“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.

  • MicroWave@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    221
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “They attempt to legitimize these unnecessary debates with a proposal that most recently came in of a politically motivated roundtable,” Harris said in her afternoon speech at the 20th Women’s Missionary Society of the African Methodist Episcopal Church Quadrennial Convention in Orlando. “Well, I’m here in Florida, and I will tell you there is no roundtable, no lecture, no invitation we will accept to debate an undeniable fact. There were no redeeming qualities of slavery.”

    Makes sense to me.

    • ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      94
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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…

      • BrickTamland@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        79
        ·
        1 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          94
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 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.

        • sndmn
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          48
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is absolutely nothing to debate.

        • Phlogiston@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          ·
          1 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@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          35
          ·
          1 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            44
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

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

        • joe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • BrickTamland@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 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.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 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@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 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.

        • quortez@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          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.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 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.

        • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 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.

    • joe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice

      But man, that arc seems so long that a flat earther would deny there’s a curve at all.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.