3 ms·
> Except for that time they freed the slaves. ... because only Northern Republicans signed up to the Union army? Not to mention that only the superficial acco
by vacri 10y ago
> Except for that time they freed the slaves.
... because only Northern Republicans signed up to the Union army?
Not to mention that only the superficial accounts of the civil war say it was about slavery. Even Lincoln basically said the free slaves thing was basically just an add-on.
If you're going to be literalist in how you read others' comments, then be correct when you do so.
- scintill76 10y agoTake the original statement "Everything they do is a preservation of differentiation of the American version of the caste system." If that were really true in the absolute sense it was presented, Lincoln would not have freed the slaves, not even as a side-effect. It's fair to point that out as a counter-example when the original argument was so stark and black-and-white.
- vacri 10y agoOr you could read it as "have always been" as in the commentor's own personal experience. Or as in the current serving representatives throughout their careers. Taking a counterpoint from over 150 years ago and using a hard literalist interpretation... is a pretty pissweak way to counter the point that the GP was getting at. Extracting 'have always been' from everything that was said and then zeroing in on that like it's the core of the argument? It's an adolescent debating style.