Leftists: "Segregation ended less than 60 years ago. That's less than a human life-span!"

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Fonched 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Sure, but you would need to first rebut white privilege theories.

[–]curious2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Why would I need to to do that? The OP didn’t give context, so it’s hard to say. My response seems fine. What exactly would your response to my response be?

[–]Fonched 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I argue it was made with the assumption that Whites face challenges today, and most people would be in denial that Whites have been "slowed down". That and the idea that Whites gave themselves unfair advantages over the others, so you should focus on those two questions before you make your thesis on segregation. Strong on its own, but needs context.

[–]curious2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

All my response means is, if whites didn’t need blacks in order to progress, then blacks shouldn’t have needed whites in order to progress, making any reference to segregation a moot point.

I don’t see how either of your points counters that or why I “need” to refute something else first.

[–]Fonched 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Okay, so it did mean that Whites were progressing at the time.

They are still things worth looking into on their own, though.

[–]curious2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Okay, so it did mean that Whites were progressing at the time.

Not being sarcastic, but I feel like that was apparent in my statement. Could I have worded it better?

“Segregation didn’t seem to slow whites down”