“Accidental Racist”

[hortysir]

All videos have been pulled from youtube.

WOW......

Just wow


His new CD comes out Friday,,,,,see if it's on there

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Legally as it may be to you, immoral as they were before, rest assure racist whites (like yourself) today could not, and will not, put another person in chains.

Oh boy, calling me a racist as if it's makes a bit of difference. I don't place todays standards on things that have happened in the past. You say it was immoral, well it wasn't at the time.

Slavery has always been immoral. That's why civilisations that allowed and profited from chattel slavery invested so much of their time guarding the slaves in their possesion, because those that owned them didn't want to suffer the physical consequences of keeping a man in bondage, permanently seperating him from his family and forcing him to work for nothing but the bread his owner(s) gave him. They were well aware of how morally offensive what they were doing was, because they could imagine from themselves the emotional torment and loss of dignity slavery incurs. The only difference today is that it's illegal.

You must be old if you remember how people felt thousands of years ago and know what they believed was moral or not.

 

[poet]

He exhibits a lot of liberal behavior.

No, actually, he exhibits none. .

Sure he does. He considers people as members of groups first and as individuals last, he relies on false relativism to avoid any notion of personal responsibility, and he thinks that emotion can stand as a substitute for reason.

I'm sorry but that doesn't define any liberal I know. Again, you're confused.

 

[poet]

Oh boy, calling me a racist as if it's makes a bit of difference. I don't place todays standards on things that have happened in the past. You say it was immoral, well it wasn't at the time.

Slavery has always been immoral. That's why civilisations that allowed and profited from chattel slavery invested so much of their time guarding the slaves in their possesion, because those that owned them didn't want to suffer the physical consequences of keeping a man in bondage, permanently seperating him from his family and forcing him to work for nothing but the bread his owner(s) gave him. They were well aware of how morally offensive what they were doing was, because they could imagine from themselves the emotional torment and loss of dignity slavery incurs. The only difference today is that it's illegal.

You must be old if you remember how people felt thousands of years ago and know what they believed was moral or not.

Beliefs have nothing to do with "truth". What is true, is true, despite your beliefs. Slavery is morally wrong. That is a truth. What anyone believes about it, is a moot point. How many people eschew morality for expediency?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Slavery has always been immoral. That's why civilisations that allowed and profited from chattel slavery invested so much of their time guarding the slaves in their possesion, because those that owned them didn't want to suffer the physical consequences of keeping a man in bondage, permanently seperating him from his family and forcing him to work for nothing but the bread his owner(s) gave him. They were well aware of how morally offensive what they were doing was, because they could imagine from themselves the emotional torment and loss of dignity slavery incurs. The only difference today is that it's illegal.

You must be old if you remember how people felt thousands of years ago and know what they believed was moral or not.

Beliefs have nothing to do with "truth". What is true, is true, despite your beliefs. Slavery is morally wrong. That is a truth. What anyone believes about it, is a moot point. How many people eschew morality for expediency?

That is your truth. The slaveholders of the past more than likely didn't think it was morally wrong.

 

[poet]

You must be old if you remember how people felt thousands of years ago and know what they believed was moral or not.

Beliefs have nothing to do with "truth". What is true, is true, despite your beliefs. Slavery is morally wrong. That is a truth. What anyone believes about it, is a moot point. How many people eschew morality for expediency?

That is your truth. The slaveholders of the past more than likely didn't think it was morally wrong.

Zoom. Over your head. You were not able to comprehend the very gist of what I posted.
Truth, belongs to no one. And it doesn't matter what slaveholders thought or believed....slavery, by all accounts is "morally wrong", despite what anyone believes about it. I have to kick myself for engaging a fool. You need to remove "logic" from your ID.

 

[Truthseeker420]

But beyond the good intentions, there’s a shocking amount of naivety on display in “Accidental Racist”, particularly for two men who’ve spent a combined 85 years living in American society. From most- to least-forgivable, their sins are:

CONFLATING PERSONAL PREJUDICE WITH INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM: You wouldn’t know it from movies like The Help, but the history of racial oppression goes beyond some people being rude to some other people because of the color of their skin. But everyone messes this one up—even us!—so Brad and LL get a pass.

GLOSSING OVER SLAVERY AND JIM CROW AS “MISTAKES”: Calling your girlfriend your ex’s name is a mistake. Systematically robbing millions of people of their humanity goes a little further than that. For the sake of lyrical brevity we understand why Brad didn’t go into the whole history here, but there’s got to be a better two-syllable word that works in that spot.

SAMPLING “DIXIE” IN A SONG ABOUT RACE RELATIONS: Yes, it’s a catchy song. Yes, Abraham Lincoln liked it. This does not change the fact that it was the unofficial national anthem of a state built on white supremacy.

TIPPING A HAT TO THE “ANGRY BLACKS JUST WANT THE WHITE MAN’S MONEY” MEME: “I want you to get paid, but be a slave I never could,” raps LL. Why are those two thoughts next to each other?

MAKING THE WORST FALSE EQUIVALENCIES THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN: The most poisonous of all the song’s rhetorical sins come in the coda, where Paisley and LL Cool J trade lines about making the world a better place. It’s cute, until you realize what they’re saying: “If you won’t judge my do-rag, I won’t judge your red [Confederate] flag.” In other words, LL won’t get mad about Brad sporting a symbol of white supremacy as long as Brad won’t get mad about … a random fashion choice that has nothing to do with him. Later, it gets worse: “If you forget my gold chains, I’ll forget the iron chains.” Is putting people who don’t like slavery on the same moral level as racists really worth that wordplay?

That’s the overwhelming message of the song: Yes, white southerners may have been pretty racist in the past, but as a result of that racism some people have negative feelings about the South—and isn’t that just as bad? If those people could just be less angry and forget about the racism, well then by golly, white southerners might stop being racist! For a guy who just wants to wear his Skynyrd shirt in peace, that’s a post-racial utopia worth singing about.

Brad Paisley "Accidental Racist" Lyrics Meaning: How Clueless Is It? - Popdust

I agree that the intentions were good and the song sucked. I'm a little disappointed with LL's part. Lincoln didn't free him.

That's my feelings as well.

It's like when two drunk friend get together and cooking in the kitchen thinking they are changing the food industry.

 

[Unkotare]

No, actually, he exhibits none. .

Sure he does. He considers people as members of groups first and as individuals last, he relies on false relativism to avoid any notion of personal responsibility, and he thinks that emotion can stand as a substitute for reason.

I'm sorry but that doesn't define any liberal I know. ..

It defines every liberal. The fact that you can't see it just confirms that you are a liberal.

 

[Unkotare]

You must be old if you remember how people felt thousands of years ago and know what they believed was moral or not.

Beliefs have nothing to do with "truth". What is true, is true, despite your beliefs. Slavery is morally wrong. That is a truth. What anyone believes about it, is a moot point. How many people eschew morality for expediency?

That is your truth. The slaveholders of the past more than likely didn't think it was morally wrong.

Expecting you to understand the first thing about logic is obviously asking too much of you, but you could at least try to learn English and study a little history.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Beliefs have nothing to do with "truth". What is true, is true, despite your beliefs. Slavery is morally wrong. That is a truth. What anyone believes about it, is a moot point. How many people eschew morality for expediency?

That is your truth. The slaveholders of the past more than likely didn't think it was morally wrong.

Zoom. Over your head. You were not able to comprehend the very gist of what I posted.
Truth, belongs to no one. And it doesn't matter what slaveholders thought or believed....slavery, by all accounts is "morally wrong", despite what anyone believes about it. I have to kick myself for engaging a fool. You need to remove "logic" from your ID.

By all accounts according to you?

Fact is not everyone shares the same morals, values or ethics.

You cannot get it through your ignorant brain that you are not the standard bearer of what is moral. Not in the present nor hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Beliefs have nothing to do with "truth". What is true, is true, despite your beliefs. Slavery is morally wrong. That is a truth. What anyone believes about it, is a moot point. How many people eschew morality for expediency?

That is your truth. The slaveholders of the past more than likely didn't think it was morally wrong.

Expecting you to understand the first thing about logic is obviously asking too much of you, but you could at least try to learn English and study a little history.

Trolling and tossing out insults again I see. Good to see you took my advice and you're sticking to what you do best.

 

[poet]

Sure he does. He considers people as members of groups first and as individuals last, he relies on false relativism to avoid any notion of personal responsibility, and he thinks that emotion can stand as a substitute for reason.

I'm sorry but that doesn't define any liberal I know. ..

It defines every liberal. The fact that you can't see it just confirms that you are a liberal.

And I was under the belief that you were a rational individual. I was wrong. You're as demented and partisan as any of the other rightwing crazies here. Stop believing your own rhetoric as truth or fact. It isn't. Research. Get out the house. Breathe some fresh air...it may get to your brain.

 

[Swagger]

Oh boy, calling me a racist as if it's makes a bit of difference. I don't place todays standards on things that have happened in the past. You say it was immoral, well it wasn't at the time.

Slavery has always been immoral. That's why civilisations that allowed and profited from chattel slavery invested so much of their time guarding the slaves in their possesion, because those that owned them didn't want to suffer the physical consequences of keeping a man in bondage, permanently seperating him from his family and forcing him to work for nothing but the bread his owner(s) gave him. They were well aware of how morally offensive what they were doing was, because they could imagine from themselves the emotional torment and loss of dignity slavery incurs. The only difference today is that it's illegal.

You must be old if you remember how people felt thousands of years ago and know what they believed was moral or not.

Base human emotions don't evolve. They've remained fairly constant since the first human capable of conscious thought saw another human they'd grown used to seeing around die before them.

White men captured in battle and consigned to the galleys and mines across the Roman Empire felt just as afraid and humiliated as blacks forced to pick cotton in America. And despite the lapse in time, both were just as hungry for retribution as the other. The slave owners knew this, which is why they went to such great lengths to protect themselves against the event of their slaves turning against them. They knew full well what they were doing was immoral.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Slavery has always been immoral. That's why civilisations that allowed and profited from chattel slavery invested so much of their time guarding the slaves in their possesion, because those that owned them didn't want to suffer the physical consequences of keeping a man in bondage, permanently seperating him from his family and forcing him to work for nothing but the bread his owner(s) gave him. They were well aware of how morally offensive what they were doing was, because they could imagine from themselves the emotional torment and loss of dignity slavery incurs. The only difference today is that it's illegal.

You must be old if you remember how people felt thousands of years ago and know what they believed was moral or not.

Base human emotions don't evolve. They've remained fairly constant since the first human capable of conscious thought saw another human they'd grown used to seeing around die before them.

White men captured in battle and consigned to the galleys and mines across the Roman Empire felt just as afraid and humiliated as blacks forced to pick cotton in America. And despite the lapse in time, both were just as hungry for retribution as the other. The slave owners knew this, which is why they went to such great lengths to protect themselves against the event of their slaves turning against them. They knew full well what they were doing was immoral.

Morals vary dramatically across time and place. One group’s good can be another group’s evil. Consider cannibalism, which has been practiced by groups in every part of the world. Anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday found evidence for cannibalism in 34% of cultures in one cross-historical sample. Or consider blood sports, such as those practiced in Roman amphitheaters, in which thousands of excited fans watched as human beings engaged in mortal combat. Killing for pleasure has also been documented among headhunting cultures, in which decapitation was sometimes pursued as a recreational activity. Many societies have also practiced extreme forms of public torture and execution, as was the case in Europe before the 18th century. And there are cultures that engage in painful forms of body modification, such as scarification, genital infibulation, or footbinding – a practice that lasted in China for 1,000 years and involved the deliberate and excruciating crippling of young girls. Variation in attitudes towards violence is paralleled by variation in attitudes towards sex and marriage. When studying culturally independent societies, anthropologists have found that over 80% permit polygamy. Arranged marriage is also common, and some cultures marry off girls while they are still pubescent or even younger. In parts of Ethiopia, half the girls are married before their 15th birthday.

 

[Unkotare]

You must be old if you remember how people felt thousands of years ago and know what they believed was moral or not.

Base human emotions don't evolve. They've remained fairly constant since the first human capable of conscious thought saw another human they'd grown used to seeing around die before them.

White men captured in battle and consigned to the galleys and mines across the Roman Empire felt just as afraid and humiliated as blacks forced to pick cotton in America. And despite the lapse in time, both were just as hungry for retribution as the other. The slave owners knew this, which is why they went to such great lengths to protect themselves against the event of their slaves turning against them. They knew full well what they were doing was immoral.

Morals vary dramatically across time and place. One group’s good can be another group’s evil. Consider cannibalism, which has been practiced by groups in every part of the world. Anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday found evidence for cannibalism in 34% of cultures in one cross-historical sample. Or consider blood sports, such as those practiced in Roman amphitheaters, in which thousands of excited fans watched as human beings engaged in mortal combat. Killing for pleasure has also been documented among headhunting cultures, in which decapitation was sometimes pursued as a recreational activity. Many societies have also practiced extreme forms of public torture and execution, as was the case in Europe before the 18th century. And there are cultures that engage in painful forms of body modification, such as scarification, genital infibulation, or footbinding – a practice that lasted in China for 1,000 years and involved the deliberate and excruciating crippling of young girls. Variation in attitudes towards violence is paralleled by variation in attitudes towards sex and marriage. When studying culturally independent societies, anthropologists have found that over 80% permit polygamy. Arranged marriage is also common, and some cultures marry off girls while they are still pubescent or even younger. In parts of Ethiopia, half the girls are married before their 15th birthday.

You fucking liberals are nothing if not predictable. I wouldn't bother teaching the likes of you about the normative meaning of the word in question because your ilk always rejects out of hand anything that implies any kind of personal or social responsibility.

Put down the reefer and take off the tie-dye already, 'dude.'

 

[Desperado]

Much ado about nothing.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Base human emotions don't evolve. They've remained fairly constant since the first human capable of conscious thought saw another human they'd grown used to seeing around die before them.

White men captured in battle and consigned to the galleys and mines across the Roman Empire felt just as afraid and humiliated as blacks forced to pick cotton in America. And despite the lapse in time, both were just as hungry for retribution as the other. The slave owners knew this, which is why they went to such great lengths to protect themselves against the event of their slaves turning against them. They knew full well what they were doing was immoral.

Morals vary dramatically across time and place. One group’s good can be another group’s evil. Consider cannibalism, which has been practiced by groups in every part of the world. Anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday found evidence for cannibalism in 34% of cultures in one cross-historical sample. Or consider blood sports, such as those practiced in Roman amphitheaters, in which thousands of excited fans watched as human beings engaged in mortal combat. Killing for pleasure has also been documented among headhunting cultures, in which decapitation was sometimes pursued as a recreational activity. Many societies have also practiced extreme forms of public torture and execution, as was the case in Europe before the 18th century. And there are cultures that engage in painful forms of body modification, such as scarification, genital infibulation, or footbinding – a practice that lasted in China for 1,000 years and involved the deliberate and excruciating crippling of young girls. Variation in attitudes towards violence is paralleled by variation in attitudes towards sex and marriage. When studying culturally independent societies, anthropologists have found that over 80% permit polygamy. Arranged marriage is also common, and some cultures marry off girls while they are still pubescent or even younger. In parts of Ethiopia, half the girls are married before their 15th birthday.

You fucking liberals are nothing if not predictable. I wouldn't bother teaching the likes of you about the normative meaning of the word in question because your ilk always reject out of hand anything that implies any kind of personal or social responsibility.

Put down the reefer and take off the tie-dye already, 'dude.'

You couldn't teach a fish to swim.

I think I'll take the word of psychologists over yours.

You're far more liberal than I could ever be.

 

[Aristotle]

Misguided as you are, you don't think that you are a servant to the government?

We all are subserviant in one way or another. Isn't an alcoholic subserviant to their addiction? Or you subserviant to paying for your internet connection to come on this message board to call me misguided?

EDIT:

Slavery in the states was immoral as it robbed generations of people their culture and heritage.

I'm not a servant to anyone I am an Alpha I make my own trail I owe no one anything.

LOL Here is some logic

You pay for your internet right?

If you don't pay for your internet your internet connection will be suspended right?

Unless you pirate internet access to allow you to have internet connection for free, then yes you are subserviant to some other because you pay them to allow you the privilege to use their connection. To me, that sounds like indirect servatude.

 

[Aristotle]

That's a fucked up song. I would never apologize for what my ancestors legally done.

Legally as it may be to you, immoral as they were before, rest assure racist whites (like yourself) today could not, and will not, put another person in chains.

Oh boy, calling me a racist as if it's makes a bit of difference. I don't place todays standards on things that have happened in the past. You say it was immoral, well it wasn't at the time.

Lonestar you're a Christian right? One day you'll stand before your God for all what you've done and said here. What if God told you your views were wrong and that slavery was immoral, would you then acknowledge your own flaws? I'm sure you would, especially in the presence of "The Lord of All The Worlds."

Reflect on that...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

We all are subserviant in one way or another. Isn't an alcoholic subserviant to their addiction? Or you subserviant to paying for your internet connection to come on this message board to call me misguided?

EDIT:

Slavery in the states was immoral as it robbed generations of people their culture and heritage.

I'm not a servant to anyone I am an Alpha I make my own trail I owe no one anything.

LOL Here is some logic

You pay for your internet right?

If you don't pay for your internet your internet connection will be suspended right?

Unless you pirate internet access to allow you to have internet connection for free, then yes you are subserviant to some other because you pay them to allow you the privilege to use their connection. To me, that sounds like indirect servatude.

Actually the internet provider is the servant in this case. What is he paying for if not their service?