Please elaborate on how this comment is a political or ideological battle? A person asked a specific question about US history, and I replied with relevant historical documentation.
How could I have answered their question in a way that does not destroy HN?
>"The National Museum of African American History & Culture wants to make you aware of certain signs of whiteness: Individualism, hard work, objectivity, the nuclear family, progress, respect for authority, delayed gratification, more."Oh, and emphasis on scientific methods.
What does that say about the life works of Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?
There is lots of evidence of the US supporting gangsters throughout the middle east and then later going to war against them. So much so, that the intelligence agencies responsible invented a word for it.
As a thought experiment: are there any examples that you can personally think of where self proclaimed liberals used hate and fear to shape public discourse?
And do you think it's possible for humans to claim they are driven by altruistic, while actually being primarily hateful, deceitful, divisive, and destructive?
You're assuming a false dichotomy in which one obscurely defined group is subjectively deemed to be marginally better than the other excuses the synergistic absurdity of both
What's silly, precisely? Seat belts are cool, so no, you're wrong.
Homemade masks (as opposed to N95) and handkerchiefs are only marginally effective against reducing transmission. Having a strong immune system is a scientifically proven way to reduce your health risk significantly.
What is silly is all the people who are content to do the absolute bare minimum, easiest possible thing to attempt to protect people's health: merely putting a piece of cloth on their face; while at the same time neglecting to put in the work to improve their overall health, and thus their risk to others of spreading the virus.
>That jackboot that has been stomping my face in, I wonder if it fits me?
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn't change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.
Socrates taught us: "Know thyself."
Confronted by the pit into which we are about to toss those who have done us harm, we halt, stricken dumb: it is after all only because of the way things worked out that they were the executioners and we weren't.
From good to evil is one quaver, says the proverb.
How could I have answered their question in a way that does not destroy HN?