3 ms·

> And I'll assume you also believe LBJ didn't harbor a racist thought when he passed landmark civil rights legislation as a senator and as president. No, actua

by bhupy 5y ago

> And I'll assume you also believe LBJ didn't harbor a racist thought when he passed landmark civil rights legislation as a senator and as president. No, actually, in fact, my argument is that LBJ's passage of landmark civil rights legislation despite any other shortcomings is admirable, and on-net he is justifiably respected for it, to the extent that politicians today still appeal to LBJ and the desire to govern like LBJ. > We don't believe our politicians' words match their thoughts even when televised live. Why should we then take them at their word from crumbling parchment dating back hundreds of years? We judge politicians based on a variety of things; their words, the legislation they pass, etc. If the legislation they pass helps drive progress (in whichever dimension/axis) that weighs heavily on how society views them. The "crumbling parchment dating back hundreds of years" contains a variety of ideals/provisions/rights/protections that one could conceivably support today without also supporting slavery. The country takes them at their word from that piece of parchment because the country, largely speaking, buys into the ideals laid out within it. > Well, at least we can agree that their innermost thoughts are largely besides the point of what the Constitution actually says. Precisely, and one can be in favor of what the Constitution actually says today without ever condoning racism or slavery.

jimmyvalmer 5y ago
I can tell from your parallel ongoing thread you're having trouble differentiating between the public and private aspects of a politician's life, and how the two can often be at odds. I find myself spending way too much time trying to get twenty-something strangers on the internet to acknowledge their confusion. I've not yet succeeded, and I don't think I'll get a win here either.
- bhupy 5y ago
  > I can tell from your parallel ongoing thread you're having trouble differentiating between the public and private aspects of a politician's life, and how the two can often be at odds. I don't think you're fully comprehending either thread: whether or not the public and private aspects of a politician's life may be at odds isn't the controversy — whether it matters is. The only way to determine that is by comprehensively evaluating the individual based on both the public and private aspects (as well as possible justifications) of a politician's life, weighted by the net impact of each. My argument, across all threads, has been that the net impact of the public writings and deeds of Jefferson (Declaration of Independence proclaiming equality/Enlightenment values, US Constitution that's endured to this day sans slavery, public writings that lent authority to, and legitimized the abolition of slavery) outweigh the negative impacts of his private life, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others. Ditto LBJ. Further, there are several circumstances I've cited that, at the very least, make the justifiability of the private aspects of Jefferson's life (idk about LBJ) plausibly debatable. > I find myself spending way too much time trying to get twenty-something strangers on the internet to acknowledge their confusion. I've not yet succeeded, and I don't think I'll get a win here either. If you've not yet succeeded and haven't been able to "get a win", it could also conceivably be the case that you're wrong, or missing context. All I'm to acknowledge here is that you seem to not think very highly of Jefferson (or LBJ). You're entitled to that opinion, but you also have to acknowledge that it's neither objective nor obvious. I'm also in my 30s, for what it's worth.

by bhupy 5y ago

jimmyvalmer 5y ago

I can tell from your parallel ongoing thread you're having trouble differentiating between the public and private aspects of a politician's life, and how the two can often be at odds. I find myself spending way too much time trying to get twenty-something strangers on the internet to acknowledge their confusion. I've not yet succeeded, and I don't think I'll get a win here either.

bhupy 5y ago
> I can tell from your parallel ongoing thread you're having trouble differentiating between the public and private aspects of a politician's life, and how the two can often be at odds. I don't think you're fully comprehending either thread: whether or not the public and private aspects of a politician's life may be at odds isn't the controversy — whether it matters is. The only way to determine that is by comprehensively evaluating the individual based on both the public and private aspects (as well as possible justifications) of a politician's life, weighted by the net impact of each. My argument, across all threads, has been that the net impact of the public writings and deeds of Jefferson (Declaration of Independence proclaiming equality/Enlightenment values, US Constitution that's endured to this day sans slavery, public writings that lent authority to, and legitimized the abolition of slavery) outweigh the negative impacts of his private life, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others. Ditto LBJ. Further, there are several circumstances I've cited that, at the very least, make the justifiability of the private aspects of Jefferson's life (idk about LBJ) plausibly debatable. > I find myself spending way too much time trying to get twenty-something strangers on the internet to acknowledge their confusion. I've not yet succeeded, and I don't think I'll get a win here either. If you've not yet succeeded and haven't been able to "get a win", it could also conceivably be the case that you're wrong, or missing context. All I'm to acknowledge here is that you seem to not think very highly of Jefferson (or LBJ). You're entitled to that opinion, but you also have to acknowledge that it's neither objective nor obvious. I'm also in my 30s, for what it's worth.