“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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -721 year ago

    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.

    • @icydefiance
      link
      941 year ago

      No one is “middle of the road” on slavery. Either you’re completely and entirely against it, or you’re a piece of shit.

      • @whofearsthenight
        link
        English
        261 year ago

        Which is why we don’t need to debate. It’s like being invited to a debate on whether water is wet.

    • @Phlogiston
      link
      371 year ago

      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.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        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.

    • @VelociCatTurd
      link
      English
      351 year ago

      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?

      • @Fredselfish
        link
        441 year ago

        Exactly If your on the fence on weather slavery was beneficial or not then no debate can help you.

    • @joe
      link
      English
      241 year ago

      Who is still on the fence about whether slavery was beneficial to the slaves? Who would that debate be for?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        The debate would not be over slavery, I would love if it was. That’s an easy win for the left. Obviously the conservative party is malicious, and still tells it’s followers it’s not racist, it’s not misogynistic. Ideal world is Kamala goes to the heart of Florida or Texas, and debates the shit out of Desantis on every subject. Walks all over him and shows the world how the US really feels. That’s what I’m calling for.

    • @Bluehood380
      link
      111 year ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      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.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      101 year ago

      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.

    • SattaRIP
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      That’s how slavery in America was first abolished, right? Well, nvm that it wasn’t really considering the prison industrial complex.

    • @Captain_Patchy
      link
      English
      71 year ago

      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.

    • some_guy
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      if you aren’t sure that slavery was a bad thing, it’s pretty clear what side you’re on.

    • snooggums
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      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.

    • quortez
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      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.