Harris rejects DeSantis’ offer to debate Florida’s new Black history standards
politico.com
“We will not stop calling out and fighting back against extremist, so-called leaders who try to prevent our children from learning our true and full history,” the vice president said in Florida.
Makes sense to me.
Honestly debating these people is completely pointless and should be seen as such. They're not going to argue in good faith and they will just continue to create statements that are inarguable due to confounded bullshit. Word salad after preposterous nonsense.
That's exactly what they would do.
"Ok KAMALA are you really going to say that learning a new skill isn't beneficial? Are you going to lie to the Great Patriots™©® of America and say that being given housing and food in exchange for labor is no beneficial? Are you actually saying that being exposed to our Great Christian Culture™©® is not beneficial!? Well now the True Patriots™©® can see you for what you are, a liar!"
Every mouth breather, slobbenly, Trump sucker would be sent to the ICU for a heart attack caused by sheer bliss from the massive "win" they just had...
It's so gross...
I respectfully disagree, I think something like this is worth a debate. That is really the only venue that you would switch someone's mind who is in the middle of the road for who to vote for in 2024 in the US. Everything with these politicians is said from a safe zone in an echo chamber of their respective parties, they need to be to talking directly to each other and hash it out in front of everyone.
No one is "middle of the road" on slavery. Either you're completely and entirely against it, or you're a piece of shit.
Which is why we don't need to debate. It's like being invited to a debate on whether water is wet.
There is absolutely nothing to debate.
I disagree: anybody that is "in the middle of road" and is holding that "slaves benefited from slavery" is anything other than racist drivel --- is lying to you. They are not "in the middle of the road"; instead they are racist assholes that hoping for, at best, an excuse and more likely are just enjoying wasting your time.
I'm not sure how you can actually be middle of the road on a binary choice.
Thing A or thing B?
Both but only half of each.
These debates aren’t about what’s said but about who “wins” and the person who “won” is dependent on what media outlet is covering it. If you’re so middle of the road that you don’t know who to pick, you’re going to watch a debate?
Exactly If your on the fence on weather slavery was beneficial or not then no debate can help you.
Who is still on the fence about whether slavery was beneficial to the slaves? Who would that debate be for?
The "middle of the road" position is that slavery was a centuries-long atrocity. Anyone who thinks otherwise he is too far gone to be worth trying to persuade of anything.
FYI I upvoted you.
I get your intended idea, but in this case, what is there to debate about slavery = bad?
Anyone “on the fence” about that is just a bit too far gone for common sense, let alone words/a debate to reach.
We already had the debate over whether or not slavery was good. It happened between 1860 and 1865 and the "wasn't good" side won.
That's how slavery in America was first abolished, right? Well, nvm that it wasn't really considering the prison industrial complex.
if you aren’t sure that slavery was a bad thing, it’s pretty clear what side you’re on.
After that should there be a debate about whether slaughtering babies and raping women might not be pure evil?
That would be a bit redundant since they should be covered as part of the 'debate' about whether slavery was beneficial.
If your mind is in the middle of the road about slavery benefiting the slaves, you should volunteer to be a slave, just to clear that up for you.
Couple of years on a prison chain gang ought to do it.
I'm a lefty that does appreciate debate in certain contexts, which seems to be somewhat unpopular nowadays. There would be no benefit in having a debate here except maybe in a very, very, very, very, very, very contextual, academic forum of a thought experiment (and I'm highly skeptical of even that, as you would have to presuppose some truly monstrous things).
Desantis is not going to be in that forum. He's going to platform KKK rhetoric used as a justification for slavery for nearly a century after its abolition. His staffers are quite literally Nazis. The ethics of chattel slavery are very clear cut, similarly to how the ethics of sexual abuse are clear cut: for all but an infinitesimal section of people, the only people advocating for them are monstrous, disgusting bigots.
There's nothing to debate.
And when one party is playing by no rules, there's no discussion.
Is anyone really undecided about this topic, still?
If so there are far better ways to reach them than pretending both viewpoints are legitimate. You really have to get to the crux of the issue and people have to really grok what life is like if you're not white, cis, het, etc.
Debate is a game for perverts
Can we step back for a second and just soak up the fact that it's 2023 and some presidential candidates still want to debate the benefits of owning humans?
I know MLK Jr said
But man, that arc seems so long that a flat earther would deny there's a curve at all.
A white racist piece of shit wants to debate the vice president who is a black woman. I sure thought we had made progress over the last 50 years, but of course we haven't.
It's depressing as shit. I'm with you on previously thinking that we were making progress.
I detest that this is still happening, and I loathe the people who are still doing it. It might be judgemental, but at least I judge people based on their actions against others instead of what they look like.
You're allowed to judge people on their actions, I think that's the point.
If only everyone did that.
She kinda has a point... debating him just legitimizes his views.
Never give a fascist a platform.
There's only one platform fascist deserve. A platform that's gonna drop out from under them, good thing they have a rope or they'd fall to the ground.
Still waiting on the left to stop giving Elon Musk one
The only correct response, you don't bargain with terrorists. Her turning up and debating it legitimises it like it's an actual educational option and not lies.
pretty sure you cant be a terrorist and a governor at the same time. is this like calling people nazi's because you disagree with them?
"Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
Do you think a governor is above the law? Or can't do anything illegal? Or that they can't intimidate?
Please explain which part he isn't able to do. I'm not seeing it.
Do you remember the metaphor lesson from elementary school?
Cheers mate, I needed a chuckle.
Most terrorist leaders were equivalent to governors or higher. What the hell does holding the office of governor do to prevent someone from using fear and violence for political gain?
And now the clowns will say: “See! They’re scared!” And jerk each other off while watching Trump’s 2016 inaugural speech.
The nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer.
Any turn of events somehow bolsters their claim, because their worldview is unfalsifiable nonsense. It is not even wrong.
Would there be a way, though, to actually debate the bad faith holders and win? By exposing their bad faith point for point and making them look so bad in public that they automatically lose?
Nope. The mere fact that they are intentionally arguing in bad faith is proof of that. Their entire reason for making the offer to "discuss" is to trap you in one of their "gotcha" moments, so they can use it to prove their claim. They will never acknowledge their mistakes and will simply talk in circles. Typical grifter/troll approach to politics.
Yep, they can cut and paste anything into a win
I just can't seem to believe that, after millenia of constant rhetoric art evolving from Cicero and Iulius Caesar to this day we can't find ways to circumvent their bad faith traps and actually and credibly strike back while having them lose any support and credibility (since these seem to be their source of perceived power to make such bad faith arguments).
Well in the past people who would like that ended up getting assassinated. So I guess there is a mechanism to deal with them.
Remember of course sometimes the bad guys do win.
History does not provide us with a defense against them because history is not a record of what happened, it's a record of what people want to record. Anytime someone managed to actually admit their mistakes it was just written down as "and lo did the bad guy see the era of their ways. The end, aren't we wonderful", because why would it be written any other way, our view won we were clearly correct from the beginning.
Its not about the validity of an argument or the ability to expose an intentional blatant fallacy. Its the mental state of those that follow these bad faith actors. These people approach the world with their mind already made up, nothing that is said by anyone other than their chosen leader matters to them. You can stand there and make the bad faith actor look like a fool by the standards of the rest of society, but to the followers of that bad faith actor, what you did doesn't matter. As long as you are upset in some way, they see it as a win. So attempting to debate with them in any situation is futile.
And how many people are well versed in these arts? Enough to see through bad faith tactics
This is one of many reasons education matters and why Republicans have spent so much time and money systematically attacking public education, including higher education, over the past four or five decades.
You make the mistake of thinking their followers will pay any attention to their bad faith antics.
I like the anlaogy that debating with a MAGoo is like playing chess with a pigeon. All they'll do is shit all over the table and then strut around like they won.
The Gish Gallop is an actual technique the Right loves to use. Just pour out an endless stream of lies, half lies, utter fantasies, and nonsense in order to force the opposition to spend time refuting stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Theoretically, that's what structured debate and courtroom practice is for. But these days I sincerely doubt anyone, much less a politician, would agree to such a thing, nor would it be easily "television worthy"
98% of people watching wouldn't understand what's going on anyway. The rules would get thrown out instantly, and that would be widely perceived as "winning."
If you have any sort of moderator to actually enforce the rules, they'll just end up getting death threats for actually enforcing them because that's "biased." Especially if only one side violates the rules. Wont matter that the moderator is only enforcing the rules on that side because the other side is following them and doesn't need enforcement. Don't know how likely this particular scenario is in the case of two politicians debating, but this is part of why scientists and other people who engage in logical debate can't engage with bad actors in good faith.
That's the dream.
In practice, very no.
Very unlikely. I think I see where you're headed.
You might want to check out The Alt Right Playbook video series as it kind of scratches that itch.
Bad faith actors have many tricks up their sleeves. For example, they'll gish gallop you-- overwhelming you with too many claims to counter. And before you finish discussing one claim they'll throw a load more at you.
Also their concept of winning is very different from those of a good faith debater.
I think the real answer is to discuss in good faith, in person, with people you know and share mutual respect. Because when people know what the right wing is about and know what the dog whistles are, then they see right through the pathetic tactics of the right wing extremists.
In practice no. They’ll just keep bringing out more and more points that are increasingly ridiculous, then they’ll point at the time a Scientist got flustered and had no answer when asked about whatever grift it is this time. But the question is something like “If the Earth is round why haven’t we all fallen off yet?” And there’s no good answer to that.
And as soon as it becomes falsifiable they will change it. Even to the point of espousing the exact opposite.
Who gives a fuck what the Kool-Aid drinkers think?
Good. There no “debating” with these fascists. They are only looking to bang the table to legitimize their fucked up fantasies.
This is the same reason we don’t “debate” benefits and harms of genocide. DeSpicable.
I think we learned our lesson with Bill Nye vs Ken Hamm. There is no good faith to be had, only a megaphone.
I feel awful giving him money but I went to that “museum” in 2014 with my dad and sister. We thought it be an interesting place to go and learn to drive on my learners permit. We are Atheist Jews.
What I learned while I was there (sarcastically, I know the place is all propaganda for their Kool-Ade).
In their astronomy video they specifically say that a light year is the distance light travels in a year. The way they get around the universe being bigger than 6000 light is with the explanation: gravitational time dilation and anisotropic synchrony.
They said lack of god lead to teen boys watching porn and playing GTA. Then they will commit school shootings.
Girls will get pregnant and get abortions. Then they feel bad and commit suicide.
Adam and Eve lived in the tropics with dinosaurs and penguins and all ate pineapple.
Eve at the Apple committing the original sim by defying god and set subservience to man.
Velociraptors were on the arc.
Continental drift and all the super continents broke apart and back together multiple times when the world was flooded for a year.
On the arc they brought one kind of animal and once they went free then they split off into different species.
Separation of church and state is discriminatory against Christians.
Allowing evolution thought in public schools was an assault on Christianity.
Atheism leads to poverty, hunger, famine, drought, war, death, slavers, insert any horrible thing and atheism is to blame.
They had a whole bunch of finches to show Darwin was wrong.
… It was an interesting experience. The dioramas had a lot of work. The miniatures were neat.
The whole place made me angry and frustrated. Especially once they used Carl Sagan’s name to prove their baseless ideology he specifically spoke against shit like this.
My favorite bit of the Creation Museum. I laugh every time I read it. The last point is especially funny.
TD;DR:
Before jumping to conclusions realize that:
1-6: incest ain't so bad.
Thanks for posting that. I think it sums up the double speak nicely.
Wait, what? How in the fuck? Wouldn't that mean that the continents would be bouncing around the planet at like 50+MPH or some shit to equate to the total continental drift that actually occurred over billions of years? So if that is the case, then ocean explorers never actually went anywhere, they just sat in their boats for a couple of hours until the next continent came buzzing by.
This is why it's so hard to tell the difference between the Americas and India. They are blurred by the speed
It's mind bending, isn't it? Hold all the power in your hands and play the victim. Fundie Christians in a nutshell.
Just so nobody else feels the need to give Ken Hamm their money, here are some photos from someone who already visited:
https://imgur.com/gallery/aGFFF
https://imgur.com/a/qxxJH
What's an 'atheist jew'?
Culturally Jewish? Someone who was brought up with Jewish values but does not believe themselves.
I understood what they meant.
But what aspects of the culture do they observe and which do they eschew? It begs questions if nothing else.
You could have just looked it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism
You can just look up lots of stuff. You never ask any questions on here the answers to which you could find yourself?
Correct. That shit is exactly why early 2010s Reddit and (hopefully) lemmy is a much better read in the comments section than today's Reddit. For things that are not straightforward, yeah somebody scrolling on by will answer an interesting question. But I'm sure most people want more meaningful discussion happening in the comments here than people becoming your personal wikipedia bot. Remember "reddiquette"?
Where do you draw the line for what's acceptable? Did I have a reasonable expectation that there was gonna be much that Google could elucidate? Did it seem likely that there'd be a Wikipedia page for what ostensibly is a complete contadiction in terms?
I asked a quick question, nobody was beholden to respond, and I'd have been fine if they hadn't. The fact is I was interested enough to enquire in passing but not to make my own investigations.
If it's a "what is _____" question (like your original comment), you're guaranteed to find an easy answer on any search engine in literally 2 seconds. Most even summarize the question right on top.
Finally, just fyi, you can highlight text and right click or long press on it, and the menu should have a shortcut to "Search the web for ${your highlighted text}." Easy way to search on mobile, especially on Android as you can hit/swipe back on Android nav which closes the opened tab, and you're back to doing what you were doing.
You can be ethnically Jewish without being religiously Jewish.
Is jewish an ethnicity?
Say it's stuff like this that just proves their full of crap.
First they say that dinosaurs weren't real and their skeletons were put in the ground by the devil for, reasons.
Now they're saying that they were real and they were on the ark.
Make your mind up people. I mean it's all crap but it would be nice if they could be at least consistent with it.
Also if the dinosaurs were on the boat where are they now? Because they're not around anymore, so wouldn't that rather prove that god does cause extinctions? Which I thought was their big problem with dinosaurs to begin with, because it requires an unkind god.
"what would it take for you to change your mind?"
Nye: "evidence"
Hamm: "nothing can change my mind"
How do you move forward from that point?
You move forward by quitting and regretting your decision to debate the undebatable.
Don't debate DeSantis. Ever. He does not deserve the legitimacy. I thought Trump was bad, and he was. But Trump is an imbecile who used money and likely being a traitor to his country to flounder to success. DeSantis knows he's an ignorant, evil piece of shit and is using all his limited ability to hurt people in order to curry favor with like-minded bigots. Fuck him, he's a nobody. Trump has contributed exactly 1 good thing to this world, and that's Meatball Ron.
No, what's worse is that DeSantis isn't ignorant. He knows exactly what he's doing.
Exactly. Which is more reason to not even acknowledge his hateful rhetoric.
I assume you meant "Ignorant" in the sense that his ideals are behind the times, but for the record the guy went to Yale and Harvard Law School. He's not ignorant he's intentionally and maliciously positioning himself aligned with the far right culture war whackos to scoop up Trump's base to get the nomination, then he'll pivot and backpedal those same positions to try and court the undecideds
They should debate on how to pronounce 'Thai food.' Harris would win.
Can someone provide some context? What new standards are they talking about?
Florida passed some laws about how you have to talk about the “good things” slaves got out of the whole involuntary bondage deal.
Yes, all the life skills and on the job training they received for free. The black employees who walked off the job with their employer’s intellectual property to go out and take over those industries with the knowledge they gained. You see, the civil war was about protecting IP and the stupid north was just stealing all the IP by allowing the former employees to set up shop. /s
Wut? What on earth do they think slaves got out of it? Unparalleled job security?
"DeBaTe Me BrO"
I’m waiting for the next step where they explain how segregation was beneficial.
It would have a battle of the clowns.