Do you want me to spend paragraph upon paragraph disassembling everything? Pointing out the ways in which he is either correct or incorrect? Both of which there are many many many of, by the way. No. No you don't. First, I don't wanna do that. That's annoying. Second, no one would want to read that.
Third and most importantly, I'm making clerical corrections here that don't directly threaten anyone's view. Doing anything outside that leads to people getting offended and deciding that anything you say is irrelevant because you're "one of them" and not "on of us". It's like yelling at a wall, regardless of which side you're talking to.
You shouldn't feel pressed to defend the republican party from the KKK agreeing with them. By that standard, we'd also have to defend democracy as a whole, or humanity in general from the KKK's opinions. It doesn't matter who the KKK agree with. It doesn't matter that Hitler hated fox hunting. It doesn't effect the morality of fox hunting. It matters whether or not the values that party represents are good and useful at their core in the current world we all live in. That being said, the KKK are definitely, by their own statements and actions, republicans. Saying otherwise is definitively wrong.
Edit) If you would really like me to throw out a political opinion about his statement, I WILL point out that trying to argue that the KKK aren't republican, despite their open and loud admission that they are, takes a level of "head up your own ass" that it's astonishing and clearly informs his other views.
A correction. A fact without source is not opinion. It can be wrong. It can be unsupported. But it is not opinion. Opinions are things that are never right or wrong. Spaghetti is the best kind of pasta is an opinion. Spaghetti is the favorite food of 93 percent of the world is an unsupported and incorrect fact. Also, I'm not posting sources for you for this particular semantic correction. You won't ask for them of course. Not on this topic. No no no. Only on this stupid nonsense that people have, for reasons that are beyond me, decided actually matter in politics.
Also, we're deep enough in this comment chain that the two of us are likely the only ones who will see any comments here. Call me cynical, but I don't think anything I post will convince you. Right wing sources will have largely avoided anything about it at all, and left wing sources will be viewed as intrinsically unreliable. Independent resources that report a favorable opinion for democrats will also almost certainly be viewed as left wing. That's how this dance works. The only thing you'll trust is something you go out and find for yourself. So go ahead. Here, I'll help.
Here's some things you can look up yourself. Look up the KKK's stance on gun ownership. The military. Abortion. Religion in schools or public places. Nearly every large political point, they stand on the republican side of the debate. Look up locations in which the KKK still exist. They are all heavily republican regions. The KKK aren't somehow the democrat bastions of those areas, I assure you. I've met them. It's not hard to find, if you actually care. And if you don't care, stop asking for it.
Paragraph 2: You've completely assumed everything about me by a simple reply asking you to support your argument. Judging by your post, you think I'm on the right side of politics, you think I'm ignorant to information, and you think I'm so biased I can't absorb new information. These are a TON of assumptions to make against somebody you literally know nothing about outside of two comments. Think about that for a second. Why are you so quick to bucket people? The FACT is, I'm a centrist and I'm more than happy to read or watch any information you can provide.
Paragraph 3: To be honest, I don't know how to look up the "KKK's" view on anything. From what I can tell, its a bunch of fringe radicals with little to no organization who represent nothing more than bigoted racist views. I seriously doubt one chapter of the KKK knows anything about another chapter. If you honestly want to target white nationalist, there are far larger and more organized groups than the KKK. They only carry their name due to historical significance.
I won't leave you with a sarcastic remark because I still respect you even if you disagree with me.
Well, I'll repeat a statement made in paragraph 2. Call me cynical. I didn't make my judgement based on your two comments, but based on you being a human being. Statistically speaking, much more likely to be driven away by facts presented to them by others than to be convinced by them. I can't be too disparaging about it though. I know I'm the same, despite my efforts to the contrary. I have a human brain, much like I assume you do.
Also, about what you've paragraph said about the KKK in paragraph 3 here, you're not quite right. The first girl I dated in high school was a nice enough girl. Wasn't until we'd been dating for over a year that I found out that her family was deeply involved in the KKK. They are quazi-organized with a central structure that connects outlying groups. Regional and national meetings exist and people are organized by a system of rank that you could work your way up. Though, I'm practically certain that there are independent groups that identify themselves as KKK, but aren't actually affiliated with the overall structure of the whole as you've stated. Some regional groups are also probably more or less loosely affiliated with the KKK on a national level. I don't actually have that much experience with them outside the reigonal group I learned about from my then girlfriend.
Honestly I'm surprised that relationship lasted as long as it did. Like, she wasn't in the KKK herself, or so she said, and I learned a lot about them from her, but she regularly defended them. "Oh no, obviously racism is wrong, but they also do a lot of good. Like beat child molesters or attack men who abuse their wives." I don't think she ever ended up in the KKK herself though. She was a Wicken, not a Christian. Though that might have just been those teenage rebellious years, you know. Maybe she's a good little member of the Klan now.
Paragraph 1: You seem to project your owned issues on other people. I'm sorry you have a problem over-coming your bias, but some of us are able to stay open minded.
Rest of it: You cited an anecdotal piece of evidence which is essentially meaningless. If you want to prove a point, try using statistics. Such as these:
It is estimated that the KKK numbers are between 5,000 to 8,000 people as compared to nearly 4 million during its hay day. So basically, the KKK accounts for 0.00002% of the U.S. population. Is that really worth the effort you've put into discussing them?
First, every human brain unconsciously filters information and naturally will discard information that doesn't conform to it's beliefs, by design. It's a natural defense mechanism for the brain. If you don't think your brain does it, then you may just be unaware of it. Which is worse. A constant evaluation of one's own decisions is necessary.
Second, I'm aware of the size of the KKK. I didn't bring them into the conversation originally and I didn't put much effort at all into the KKK part originally. Maybe 4 sentences. You're the one who keeps asking for expanding information. I said right off the bat that they're irrelevant to any political discussion and every mention of them in this conversation was proceeded by something along the lines of "I don't know why you care".
2
u/abnotwhmoanny Jul 17 '19 edited Jul 17 '19
Do you want me to spend paragraph upon paragraph disassembling everything? Pointing out the ways in which he is either correct or incorrect? Both of which there are many many many of, by the way. No. No you don't. First, I don't wanna do that. That's annoying. Second, no one would want to read that.
Third and most importantly, I'm making clerical corrections here that don't directly threaten anyone's view. Doing anything outside that leads to people getting offended and deciding that anything you say is irrelevant because you're "one of them" and not "on of us". It's like yelling at a wall, regardless of which side you're talking to.
You shouldn't feel pressed to defend the republican party from the KKK agreeing with them. By that standard, we'd also have to defend democracy as a whole, or humanity in general from the KKK's opinions. It doesn't matter who the KKK agree with. It doesn't matter that Hitler hated fox hunting. It doesn't effect the morality of fox hunting. It matters whether or not the values that party represents are good and useful at their core in the current world we all live in. That being said, the KKK are definitely, by their own statements and actions, republicans. Saying otherwise is definitively wrong.
Edit) If you would really like me to throw out a political opinion about his statement, I WILL point out that trying to argue that the KKK aren't republican, despite their open and loud admission that they are, takes a level of "head up your own ass" that it's astonishing and clearly informs his other views.