery. Different thing. And I clarified the other in my reply to twixnor. It's amazing how you people twist things in your dogmatic, black/white view of things!
The civil war was about states rights more than slavery. The states asserted that they had the right to decide for themselves how they wanted to handle the issue and the fed said forget it. The states reacted by leaving the union. Slavery laws were an important part of it, but the real issue was that the states wanted to make their own rules. The hot button issue could have been anything.
Sure, if you mean exactly one right - the right to perpetually own people as property! Nothing else was so incredibly divisive that it could have provoked such a massive rebellion. In fact, the Southern states didn't really give a damn about a state's right to choose whether to be a slave or free state, which is why the constitution of the Confederacy specifically prohibited any state from abolishing slavery! The last reactionary gasp of a moribund, evil system.
No, there was a LOT more than that. Anyone who purports to give you a cause in one 500-character comment is just WRONG. The reasons were as many as they were nuanced.
But see my review of their constitutional changes for some of them.
Although rereading your post, I do agree with the last sentence: it was the last death throes of a system people were desperately clinging on to, as the market drove it into obsolescence.
Correct - as the world moved to a capitalist mode of production, formal slavery became obsolete. The romantic mythology of the South (which obviously lasted long after emancipation) upheld the slave-based society as an ideal system to be defended by force.
Yes: Romanticism is a movement AGAINST aristocratic classes (and opposition to a naturalistic view of nature, although that isn't really relevant here). Romanticism is the elevation of the common man to an exalted state.
Slavery was the EXACT OPPOSITE. It was the continued exaltation of the upper classes at the expense of the poor, and CERTAINLY at the expense of the slave.
In some cases, at least, it was--the Nazis used it to good effect, with the poor, oppressed Aryans rising up against the Allies who were impoverishing them and the Jews, trade unionists, etc. who were destroying their society from within.
Propaganda, of course--although it is true that the actions of the Allies ruined the German economy and set up the conditions where that propaganda would be effective.
I actually watched your video and then I watched his video to see where your base material came from and you are easily engaging in fallacy. THe Hair example is an example of principal of about crediantism and licenising and he does not have to give a example of every possible kind hence it would not be a generalization. He could of used auto mechanics or something and the principal would still be sound. There is other things but limit of words, Iwill check the comments between you guys. K
Ryukikon 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
oOo0Chase0oOo 1 month ago
I can't concentrate on what you're saying with that annoying music in the background and your monotone voice.
Boss5414 2 months ago
Good video
UserXer0 4 months ago
That's why they call them ghettos.
I don't think he was suggesting that black women ONLY know how to do that, I think he was just giving an example of a potential business that could not be started because of government barriers to entry on the poor.
darris321 4 months ago
@darris321 Exactly.
oOo0Chase0oOo 1 month ago
Comment removed
darris321 4 months ago
that doesn't suggest that shanedk is racist, it suggests that he's wrong.
I really don't see where your racism argument comes in.
While I agree that the government should have had better levies (and a number of other improvements) built in that area of New Orleans, I think the reason they were there in the first place was because of a racist government. The people who were in charge of the federal housing were locals. The locals were racist, ergo racist whites chose where the blacks went.
darris321 4 months ago
I myself have problems with Shanedk, specifically his tendency to love historical revisionism in favor of "free market" and of course, the simple inability to distinguish plain old criticism and refutation of plain old pseudo-facts spewed by the right-wing suckers as ad hominem attacks and of course, rageblocking, but I can't see why he's racist from here.
iseeallforme 4 months ago
SHaneDK is not a racist.
artsyeyes 5 months ago
I am sorry I had to thumbs down your video. Shanedk may have problems, but he is still my friend. I cannot empower the enemies of my friend even if they are in the right and my friend is in the wrong. I will try to right my friend's wrong, but I won't abandon him.
82abhilash 5 months ago
You have done a superb job of isolating Shane's ethno-centrism and ego-centricity, that he tries hard to mask using revisionist history, name calling and silencing of discussion in his channel.
82abhilash 5 months ago
I am going to repost this video on my channel. Shanedk blocked me and removed my comments accusing me of calling him a racist. I did no such thing. Not even close. All I wanted was an open discussion on the libertarian opposition for the Civil Rights Legislation and the Ron Paul newsletter controversy. It was too much for him. He did not go even as far with me as he did with you. Now I will help expose his racism.
dhimmi099 5 months ago
@dhimmi099 Thanks for sharing this video with me. I found it hard to believe you when you said it. But unfortunately you are correct, Shane has internalized ethno-centrism as part of his world view that he neither willing to acknowledge or confront to the extent that any aspect of reality that conflicts with it gets ignored completely and discussions on it are banned on his channel.
82abhilash 5 months ago
widdip's the real racist.he clearly believes that blacks are incapable of helping themselves. he implies that blacks can't start a business, employ others or compete with other races. i bet widdip is the guy who's overly friendly to black people at parties. he behaves like this because he believes he is dealing with someone who doesn't pose a cerebral threat, someone who he sees as inferior. the sooner black people realize that it's the widdips of this world who are to blame for their problems!
58robbo 10 months ago
You need to read Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies esp. the section on Race.
MrRobinMurphy 10 months ago
Hi mate, Just wanted to find out what the name of the dub track is? Peace!
SardarDholi 1 year ago
@SardarDholi spliff dub by zomby i think
joolsduane 1 year ago
@kevinwayne50 Likely a combination of voters that didn't know they were a members of a secret society, and voters that did.
allmakescombined 1 year ago
maybe it was the racists that were working for the government
traveln3 1 year ago
Not only have you failed to show that ShaneDK is a racist, but you've made a fool of yourself by revealing your own ignorance of history. Racist laws after the Civil War were enacted specifically in response to private companies who were not racist in business practice, because of COMPETITION. These laws restricted that competition. For just one example, look at the behavior of Northern unions in response to black migration north after the war.
willzyx1980 1 year ago
So government (which has most of the firepower) was just a "helpless victim"? The only way that is true is that the people were unsuccessful at limiting the power of government and so government grew.
jscottupton 1 year ago
He showed one example of an opportunity (whatever the magnitude of value) to increase the welfare and wealth of some people. Do you think braiding hair is a degrading career or not worth doing? I don't get your opposition. You racist labeling is obviously just you reacting to someone challenging your dogma. Go read books in the field of social well-being and economic prosperity for the poor and come back.
newexperiment 1 year ago
The "r" word is used by people who can't form a logical argument anyway.
tiecuando 1 year ago 3
I will stop around 1.30 because I can't be bothered to listen anymore rubbish.
The example of the Cosmetology licence was an example of Government barriers to entry for businesses. Therefore, preventing many people from setting up their own businesses in areas of low employment. He was not using it as a blanket reason for all black deprivation as you suggested.
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
You completely missed Shane's points. Sad.
rpetty 2 years ago 2
Widdip haven't you ever heard the saying "You don't need a majority just a very active minority"?
avengemm9dog 2 years ago 2
dude, you fail shane knows what he is talking about so stfu
MrEnrique223 2 years ago
he's not saying that the majority of the southerners were not racist, he's just saying that without the jim crow laws, they would not have been able to impose their will on the african americans, and they would just have to cope with not having what they wanted. without these laws, racists may have died out faster than they have so far. If you think about it, many of the examples you stated, such as sitting on the back of the bus, were legalized because of the jim crow laws.
enomarekim 2 years ago
The united states is not a democracy. Our laws do not reflect the will of the people. Thats what shanedk was saying. The jim crow laws are a prime example of why we are not a democracy. The majority of the people at the time were racist, and voted for the laws. Thus the majority imposed their will on the minority, overshadowing their inherent rights. These laws were unconstitutional, thus it was the governments fault for not following the constutution.
enomarekim 2 years ago
Sooo... You think that bus companies voluntarily chose to alienate a majority of their costumers? Out of a motive for profit? What, did they have underpants gnomes for financial advisors?
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
Epic
Fail
Endthedrugwar951 2 years ago
the cosmetology license is just an example of things the government has done. Some people go to school and get peaces of paper to say they can do something. Other people are trained by other people to learn without having to pay to ho to school. Those who paid for a peace of paper bitch to government because jobs are being taken by people with the experience of being hands on trained. The government sides with those that have money, those that were able to pay for a piece of paper.
xchosen123 2 years ago
This is retarded. Really retarded. Ether Widdip is ignorant of the well known economics that shanedk based his argument video on or he is deliberately setting out to slander him. My guess is both.
Malthus0 2 years ago 8
WTF i think you missed the point of his vid man
hereticjoeyjoey 2 years ago 2
eduacted or not educated ,i,m simple mean the litttle watchers seen & follow the big events the means in the wordl ,escrow, killers ,rippers ,fighters how many front ,& conflits aroun the wordl for exploited this my my opinions
shawnee2014 2 years ago
This is an incredibly sad attempt.
You must've been considerably butthurt to put something this bad out.
Poor pommie.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
one spliff a day
listen to yr funny british voice.
p.s. shanedk is a racist.
whalleybanger 2 years ago
Hey, I am a black southerner and I am well-educated you douche!
Pentazoid111 2 years ago 2
very poor argument and took his words out of context
allison8914 2 years ago
He is very nasty to anyone whom he percives has the slightest disagreement with him. Maybe dealing with Internet people has made him bitter or something so he is now unable to discuss things in a civil manner but its really going too far to call him a racist and you should be be ashamed of that.
CorndogMaker 2 years ago
it's pretty funny how professional internet master debaters use slurring invective at anyone who disagrees with them as a go-to and barely address the logical line put forth by someone arguing against them.
By funny I mean disturbing and evidence of complete internalization of the flash over substance presentation of our debased media. If you call someone a "fucking scumbag liar" and repeat repeat repeat that they're wrong without ever actually saying why or how you'll still "win"
ahuj89 2 years ago
His actual argument was destroyed repeatedly in comments, his response was "LIAR LIAR LIAR!" And at that point he looked pretty pathetic but then he was saved because videos like this one were made, which call him a racist, and he could use that win sympathy for his side.
CorndogMaker 2 years ago
It calls him a racist and that's a pretty hefty accusation to make but it doesn't stop at just slurring him, it does a good job explaining why his attitudes and revisions are from a racist point of view.
What is it with internet libertarians and I guess conservatives in general shouting LIAR and claiming victory and righteousness without actually getting into any sort of mechanics of a cohesive argument?
ahuj89 2 years ago
You are a nudist erection. Use your time in a better way than slandering the good name of Shane. You DIRTY nudist erection!
TheSanlerBrothers 2 years ago
Your agument is this: ShaneDK places blame on government policy instead of of private society for racist policies. You disagree. Therefore Shane is racist.
You're missing a few points in your derivation...
You even contradict your own unsound argument by immediately by hilighting how utterly unprepared the govt was in Katrina.
You then go on to deliberately misrepresent his example of cosmetology licensing.
Try again, and perhaps try another topic this time.
rbairos1 2 years ago 20
@rbairos1 Agrees. I don't see how this makes him racist. I mean I guess if you're trying to up views by getting him to react, I suppose.
Also, groups like the Klan, in the past (and possibly present, who knows) had members in high seats in US government, which is how these old racist laws came to be. In a way, shandedk and Widdip are both right.
allmakescombined 1 year ago
epic
fail
thomasnolanearnshaw 2 years ago
Don't use Strawman arguments.
Scoforever 2 years ago
This video is a FAIL.
ogjimkenobi 2 years ago
shane is a beardy ignorant twat born with a silver spoon rammed right up his white anglo saxon protestant arsehole.
He is an arsehole to boot.
btw - the moon landing conspiracy theorists are the ones that are correct because the moon hoax was a deliberate disinfo psy-op campaign on the part of the US intelligence services 'revealing' exactly how they faked the fanatsy story that covers for covert military missions in space.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Comment removed
2012therock 2 years ago
Shane is not a racist, this asshole douchebag is misquoting him left and right.
Go watch Shanes actual videos and you will be unable to find even a hint of racism in any of them.
ogjimkenobi 2 years ago
all that retardation... wipe the drool from your chin maggot
NinaObmanshica 2 years ago
Yes please stay away from me when posting comments your slabber get everywhere.
Wear a bib next time smartalec.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
stupid is as stupid does greenmadouche
ignorant assholesays what?
douchebag says what?
NinaObmanshica 2 years ago
I happen to know that healthcare costs can ruin people if they don't have insurance and it has nothing to do with how well you manage your money. My mother was very sick with diabetes and heart disease and she accrued over 1M in hospital bills alone, not including all the medication costs.
Shane is impossible to argue with and I don't bother. I responded to a video that had my name in it and I quoted a book (with name) in the comment and he gave me a warning, so I usually don't comment now.
christo930 2 years ago
wow you fail so hard
lothrazar 2 years ago
ShaneDK touched me on the posts and burned the evidence, he is a bad person with runny eyes
howisbabbyformed 2 years ago
thanat0s67 you are freaking stupid
marty4286 2 years ago
the music is absolutely terrible.
evilgenius999 2 years ago 15
go and listen to fuckin journey then you whitebread idiot
Widdip 2 years ago
@Widdip Journey IS pretty badass.
CorpsmanUP87 9 months ago
@evilgenius999 amen
MrBuster128 1 year ago
Simply put, the video would have been better off if you simply brought into question some of the tactics, such as blocking and deleting, and why he believes some of the things he does. You don't seem to have anything to support your claim of racism.
Vornesoul 2 years ago 2
Oh come ON. You saw what he said about lynching - and about the civil war, and he has also described housing discrimination lawsuits as "frivolous".
Widdip 2 years ago
This is really quite poor. You strawman him more than a few times in this video making him sound like he is being racist when he isn't. You also jump to conclusions far too quickly here.
Thanat0s67 2 years ago
where did i jump to any conclusions? shane did all the jumping...
Widdip 2 years ago
the braiding issue which you strawmanned
Thanat0s67 2 years ago 2
How on Earth was it strawmanned?
Widdip 2 years ago
You made it out as if Shane said the only way for them to earn money was to braid hair which he never. You made it out to be a deprecating comment, which it wasn't.
He used it as an example of government intervention causing difficulties for ethnic minorities.
His newest video blows this video's argument out the water. It shows he isn't a racist, and that the government is racially inequal
Thanat0s67 2 years ago 3
the government/ the us government. which widdip is opposed to
xGP7 2 years ago
I don't understand where you are getting this strawman stuff from. Is it a new word you learned from youtube?
mastercatx 2 years ago
I agree. It's getting suffocating here in America with all the senseless laws and regulation the gov't has been enacting year after year to stifle our freedom. My home owner's association sovereignty was infringed on last year by the feds after they determined that we broke their "anti-discrimination" laws. WE were the ones who truly got discriminated against just because we wanted our neighborhood to be crime-free and full of respectable people
marty4286 2 years ago 2
As someone who saw the original video, the only evidence given to Shane being a racist is a twisting of his words from the original video. What ever happened to intellectual honesty?
The absolute best this video has done is show a dissension of views about history. Quite a few times, in this very video, we was arguing against racist ideology.
This video has made me question if one of the debaters is a racist and it isn't Shane I am questioning. =/
Vornesoul 2 years ago
actually you need to have read the comments to have a full understanding of what is being responded to here
xGP7 2 years ago
May I ask in what way I am racist?
Widdip 2 years ago
Your dishonest tactics, such as the braided hair strawman, brings into question if your point is anything more then projection.
Nothing you gave in the video was evidence of him being racist. Yes, there is a question of turning a blind eye to the racism that existed in the general populous as a cause of such laws but a disagreement of causes hardly shows him to be a racist bigot.
Again, all I saw of him was an argument against racism.
Vornesoul 2 years ago 2
the unintended consequence of this doctrine is *flips down shades* *pops a wheelie*
peenworm 2 years ago
you are twisting his words.
marine63 2 years ago
how? i am just quoting his words.
Widdip 2 years ago
quoting out of context is quote-mining
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
how much context do you NEED?
Widdip 2 years ago
enough to make clear that you mis-quoted him
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
Feel free to read the whole comment thread then!
Widdip 2 years ago
Quote Mining. It's the practice of quoting someone out of the original context of their argument. Your racism claims centre entirely around the argument that he is making statements about black people's abilities. Put his words back in their original context and they mean nothing like what you imply. "Just quoting his words" indeed.
FSAthe1st 2 years ago
I live in a large city with a large population of blacks and a large population of blacks in poverty and the government has made it worse year after year. The democrats have somehow convinced both blacks and poor people that they are the party of the poor, while they create more poverty than anything else. High city taxes force the jobs out of the city. My city has had D city gov for nearly 60 years and every year it gets worse.
christo930 2 years ago
Well, if they're the party of the poor, they have to KEEP them poor, or else they'll lose their constituency! :^P
shanedk 2 years ago
beautiful
xGP7 2 years ago
oh wow... oh wow
Widdip 2 years ago
I dont think Shanedk was saying that racists werent in the majority at one point.
The jim crow laws helped these racist ideas survive. Businesses that were against racial interalerance would have been able to practice the way they wanted. Because of this there would have been more intermingling of the different races which would have cleared up misconceptions both sides had and would have led to less people being racists in the long run.
The laws helped maintain these racist conceptions.
shadetail 2 years ago
in his video, what is the free market, shanedk repeatedly and explcitly said in the comments that racists were not in the majority during the time of jim crow laws. Explicitly.
He also states that slavery was not the reason for secession--even though, if you compare the US constitution and the secessionists constitution, the only changes that were made were about slavery. Shanedk has internalised revisionist, racist history, and it's saddening that such a mind has been muddied this way.
xGP7 2 years ago
But the main reasons why most people wanted to secede wasn't people of slavery. The issue was the people who were richest had the most power in the government of the south and also owned and wanted to continue to own slaves. This doesn't mean the vast majority of them were racist. It may have been more of an issue than Shanedk made it out to be but it still wasn't nearly as meaningful as the economical differences that clashed between the north and the south.
I'll rewatch the video now.
shadetail 2 years ago
"the only changes that were made [to the Confederate constitution] were about slavery."
This is a flat-out LIE. Only FOUR of the changes were about slavery: Article I Section 9 Clause 2, which banned slave imports from slaves (after taking the reference to 1808 from Clause 1, making the slave trade ban permanent). Clause 4 protected ownership of slaves. IV(2)2 extended the right of state passage to slaves (with their masters). IV(3)3 said that new states would be slave states.
(cont'd)
shanedk 2 years ago
ALL of the other references to slavery were there in the US Constitution (the CSA even used the word "slave" explicitly where the US Constitution danced around it: e.g., "all other persons" in I(2)3.
The other changes (some good, some bad) were:
Preamble: emphasizes the sovereign nature of the states; invokes God (the only reference anywhere)
I(2)1: No foreigner can vote without becoming a citizen
I(2)5: Any Federal officer can be impeached with a 2/3rds vote of both houses
shanedk 2 years ago
I(3)1: No "reserve senators" (a problem with the US Constitution ultimately fixed by the 17th Amendment)
I(4)1: Emphasizing that the legislators are bound by the Constitution (something we could really use!)
I(6)1: Department heads can debate in Congress
I(7)2: Line-item veto
I(8)1: No bounties, no trade protectionism (tell me the tariffs weren't an issue!)
(cont'd)
shanedk 2 years ago
I(8)3: Clarifying the Commerce Clause so that government cannot interfere in state-to-state commerce (the original intention in the US Constitution but beginning to be perverted)
I(8)4: Congress cannot nullify its own debts.
I(8)7: The post office must be self-funding after 1863
I(9): The Bill of Rights is incorporated
I(9)9: Appropriations must be by 2/3rds vote of both houses
(cont'd)
shanedk 2 years ago
I(9)10: Bills must specify the exact amount appropriated and cannot grant more afterwards (I REALLY wish we had this one!)
I(9)20: Bills can only be on one subject (No riders! Woo-hoo! See Downsize DC's "One Subject At a Time Act")
I(10)1: States can issue bills of credit
I(10)3: States can levy non-protectionist tariffs; waterways bordering states under jurisdiction of those states (not the Federal government)
(cont'd)
shanedk 2 years ago
V: Congress plays no role in passing amendments; three states may summon convention; 2/3rds to ratify
VI(1)1: CSA has continuity with provisional government
I did you a favor and discluded all the bookkeeping changes (United States to Confederate States, updating grandfather clauses, etc.). So, instead of being the ONLY changes, they were FOUR OUT OF THIRTY (13%).
LIAR.
shanedk 2 years ago
II(1)1: President & Vice President serve 6-year terms; President cannot be re-elected
II(2)3: President can fire any civil servant, provided he informs the Senate of the reasons
II(2)4: No rejected appointee can be re-appointed during the following recess
III(1)2: Remove "in law and equity," incorporates 11th Amendment, ANY citizen can sue a state
IV(2)2: Fugitive clause applies only to those charged with a state crime
IV(3)3: States are admitted by two-thirds vote (instead of simple majority)
shanedk 2 years ago
wow so a few procedural changes that wouldnt have had a huge effect and a largely word-for-word copy otherwise... apart from this protection of states rights (for the purpose of further maintaining slavery) and a protection of slavery itself. bear in mind they didn't actually NEED to import slaves - freeing slaves was difficult/outlawed so they had enough to breed more.
Widdip 2 years ago
im sorry but i dont have the time or patience to go through why the changes here are superficial or ultimately tie back to slavery. there are many websites that detail this so I don't feel I have to, thank god
xGP7 2 years ago
I OMITTED the superficial changes!!! One subject at a time! No protectionist tariffs! Etc. Those are NOT superficial!!! And they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with slavery, either.
Did you even READ the list? Or will your dogma simply not allow you to consider the genuine facts?
shanedk 2 years ago
What happened to the rest of my list?
shanedk 2 years ago
Your list is all there as far as I can see. I'm operating a no-deletion no-block policy, except for spammers.
Widdip 2 years ago
OK, I'll repost.
shanedk 2 years ago
V: Congress plays no role in passing amendments; three states may summon convention; 2/3rds to ratify
VI(1)1: CSA has continuity with provisional government
I did you a favor and discluded all the bookkeeping changes (United States to Confederate States, updating grandfather clauses, etc.). So, instead of being the ONLY changes, they were FOUR OUT OF THIRTY (13%).
LIAR.
shanedk 2 years ago
btw WRT your states rights argument what about the Fugitive Slave Act? isn't that the south being horribly hypocritical?
Widdip 2 years ago
How is it hypocritical? They favored it in the US, they kept the clause in their Constitution. (And, as I pointed out, it helped prop up slavery as market forces made it less and less profitable/) So, where's the hypocrisy?
shanedk 2 years ago
because it's an obvious violation of states rights? it was a result of a compromise to prevent the inevitable secession over slavery? the northerners were not happy at all about it
Widdip 2 years ago
Actually, a lot of northerners were for it! They didn't want those blacks running up and taking their jobs.
How little things change, huh?
Anyway, while I agree it's disgusting, I don't see how it's any more a violation of state's rights than regular fugitive extradition laws.
shanedk 2 years ago
Because not everywhere had slavery and so on?
Widdip 2 years ago
For example, when the US had those laws, I can't see the UK extraditing people for sodomy...
Widdip 2 years ago
They forced Alan Turing to take chemical castration (driving him to suicide) just because he was homosexual.
shanedk 2 years ago 3
In the 1940s. I'm talking about more recently than that.
Widdip 2 years ago
How does any of this make him a racist? If you want to say he is wrong then that is one thing, but to speculate on his rationale and draw the conclusion that he is racist is just stupid. Shane is kinda rough with people and I can see how he pisses people off, but that doesn't make him racist.
People are just calling him a racist because they disagree with him and want to put him on the defensive.
christo930 2 years ago
You are a fucking disingenuous piece of shit, Widdip
supaflyjohnson 2 years ago
Why?
Widdip 2 years ago
I think part of the reason people will say this about you is you seem to took a lot of Shanedk's comments out of context. You may just misunderstand what he said, but the issue is a lot of people thought it was quite clear. This makes it appear that you were misquoting him on purpose to make him look worse. Most people don't take quote mining lightly, and I can understand why this would appear to be the case even if it wasn't intentional.
Hope you are able to clear everything up.
shadetail 2 years ago
Quote mining? He seems to have essentially captured shane's basic claims about race:
- Civil war wasn't about slavery
- White Southerners weren't mostly racist
- Government was responsible for segregation
- Government intervention makes racial disparity worse
Is that an inaccurate version of what shane & his buddies have been repeating?
twinxor 2 years ago
The issue with quote mining relays mainly to specific points brought up. Though he did a decent job dealing with a lot of the issues, instead of Widdip actually address Shanedk's point on how government can hinder people in poorer computers to make money he made it seem like Shanedk was saying that one job was all black women could do (perhaps Widdip just misunderstood shane). This appears to be shameless quote mining and makes him lose some credibility to some of the commenter's.
shadetail 2 years ago
You'd think shane could have found a less trivial example to make his grand point about all regulation being evil. He deserves mocking for that.
twinxor 2 years ago
The fact that they ARE doing it with trivial things shows how big a problem it is!!!
shanedk 2 years ago
Um, it shows that a few minor laws relating to cosmetology should be changed.
twinxor 2 years ago
No, this is a SERIOUS problem with ALL licensing laws.
And NONE of them are minor for the people they affect.
shanedk 2 years ago
Can you think of no incidence where licensing laws are useful, necessary, a lesser evil, and so on? Are there no incidences you can imagine?
Xorinite 2 years ago
Not where the benefits outweigh the detriments, no. In cases where there are benefits certification works a lot better. Look at UL, or Good Housekeeping.
shanedk 2 years ago
Well let me see then if I can imagine a situation where licensing would make sense. How about in the use and handling of controlled or hazardous substances with extremely high externalities. Such as nuclear waste handling, top secret materials, or the handling of ultra dangerous viruses that turn people into zombies which eat the flesh of the living?
Sure that last one may be unlikely, but a good system test always involves extremes.
Xorinite 2 years ago
I don't know about "top secret" stuff, but if it involves something that poses a clear and present danger, then I can see the need for government stepping in, although I'm not sure licensing is the best way to go about it. All you have to do is look at the War on Drugs to see how bad the government is at restricting people from having and using things.
shanedk 2 years ago
I don't believe the war on drugs is a good example of government trying to restrict behaviour. I mean it wouldn't be hard to imagine a system which restricted drug usage a lot more effectively.
Seems to me that just as a party of the poor needs to keep people poor, the anti-crime party would need to maintain a certain level of crime. Being tough on crime gets votes, but at the same time tends to cause more crime. Seems the old problem of an ideological, rather than results based approach.
Xorinite 2 years ago
Well, therein lies the problem with government intervention. The Law of Unintended Consequences nips it every time.
shanedk 2 years ago
the problem lies with your argument being flimsy
trajanus28 2 years ago 2
Yet, you cannot say HOW it's flimsy, except by belittling it. What does it matter if it's hairdressing, bartending, dry cleaning, or what?
shanedk 2 years ago
because i don't believe your example of the government stopping people from braiding hair. it's ludicrous and it doesn't happen.
and there is a real need to regulate where and when and what responsibilities people that are serving alcohol have. I don't want a bar next to a preschool or in a quiet neighborhood
trajanus28 2 years ago
I CITED SOURCES!!! You're denying FACTS!!! It HAPPENS!!!
shanedk 2 years ago
where?
trajanus28 2 years ago
So, you didn't even bother to read the video description. Why am I not surprised?
shanedk 2 years ago
cause i didn't know it was there?
thanks for pointing it out.
trajanus28 2 years ago
I still don't see how any of these points counteract how the regulation he presented negatively effected poor communities. Shane's arguments on how the specific regulations he was trying to counter negatively effected minorities was much better argued and had more evidence than this video does. I don't agree with many of his views but that is no reason for trying to make mocking through quote mining and misrepresenting his position as acceptionable behavior.
shadetail 2 years ago
Someone was mean to you on the internet? Boo hoo, how unacceptionable !
twinxor 2 years ago
Did you misread what I said? Or did you mean to respond to someone else? I cannot understand how your response has anything to do with what I said.
shadetail 2 years ago
You're complaining that someone is not being nice. Get over it.
twinxor 2 years ago
No. I was explaining why someone would be mad at the video creator. Dishonesty is not something that is tolerated by many people here on youtube.
shadetail 2 years ago
"Civil war wasn't about slavery"
Never said it.
"White Southerners weren't mostly racist"
Never said it.
"Government was responsible for segregation"
Because it WAS.
"Government intervention makes racial disparity worse"
Because it DOES. And I've PROVEN it.
shanedk 2 years ago
You've repeatedly defended the Southern people even as we've shown many cases where they supported racist firebrands, persecuted blacks, and even murdered them. But no, your fundamentalist dogma means that no matter the facts, government was responsible! Next, maybe you can explain how Genesis must be true, therefore the speed of light is decaying and carbon dating is a lie. Seems to meet your standard of "PROVING it", anyway.
twinxor 2 years ago
No, I said you didn't have any EVIDENCE that a majority were. Different thing entirely. I simply don't know.
My question (that you never answered) is: if a majority WERE racist, why did they need laws enforcing racism?
shanedk 2 years ago
To institutionalize their racist values, obviously. What kind of a question is that?
twinxor 2 years ago
So, why are there no laws institutionalizing our bread-eating values? Or our basketball-playing values? Or anything else the majority enjoys?
shanedk 2 years ago
Presumably because most people don't think those things are important enough to be enforced by law. Those are reserved for things that are legally enforced: laws against murder, against theft, against endangering others. I don't know if the majority is in favor of laws against murder, but I certainly hope so!
twinxor 2 years ago
No, it's because they don't HAVE to enforce them by law! They don't NEED a law, say, pre-empting regular programming for basketball games because a lot of people like basketball!
But they DID have to do it for segregation. And even when they did, few places complied--they had to threaten them DIRECTLY (not just the blacks who disobeyed) with prosecution to scare them into submission.
Why?
shanedk 2 years ago
Consider bans on gay marriage - even though the majority apparently supports them, they apparently do feel the need to pass laws preventing any same-sex marriage. Likewise, segregationists saw racial separation as a moral imperative, so they passed laws to impose it on anyone.
twinxor 2 years ago
You said the first 2 repeatedly (well, the 1st, equivalent statements). also, you havent proven anything at all. you can't just put PROVEN in caps and miraculously make it so, you child
xGP7 2 years ago
I said it wasn't SOLELY about slavery. Different thing. And I clarified the other in my reply to twixnor. It's amazing how you people twist things in your dogmatic, black/white view of things!
shanedk 2 years ago
You said all those things. Watch my video all the way through.
Widdip 2 years ago
What the hell??? The first thing especially you repeated over and over.
Widdip 2 years ago
The civil war was about states rights more than slavery. The states asserted that they had the right to decide for themselves how they wanted to handle the issue and the fed said forget it. The states reacted by leaving the union. Slavery laws were an important part of it, but the real issue was that the states wanted to make their own rules. The hot button issue could have been anything.
christo930 2 years ago
Sure, if you mean exactly one right - the right to perpetually own people as property! Nothing else was so incredibly divisive that it could have provoked such a massive rebellion. In fact, the Southern states didn't really give a damn about a state's right to choose whether to be a slave or free state, which is why the constitution of the Confederacy specifically prohibited any state from abolishing slavery! The last reactionary gasp of a moribund, evil system.
twinxor 2 years ago 3
No, there was a LOT more than that. Anyone who purports to give you a cause in one 500-character comment is just WRONG. The reasons were as many as they were nuanced.
But see my review of their constitutional changes for some of them.
shanedk 2 years ago
Although rereading your post, I do agree with the last sentence: it was the last death throes of a system people were desperately clinging on to, as the market drove it into obsolescence.
shanedk 2 years ago
Correct - as the world moved to a capitalist mode of production, formal slavery became obsolete. The romantic mythology of the South (which obviously lasted long after emancipation) upheld the slave-based society as an ideal system to be defended by force.
twinxor 2 years ago
It wasn't romantic mythology; it was a class thing. Slaves were for the rich. Taking their slaves away was taking their bling-bling.
shanedk 2 years ago
um do you know what romanticism is
xGP7 2 years ago
Yes: Romanticism is a movement AGAINST aristocratic classes (and opposition to a naturalistic view of nature, although that isn't really relevant here). Romanticism is the elevation of the common man to an exalted state.
Slavery was the EXACT OPPOSITE. It was the continued exaltation of the upper classes at the expense of the poor, and CERTAINLY at the expense of the slave.
shanedk 2 years ago
You know fascism was pretty much the acme of romanticism? Exalting the strong, noble leader etc etc?
Widdip 2 years ago
In some cases, at least, it was--the Nazis used it to good effect, with the poor, oppressed Aryans rising up against the Allies who were impoverishing them and the Jews, trade unionists, etc. who were destroying their society from within.
shanedk 2 years ago
hold up hold up, clarification: are you saying this as fact, or saying this as what nazi propaganda was
xGP7 2 years ago
Propaganda, of course--although it is true that the actions of the Allies ruined the German economy and set up the conditions where that propaganda would be effective.
shanedk 2 years ago
No, the same goes for any fascist movement in fact. Mussolini had a huge cult of personality.
Widdip 2 years ago
True, and so did Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
I just don't know about every single fascist regime there has ever been on the planet...
shanedk 2 years ago