Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Revisioning Lincoln or: How I Learned to Stop Thinking and Love Wikipedia

This is not a post about guns. It’s about history. And the revisioning thereof.

In early January, Obama finally did something about guns. He signed an executive order to reduce gun violence. 

WhiteHouse.gov: FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer

Naturally, right-wing ammosexuals went bugfuck nuts about Obama being a dictator because of his massive use of executive orders and finally, after seven years of taking their guns away although no guns were ever taken away, finally took their guns away, which resulted in him still not taking their guns away. But hey, fuckin’ Obama, amirite?

Problem is, well, this…

It’s actually 227 total as of this post, but the point remains the same.

A friend posted a meme about Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation being an executive order. The purpose of the meme is to point out that just because it is an executive order, doesn’t mean it’s a dictatorial power grab. They’re mostly used for good.

That’s when the history hit the fan. Let me just say that I’m noticing a pattern of “education” not always meaning “educated.”

As usual, it devolves into delusional self-righteousness. I’ll let you decide if I’m the delusional one or not.


Stan shared Right Off A Cliff’s photo.

But only the slaves in the states that were in rebellion. Lincoln specifically avoided freeing the slaves in the border states so he would still have the support of those states. He's still a politician. [You understand why this was the smart thing to do, right?]

But a GREAT politician, not a hack like today's version.

Well, he was cunning in that he was able to maintain a great amount of favor while affecting great change. [Forsooth!] He was still horrifically racist and did some other pretty terrible things that not many people remember. [You remember them? How old are you?]

It is always good to remember that these people were of a very specific time and place in history. [Stan, consciously or unconsciously, has picked up on her use of Historian's Fallacy.] The Jeffersons and Washingtons of 1780 had slaves. I think today they would be leading the anti-racism movements.

Lincoln did not at all believe in equality. In 1858 he stated "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." [I wonder if there’s a context in which that quote belongs.]

But Lincoln also specifically stated that former slaves should be deported to colonies in either Africa or Central America because he (along with some former slave owners) did not feel that the two races could coexist in a peaceable manner. [Context?]

I have a feeling
[Feeeeeeeelings! Whoah-oh-oh, feeeeeeeelings!] that if he existed today, he would not be condemning calls for further equality, but he also wouldn't be leading those calls. [The guy who willingly led the biggest upheaval of social change in the history of a nation (even still to this day), knowing the future survival of the country hung desperately in the balance, would not do so today. Makes sense.]

Interesting. [Translation: What the fuck?] But a little of Lincolnesque intelligence and balance would go a long way today in making the GOP seem less out of their minds.


Historian's Fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.

Cherry Picking – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

[I admit: I did not have to interject myself into the conversation. In my defense, I have an allergic reaction to bullshit. When I see or hear it, my immune system antibodies immediately spring into a defensive reaction. Is there a medication for this? Everything that follows is my fault. Boo-fucking-hoo.]

Lincoln knew that he had to cripple the south to win the war. He also knew that he needed the support of the southern states to win the war. The Emancipation Proclamation served both purposes. That isn’t a historian’s fallacy because that is information that the decision maker HAD at the time. All historians know of Lincoln’s racist background, so I am not cherry picking.

I’m not sure what problem you have with me, TBF, but I agree with Stan’s opinion. I just don’t agree with idolizing politicians of the past when they are often just as flawed as those in the present.

[At some point, she went back and deleted the above post. I thought she realized it was just way too full of bullshit after I later called her out on it. But that’s not how she sees it. She explains later.]

Listen, I agree with Stan's opinion and the general idea of the meme. I just don't agree with idolizing historical figures that were often just as problematic as today's politicians. Historians all over the country are well versed in Lincoln's racist background. [Citation, please.] We can't simply use the act of freeing some slaves as atonement for treatment of former slaves and other racist behavior. [Ooofah! Where to begin?]

I am well versed in the above terms that you have stated. However, cherry picking does not apply here as no information is suppressed. [Ignored, then?] In fact, teaching students in the third grade that "Lincoln freed the slaves" is cherry picking because it suppresses the fact that he only freed some of the slaves. [You would have to make the Emancipation Proclamation the point in history from which you were teaching and ignore the subsequent little war and the fact that all the slaves were all freed afterward. Yes, initially he only freed slaves in rebellion states, but the sequence of events Lincoln initiated led to them all being freed.] Historian's fallacy also does not apply because I am not viewing his acts from the perspective of what he should or should not have done to achieve a different outcome. Lincoln was aware that by freeing the slaves in the south, he would cripple the south. He was also fully aware that if he went so far as to free the slaves in the border states, he would lose the support of those states. This has all been documented by both Lincoln and his peers at the time. [Yes, completely accurate. Don't understand why that should be considered devious in some way. Also, not the Historian’s Fallacy of which I speak.] These terms do not apply. I am well versed in historiography and United States history. I am not just a Facebook historian. That's why I learned historiography terms from my course and don't simply copy and paste them from Wikipedia. [Appeal to Personal-Authority?]

I have to side with Claire here. While TBF’s point is well taken, I think Claire has steered wide of both of those problems. In Context, there were abolitionists - Lincoln was not one of them. Additionally, Washington freed his slaves when he died, Jefferson did not... I struggle with the difference between Jefferson's wonderful words and his terrible actions.

I’m sorry that you’re siding with Claire’s logical fallacies and outright fabrications here, Rob. I usually like reading your posts because you’ve shown to be a critical thinker. [Rob’s a good guy. He’s trying to White Knight the situation. I’m an asshole. Just because you are a girl, doesn’t mean I’ll give you a pass on spreading bullshit. This issue will be brought up luego.]


Claire. Denying the use of Historian's Fallacy and Cherry Picking does not make your usage of them null and void. The terms still apply.

“Lincoln specifically avoided freeing the slaves in the border states so he would still have the support of those states.” And? Lincoln was far more brilliant than you seem to be able to comprehend. Yes, he needed the support of the four border states, but it’s more complicated than that (as if that lone reason wasn’t enough). Lincoln wasn’t just looking at the short term, winning the war, he was looking at the big picture, the consequences of what would become of the nation after the war. True, the Emancipation Proclamation only made slavery illegal in the Confederate states that were rebelling against the Union and not in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland that were slaveholding but not rebellious. Lincoln knew that if he forced the border states to give up slavery and the North lost the war, then no legal binding would stop them from returning to slaveholding. After the EP, slavery would be illegal in the Confederacy (when it returned to the Union) as well as in the Northern states that previously passed their own emancipation laws - but there was no Federal Law against slavery. Lincoln was trying to get the border states to give up slavery willingly, legally; that would make it easier to then abolish slavery in totality - legally and permanently at the Federal level after the war. So yes, Lincoln was indeed trying to abolish slavery - an abolitionist, if you will. He was just doing it with a scalpel not a sledge hammer. He may not have originally set out to do so, but he evolved on the matter. A lot of Americans in the North were against abolishing slavery and they noticed their President was now trying to abolish slavery, even if he did not consider himself an abolitionist. It upset them: “The great, transcendent fact is, that for the first time… we have the recommendation from the presidential chair of the abolition of slavery…” ~ the Daily National Republican on March 10, 1862. On the flip side, abolitionists, with their sledge hammer ways, thought Lincoln was weak. Hard line abolitionist, Thaddeus Stevens called the Emancipation Proclamation “about the most diluted, milk-and-water-gruel proposition that was ever given to the American nation.” So, abolitionists and pro-slavery Americans were both against Lincoln. They were both wrong.

“He’s still a politician.” Poisoning the Well logical fallacy. [This statement is designed to suggest all politicians are bad in every case, no matter what they stand for. “All politicians are bad : Lincoln is a politician : Lincoln is bad because he is a politician.”]

“He needed the support of the southern states to win the war.” That doesn't make sense. Nor did it even happen. The CSA was a separate nation and at no point gave support to the USA, its enemy.

The Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with crippling the South. As stated above, it only meant slaves would become free IF the North won the war and the CSA became part of the USA again. Until then, they were still slaves. The Confederate States of America was a separate nation and Lincoln had no power over it. President Lincoln could not force President Davis to free the slaves of his nation. When the North won, did the slaves' newfound freedom retroactively help cripple the South, enabling the North to win? If so, how?

You are right though. Needing the support of the South and the Emancipation Proclamation serving that purpose are not instances of Historian’s Fallacy. You just completely made them up. The EP, in fact, pissed off the South even more. How would forcing someone to do the diametric opposite of what they want, get them to be on your side? (Believing Obama’s new executive actions to reduce gun violence would somehow please the ammosexual gun nuts and bring them to his side comes to mind.) You're inventing fake historical events to support your misinformed beliefs. Maybe you dislike Lincoln. That's not what I have a problem with. The fact that you are making up fake reasons in which to do so is what I have a problem with. (Hating Obama because he put death panels in health care or gave nukes to Iran comes to mind.)

As to your multiple accusations of racism, yes, he may have been racist, by our standards. But then, later on, he wasn’t. People nowadays like to call Lincoln racist because it's cool and edgy or some such nonsense. I don’t exactly know. But in order to do so, they have to cherry pick his earlier quotes as you did with the 1858 quote from his speech in Charleston. Later on, he changed his mind - evolved - something learned people such as Lincoln are capable of doing as their open minds become more educated and learn new things. (Obama evolving on marriage equality comes to mind.) [I’m actually wrong. Lincoln did not evolve. He was not racist in the first place. There is a political context to his earlier statements. Much like Obama claiming to be a Christian in a nation that fears people who don’t believe magic sky wizards control them. Based on his actions, you don’t really think Obama is religious, do you? I could be mistaken, but I’m willing to bet on it.]

“Lincoln did not at all believe in equality.” In his last speech on April 11, 1865, standing in the window of the White House’s north door, in front of what Reporter Noah Brooks described as “… a vast sea of faces, illuminated by the lights that burned in the festal array of the White House, and stretching far out into the misty darkness. It was a silent, intent, and perhaps surprised, multitude,” Lincoln expressed support for black suffrage. This plea to equalize blacks (albeit only the Union supporters - scalpel) upset a member of the audience, John Wilkes Booth, very much. He vowed, "That is the last speech he will make." So, what I’m saying is, Lincoln changed his mind. (‘When you were three, you hated broccoli! I will continue to proclaim that you hate broccoli even though it has been decades since you decided you very much like broccoli, you broccoli-hater!’ That is what this cherry picked argument sounds like to me.)

“…Lincoln also specifically stated that former slaves should be deported to colonies…” See above two paragraphs.

“…freeing some slaves…” Yeah, just that little ol’ thingy. Whatever. No big deal.

“…treatment of former slaves…” Lincoln never owned slaves.

“…other racist behavior.” Aside from him never ‘behaving’ racist, see “open minds” soliloquy above.

“I agree with Stan's opinion and the general idea of the meme.” Clearly, you don’t. If-by-Whiskey logical fallacy.

“I just don't agree with idolizing historical figures that were often just as problematic as today's politicians.” I didn’t notice anyone idolizing Lincoln in that meme. Just a basic statement of fact. But let me know when you find the first human being in the history of the universe who is not flawed. We'll idolize that person together. (It would be my first idolization.)

Also, “… just as problematic as today's politicians,” is again Poisoning the Well. You’re insinuating that today’s politicians are all problematic and proclaiming Lincoln to be just as problematic for the simple fact he is a politician. There is a hodge podge of syllogistic logical fallacies at work here too. Hasty Generalization, Guilt by Association, Appeal to Emotion.

“…and don't simply copy and paste them from Wikipedia.” Trying to insult me because I copied and pasted the definition of words? Sorry, the definitions of Historian's Fallacy and Cherry Picking are still the same. And they're still valid. And, for the matter, this logical fallacy you have employed is called Argumentum ad Hominem. But hey, at least you went and Googled the definitions and found them on Wikipedia. I just facilitated your learning of more than you did in that apparently biased historiography course. Speaking of which…

…claiming your opinion is correct simply because you are “well versed in historiography and United States history” since you “learned historiography terms from [your] course” is the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. It means you are saying, “I took a class, so my superior education means I’m right and you’re not.” I’d copy and paste the Wikipedia definition for you, but I don’t think I could handle the emotional stress of another personal attack. (Although, you might learn something else yet again! [You’re welcome.]) This logical fallacy applies to your “Historians all over the country are well versed in Lincoln's racist background” statement as well. As does Cherry Picking - you neglect to mention the historians’ knowledge of Lincoln’s transformation on the subject because it doesn’t conform to your particular biased point of view.

This said, I will accept that you did not willingly employ these logical fallacies in the event that you were sincerely ignorant of the truth due to the crappy knowledge base or bias of your teacher.

To sum up-

Highly Educated Course-Taker
Historian's Fallacy
Cherry Picking
Poisoning the Well
Hasty Generalization
Guilt by Association
Appeal to Emotion
Argumentum ad Hominem
Appeal to Authority

Critical Thinking Skills
Whole Truth
Facebook Historian
Fantastic Singing Voice

TheHistoricPresent: Lincoln, Slavery, and Racism

AbrahamLincolnOnline: Speeches & Writings: Last Public Address

TBF, I didn't know you could sing.

You never asked.

I had to look up the "if by Whiskey" - the original context is marvelous. [It is.] Lincoln may well have come around in his final year(s), but he was clearly against equal rights during much of his Presidency and before. I will admit to scanty knowledge and am open to being corrected and learning, but governing by the actions I'm aware of, I think it's fair to say that he was a pragmatic racist, by today's standards and the standards of the abolitionists of the time.
Perhaps a few years more of his governance would have proven you right and put us on a track better the the failed reconstruction and eventual Jim Crow...

[I like this guy. He generally does think logically. But I don’t understand his line of thinking. He admits Lincoln was against equal rights, then was for equal rights, as I said and proved with the 1865 speech, but then he goes on to say I may have been proven right if Lincoln governed a few more years, after he just admitted I was right. ? This is what happens to your thinking skills when you White Knight.]

Getting assassinated kind of gets in the way of completing your goals, doesn't it?

Wikipedia is NEVER a credible source. You won't win that argument with anyone. [I guess the definitions are wrong. You win.] The reason I googled your definitions was because they are clearly not your own words. It's the same thing I do when checking papers for plagiarism. [Posting the definitions of words makes me a plagiarist now? Release the ad hominem hounds!]

You know what, instead of educating you on exactly how you are wrong, [Here we go.] I’ll just post a list of my verifiable sources that back up the FACTS. [All-caps makes it real, or else it gets the hose again.] Thank you for calling me a liar despite the fact that I have committed no sins regarding historiography. I stand by the facts that I stated and assure you that I have not committed any of the acts of which you have accused me. I'm not sure if the fact that I am a young woman impacts your decision to outright attack my display of the facts or if it is simply your need for superiority. I again do not understand what your problem is with me, but we are usually on the same side. [When you are on the side of facts, we are.] I’m not exactly Veronica. [Veronica is a racist, right-wing evangelical - all the perfect clichés if you were to create that hackneyed character for a B movie about a stereotypical Republican.] Honestly, attacking someone's emotional state is just a really atrocious thing to do. You are taking a historical and factual argument and twisting it to mock and berate others. [You are taking historical facts and twisting them to mock and berate Lincoln. Also, please stop saying ‘facts.’ There’s a certain level of redundancy occurring that is completely unnecessary.] I have demonstrated critical thinking ability. I'm sorry that the facts [please] got in the way of your view of this "great" man.

I will post a list of books that I have read that support the facts that I have stated above. I suggest you read some of them and give the internet sleuthing a rest.

Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement by Phillip W. Magness

Lincoln's Campaign Biographies by T Horrocks

Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream - sorry, can't remember the author.

Historiography by Breisach

In the mean time, can we just all agree that this would have changed history entirely?

[I appreciate the attempt at levity. She’s still wrong.]

Wow. You insinuate I have a problem with young women. That I would point out your biased regurgitated revisionist bullshit only because you’re a girl? Playing the misogyny card. Now who’s being atrocious? I argue with anyone who posts ignorant crap. It’s not about who you are. It’s about what you say. And also apparently somewhere I’ve attacked your “emotional state?” Would you mind please pointing out where exactly I did that? Whatever that even means? Because it doesn’t seem to be written down anywhere. Accusing me if these things is quite classy. No, I mean it’s Argumentum ad Hominem. And libel. And atrocious.

[I believe the history of this blog shows that I do not give a shit about your physical being as to whether or not I will argue with you. There are a couple hundred posts here going back several years. Many are argument posts. Scroll through them. Check out the names (they are changed, but remain gender faithful.) I dare you.]

[Also, we see yet again, when I call out someone’s bullshit, and they have no defense because deep down inside they know it’s bullshit, they resort to proclaiming that I’m calling them names and attacking them when there is no evidence of me doing so.]

Well, I guess those lies about me prove Lincoln had the support of the South after freeing their slaves by executive order, which weakened them retroactively after the North won. And Lincoln, after changing his views on black people, didn’t change his views on black people.

No, actually it doesn’t. You’re still trying to pass off revisionist history as fact. Demanding ad nauseum that what you say is factual does not, in fact, make them factual.

“Wikipedia is NEVER a credible source.” ~ citation needed.

Wikipedia says Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States. Well, now I know THAT’S not true. And I wonder what the actual definitions of Historian's Fallacy and Cherry Picking are now that we’ve established Wikipedia is always wrong. They’re probably the title of a race horse and a pie recipe or something.

“…my display of the facts…” I apologize. I must have missed those.

“…your need for superiority.” Yep. I have an unstoppable need for superiority. It has nothing to do with the bunk you keep repeating and demanding are facts.

“You know what, instead of educating you on exactly how you are wrong…” That’s not displaying an air of superiority. No, not at all.

“The reason I googled your definitions was because they are clearly not your own words.” They were definitions. Of words. Would you rather I invented my own definitions of words, as you do with historical revisioning? Regardless, it’s not that you Googled what I typed, it’s that you subsequently mocked me for posting the definitions of words. It is you who seems to have the need for superiority by attempting to belittle me over the definitions of words - which are correct, by the way. So, your attempt to belittle me was based on faulty logic. As is pretty much the entirety of your argument.

“…your view of this "great" man.” By ‘your view’ you are insinuating that I have a view and that it is wrong. My view is irrelevant. I have simply presented unbiased facts. And putting ‘great’ in quotes is the equivalent of an internet eyeroll. Oh yeah, Lincoln. THAT guy. What a douchebag. [A double poisoning the well.]

“I'll just post a list of my verifiable sources that back up the FACTS.” - You’ve posted your short list of confirmation biased books. Cherry Picking. What about the countless thousands of other books that disagree with these few?

~Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement by Phillip W. Magness & Sebastian N. Page - Read it. With compelling, yet little evidence, the authors extrapolate that Lincoln may have wanted to continue colonization. The authors paint Americans as blindly worshipping Lincoln as a “secular saint” just before they tear him down. It’s a false premise; the exact one I’ve noticed you’re using. Regardless of this Straw Man logical fallacy, it’s something to think about. He was for colonization, but he changed his mind. That’s still a fact. Verified.

~Lincoln's Campaign Biographies by Thomas A. Horrocks - Follows political campaigns and the manipulation of media. Cool beans. Verified.

~Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream by Lerone Bennett Jr. - I started reading this a while ago but ultimately could not. This hatchet job of a book was like the Lincoln version of Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016: Obama’s America” farce-umentary. If ever there was an agenda-driven, culturally biased book written entirely using all the logical fallacies, cognitive dissonances and outright fabrications possible, this bullshit is it: “Mr. Bennett does not claim his book as history. He does not even claim it is historical biography. He describes it as a "political" history, and indeed it is -- a "politically correct" history. By selecting Lincoln's words carefully and placing his own interpretation on their meaning, Mr. Bennett is able to weave an ugly view of Abraham Lincoln that turns history on its ear and furthers the latest revisionist theory that the slaves freed themselves.” Verified bullshit. AbrahamLincolnOnline: Books

~Historiography: Ancient, Medieval & Modern by Ernst Breisach - A book revealing the complex nature of history from Ancient Greece to modernity. Okay. Verified.

“I suggest you read some of them and give the internet sleuthing a rest.” Appeal to Authority.

I’m not claiming Lincoln was perfect. As I said, no one is. But you are pushing a modern chic, revisionist version of an asshole Lincoln that is not fully supported by facts (even though you demand it is).

Ideology. Ain’t it a fucker?

Oh, and if anyone is reading this thread, my direct responses to the post you deleted are sure going to sound weird.

You don't argue with facts, you just attack the other person's ability to research. I'm sorry that I'm good at it. I utilize credible sources. You have attacked my research with bastardized definitions of historical fallacies. [She’s becoming downright delusional now.] It's like arguing With a two year old. Yes, I deleted the post when I realized that I was coming at you with facts and you presented zero facts to back up your argument. You're just screaming "no you're wrong" like a child. I refuse to read it. [I actually chuckled out loud reading that.]

I'd be willing to bet that if you googled (because you can't read a book) "Emancipation proclamation to cripple the south" you would find multiple sources (not Wikipedia, sorry) that actually openly state the same FACT.

I'll attach the screenshot with the emotional state comment.

I'm attaching a link to Harvard's statements as to why Wikipedia is NOT a credible source. Sorry if it's too "superior". It's the same information you will find upon entering any undergrad program at any college. Wikipedia is never acceptable.

Thanks for googling reviews of the books I mentioned. You could do to read one. Once again you're basing your view of Lincoln of your third grade viewpoint rather than doing any researching.

Yes, I do think you only attack women on Stan's posts.

Seriously, this conversation is terminated. I don't argue with people unless they can present facts that promote healthy discussion. All you have done is call me a liar and tell everyone that I have committed flaws of historiography. I've done none of those things. Please get some help. Have a nice day.

Harvard Guide to Using Sources

TeachingHistory.org: Wikipedia: Credible Research Source or Not?

ConnorsState.edu: Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource?

“You don't argue with facts, you just attack the other person's ability to research.” Project much?

“I utilize credible sources.” You use biased sources with an agenda and discard all facts that don’t conform to your ideology. But we’ve covered Cherry Picking already.

“…bastardized definitions of historical fallacies.” ~ citation needed

“I deleted the post when I realized that I was coming at you with facts and you presented zero facts to back up your argument.” You deleted your post because it contained facts? Yeah. That makes sense. Winking smiley face emoji.

Lincoln knowing (hoping) the EP would cripple the South and the EP crippling the South are two different things. The EP did not cripple the South.

“Lincoln knew that he had to cripple the south to win the war. He also knew that he needed the support of the southern states to win the war. The Emancipation Proclamation served both purposes.” That’s a quote from the post you deleted. The one that was SO factual that you simply HAD to delete it. Again, the EP did not serve to get the support of the South. Lincoln taking away the South’s free workforce of slaves enraged them, as it only could have done, and no one but you and Lerone Bennett Jr. think otherwise. But again, I guess I’m a two-year-old not using facts like you. Facts so good that you must delete them.

That screenshot of me mocking MY emotional state is actually about YOUR emotional state? I guess I just don’t understand my own words. Sorry about that. You’re right, that is atrocious.

Wikipedia is a source reference. You just don’t know how to utilize it. True, Wikipedia itself is not acceptable for undergrad programs at colleges. This is not an undergrad program at a college. Let’s pull quote the very first paragraph from your very first citation about Wikipedia: “There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.” And I’m fairly certain you didn’t read your other two links as they do not proclaim that Wikipedia is unconditionally never a good source. On the contrary, they say Wikipedia is a fairly good jumping-off point for your research, just not to cite it as your reference. That said, demanding the Wikipedia definitions of words are wrong just because they are from Wikipedia does not make them wrong. In fact, your new logical fallacy here is Appeal to the Stone. Ignoring the fact that they are correct and that I have already explained that the definitions are correct, and that your previous attempt to use Wikipedia to belittle me was based on faulty logic - if you still insist that the definitions of the two logical fallacies I copied and pasted from Wikipedia are wrong, or “bastardized” as you put it, please correct me by presenting the true definitions of those words. And for fuck’s sake, you really are stuck on trying to use Wikipedia to insult me due to the definitions of two words. It’s almost like you feel you are superior to me because you took a historiography course and I used the wretched lowly Wikipedia - once, for word definitions - and you will not let go of this belittling tactic - no matter how much it is failing to belittle me. Laughing with tears emoji.

“Thanks for googling reviews of the books I mentioned. You could do to read one.” So, the fact that I wrote down that I read two of the four books you posted - right at the very beginning of my own descriptions - which are not Googled reviews - this means I did NOT read them? It’s like you don’t give a flying Wallenda about what I say and are solely concerned with demanding that I am wrong. But I’M the two-year-old “just screaming “no you’re wrong.””

“Yes, I do think you only attack women on Stan's posts.” No, you’re wrong. Ask Stan if I only “attack” women (because somehow an argument over what you say is a personal attack on you - again with trying to portray me as a misogynist - the only personal attacks here are from you attacking me). You’ve witnessed me arguing with Veronica and now with you - both women. From this extremely limited data set, you’ve extrapolated that I only argue with women. Your new logical fallacy is Argument From Anecdotal Evidence, a form of Hasty Generalization.

And before you deny attacking me personally, let’s take a quick look at just your last round of comments.
1 It’s like arguing with a two year old.
2 You're just screaming "no you're wrong" like a child.
3 (because you can't read a book)
4 Once again you're basing your view of Lincoln of your third grade viewpoint rather than doing any researching.
5 Please get some help.

“I don't argue with people unless they can present facts that promote healthy discussion.” Ignoring facts is not the same as failing to present them. Continually attacking me personally (Argumentum ad Hominem) is not a way to promote healthy discussion.

Thank you and good day.

[She replied within a minute. She did not read my post.]

I said the conversation was terminated. Stop.

Oh, now you're telling me what I'm allowed to do. This just gets better and better.

This thread is days old. Let it go.

[I have to let it go, but her post an hour and a half before mine fell within the “acceptable-reply-to-the-original-post time limit.”]

I guess if you can't back up your bullshit, your best recourse is just to tell the other person to shut up.

I'm the only one providing sources. Please get some help. You're obsessive and outright mean.

[1. Biased sources don’t count. 2. Notice the two personal attacks: I need help in some way & name-calling. I wonder if she would have done so again if she had read my post listing all the times she does so?]

But not you, the one actually doing the personal attacks, right?

Okay, you called yourself an asshole. How is that me attacking?

[Because me calling myself an asshole means you have cart blanche to personally attack me and not be called out on it? Are these the type of critical thinking skills that are taught in schools these days?]

Me saying something about myself is not the same as you personally attacking me on completely different matters. That's how.

Oh my god. I did nothing to you.

[ !? See her third post back. Not to mention all the other times I’ve pointed it out. Yet another case of a person not comprehending that their typed words are readily available for all to see. Computers have high tech scrolling capabilities these days.]

Right. You again did not read what I wrote. Par for the course.

Seriously, I mentioned to Stan the historical problems with Lincoln's background and the facts that many people don't know about the Emancipation Proclamation and you're attempting to teach historiography when you don't know what any of those statements actually mean. Other people have actually backed me up [Argumentum ad Populum] and you still continue for days with an onslaught of shoddy sources and beg me for citations.

[She only mentions the alleged and/or manufactured historical problems she agrees with. And I know nothing because she says I know nothing. I enjoy when people spar with me yet seem to believe that I’m the only one continuing with it or days. I guess I’m just arguing with myself (seems that way sometimes). And of course, my sources were shoddy.]

Seriously, if Wikipedia was Fox News, you'd be in Oregon right now begging for snacks.

[Again with the Wikipedia. This is precious. One time I post definitions from Wiki and she will not shut the fuck up about it. Is this supposed to make me feel inadequate or ashamed? Embarrassed in some way? I guess I'm just not cognizant enough of my inadequacy to be embarrassed by it. Am I suffering from Dunning-Kruger?]

Yep. You never attack me personally. You win.

I'm attacking your inability to accomplish any actual research.

[Yes. I have accomplished nothing. You have deemed it so. And your personal attacks are never personal. They are always aimed at the quality of my research.]

Yep. That, too. 

[By the length of my replies, you can tell I'm bored now.]

But if you want to take it personally, feel free to ride that struggle bus as far as it'll take you.

Ooh. Another not-personal attack. Please, keep not-doing that.

But if you want to bring me ONE source (and not a recently edited wikipedia comment) that states that the EP was not intended to cripple the south I'd die of shock. I'll wait.

[If only she read my post before telling me to shut up. Oh, well.]

Hah. Again with the Wikipedia. Thank you for this ride. [On the Struggle Bus.]

No, but seriously, do you have a source for that argument? [Shut up. Give me sources.]

[Another attempt at levity. I’m actually tired of seeing this one. It was funny five years ago.]

I already said you win. Everything I said was wrong and everything you said was right. What more do you want from me?

Just for you to stop.

But apparently you don't have to stop.

You're mean and rude. It's obnoxious.

[Those weren’t personal attacks. She was critiquing my inability to accomplish any actual research.]

But you are allowed to be mean and rude. I see how it is.

Stan and I had a perfectly great little debate and exchange and then you came in and from your first comment, you were passive aggressive and nasty. It's not an effective form of communication.

[‘Stan and I had perfect little debate where I was spewing revisionist bullshit and he wasn’t challenging me on it because he was being nice to me. Then YOU came along and ruined EVERYTHING!’ I posted the two logical fallacies she was using. How exactly was that passive aggressive or nasty? I thought it was pretty straight forward and simple. People always say I’m mean and that I call them names whenever I expose their bullshit. For a really good example, check out Glyphosate Is Carcinogenic! (Almost as much as coffee)]

You win. Sorry, I'll stop now.

Stan, sorry this thread turned into a historical nightmare! I hope you're having a warm winter!

[Stan doesn’t give a shit.]

*****     *****     *****

And then there’s this. Facebook emails me the responses when they’re posted. After this whole delightful conversation was over, I found in my email that Claire had posted this and deleted it. It originally followed my comment, “Getting assassinated kind of gets in the way of completing your goals, doesn't it?”  It’s a hell of a doozy. I understand why she deleted it. It is so crazy, even she must have caught it. Maybe. I don’t know. Whatever. Let’s sift through it together, shall we?…

“He needed the support of the southern states to win the war.” That doesn't make sense. Nor did it even happen. The CSA was a separate nation and at no point gave support to the USA, its enemy.k" That should have been BORDER STATES but I'm sorry for the mistype. Just go all grammar Nazi on me when you know damn well what I meant. [Actually, I didn’t know damn well what she meant, because that’s not what she said. Perhaps if she did not delete this, I would have known it was a mistake. But she had to delete it because it references the previous post she deleted. Did she delete these both at the same time? Maybe she deleted both these posts rather than admit that the superior course-taker made a mistake - albeit a harmless honest one. On the other hand, perhaps she did mean it because she said she deleted it since she was “coming at me with facts.” But maybe she only said that to prop herself up to anyone who was potentially reading this because she didn’t take into consideration that not only would I catch her self-preserving deletion, but that I would call her out on it, and she knew no one would be able to read her mistake, so they would have to take her word that she was “coming at me with facts.” But the notion that someone deleted facts because their opponent had none is really a stupid argument that can only hint at the opposite being true. (‘I deleted my argument so no one could see it because I was right and you were wrong!’ - Quick, what does that make you think?) It really is hard to tell. It’s like ‘Choose an Adventure’ arguing.] The Emancipation proclamation had everything to do with crippling the South. Tell me, apart from slaves, who do you think was keeping up production for all of the provisions in the South? [Who? No one but the slaves? The Southern soldiers? The EP would free the slaves (if the North won) and Lincoln hoped that if the slaves knew of the EP, it would spur them to rebel. It didn’t happen.] I did not make anything up. I used my education and my ability to not quote Wikipedia to understand. [Again with the Wikipedia. I used it for two definitions, which are correct, and this is somehow supposed to embarrass me. In her own words, “Let it go.”] Please stop accusing me of making up historical facts: "Negro-Americans" [She uses quotes to highlight that Lincoln’s phrasing is not a nice term. Historian’s Fallacy.] stood in the White House and he told them to their faces that they should leave. [Yes, he did. I wonder if the story is deeper than this and actually has a context that you’re ignoring to further your biased agenda? Hint: It does. I’ll get to it in a bit.] I'm sorry if that only makes him a racist "by our standards", but he campaigned on the basis of racism. He campaigned on the basis of inequality between blacks and whites. [Context? I’ll get to it.] I do not believe Lincoln was a racist because it's "cool" or "edgy", but because I read his works, unlike you. [Again: maybe he was, but then he wasn’t. Remember my “Broccoli Fallacy.” You can’t use the past as an example of the present when the present has changed. That’s Cherry Picking. But I’m getting used to this being ignored. And repeated. By the way, repeating something over and over after it has been shown to not be true is the Proof by Assertion logical fallacy. And again, she’s ascribing modern definitions to historical situations. I think she knows what fallacy that is by now. No, he wasn’t perfect, but no, he wasn’t the equivalent of David Duke. And, there’s a context to his works that she’s ignoring, which points to him not actually being a racist ever. But that’s not “cool.”] You admit that you don't know why people think he's a racist. Maybe that's because you haven't read any of his works. [I have, but she wouldn’t know that. She never asked. She just assumes that since she took a course that she’s superior to me and that I’m ignorant. Like I said at the top, ‘education’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘educated.’ Also, even when I actually say I’ve read a book, she still attacks me for not reading the book. But I’m the one just screaming ‘no, you’re wrong’ like a child.] Maybe because you're too busy jacking off to the Daniel-Day Lewis about him. [Didn’t see the Daniel-Day Lewis Lincoln movie. And that’s another ad Hominem attack. Please continue.] Do not ever accuse me of historical fallacy when you are cherry-picking all over the place. [She has demonstrated time and again her ability to utilize logical fallacies to her potential benefit. I have not yet done so. I have accepted that Lincoln was potentially a bit of a racist, but I’m not denying that he had evolved by continuing to only use examples of his earlier writings when he was running for office in an extremely racist nation. She’s not using a logical fallacy this time, though. Finally, some variety. This is called Projecting. It’s when a person denies a particular personal quality and attributes it to their adversary. I did not get that definition from Wikipedia. I encounter it often when arguing with people, so I am quite familiar with it by now. It’s like when the GOP says ‘WE don’t have a war on women, DEMOCRATS have a war on women!’  or ‘WE don’t hate minorities, DEMOCRATS hate minorities!’ Yeah, uh, no.] Tell me, do you go around singing "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue" because you were taught that was true? [ad Hominem. And I’m not even sure what it’s supposed to mean. He didn’t? If she said, “discover America,” then no, I don’t think so since he never sailed North of the Bahamas, and Leif Erikson was in North America 400 years earlier, and the natives were here far earlier than that. But the ocean blue? He was all over that shit, yo.] I’m sorry you're a little butt-hurt that this supposed hero was a horrible human being. [Lincoln was a horrible human being. I want you to let that statement sink in for a while. This woman is a person with an ideological agenda. People seem to think these days that if they are contrarian, that’s some sort of a sign of intelligence. I never claimed Lincoln was perfect. In fact, several times I have said he was flawed, as are all human beings. I have also stated that I have never idolized anyone.] That doesn't change the fact that Lincoln accomplished some great things while in office. [He’s a great horrible person.] But, hey, John Wilkes Booth still did some pretty great theatre. [Where are you going with this? You’re starting to ramble. Are you trying to make a case that John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln were equal in character? The phrase ‘Oh, for fuck’s sake’ comes to mind.] Please go back to your Wikipedia page and cry with your friends over the kids picking on Lincoln. [Again with the Wikipedia. I must have hit a nerve.] None of this changes the fact that Lincoln wished to remove all black people to different colonies in other nations. [He did, then he didn’t. And there’s context to that plan of his that you are conveniently ignoring. Cherry Picking. Proof by Assertion.] Go ahead and tell your kids that Lincoln was a hero who freed the slaves. [The idea that Lincoln had nothing to do with freeing the slaves comes from that fucked up bullshit Lerone Bennett Jr. book she cited. And it kind of goes against her argument that the Emancipation Proclamation was supposed to free the slaves to weaken the South, doesn’t it? Keeping facts out of your contrarian bullshit is difficult to do.] You're still a lying son-of-a-bitch. [Would that be considered an ad Hominem attack? Or was she just critiquing my inability to accomplish any actual research again?] I’m no longer acknowledging your accusations that I commit all of these historical fallacies, [Denial is the first stage of grief. The second is Anger. I think she has recently demonstrated that. The third is Bargaining: “In the mean time, can we just all agree that [Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter] would have changed history entirely?” That’s 3 out of five. She only has Depression to go before Acceptance. You can do it!] because as someone else clearly pointed out, [Argumentum ad Populum] I steered clear of these, as any good historian does. I've gotten over the third grade "Lincoln is a hero" mentality that many Americans still seem to hold on to. [Contrarian Hipster voice: “Calling Lincoln a racist is ‘cool,’ man, and I’m smarter than, like, a third-grader.”] Thank you for taking issue with the fact that I am a highly-educated course-taker. [Unable to detect sarcasm] I’m sorry that you somehow think that I called you an asshole, [Jesus Christ on toast. Never anywhere did I say that. I pointed out all the other things you said about me, which you are either denying or ignoring.] which I really didn't do, but if you feel the need to label yourself as such, I won't object. [I am an asshole, that is true. But you do not understand its meaning. I am an asshole in that I am not afraid to call out bullshit from people like you. I am not worried about being nice for the sake of being nice. I am not worried about offending bullshitters. I am not a left-wing, politically correct bleeding heart. You are a biased bullshitter, and I am going to be an asshole about it. Because if people sit by and let bullshitters freely bullshit, whether it be in politics, religion, science, history, or whatever category in life, then all is lost. I am not an asshole in the way you are an asshole - petty, vindictive, insulting. Calling me a “son-of-a-bitch” or a “two year old” or that I “can’t read a book” is a personal attack. And not a form of debate that “educated” people should be proud of.] Please, stop researching on Wikipedia [More Wikipedia. Is anyone keeping a tally?] and actually read a fucking book. [An ad Hominem attack by a proud scholar.] TBF, I don't know what your issue is with me, [The bullshit. It’s the bullshit.] but please stop. We're usually on the same fucking side. [I’m surprised your tactic of calling me a son-of-a-bitch didn’t get me on your side. That, and the fact you’re spewing revisionist history should have done the trick.] I’m not Veronica. [No, but you were happy when I was pointing out her bullshit, weren’t you. I wonder if she’s reading this and thinking, “Ha ha, now you know what it feels like to be a bullshitter like me and have The Brain Frees all up in your shit.” If your side was the truth, then we would be on the same side.]


Okay. Now let’s get this fucking straight.

Lincoln knew that even if slaves were free, there would still be massive fucking hatred toward them and their treatment by whites would be vicious. Murderous, even. (Much like what still goes on today. Hm.) Freeing the slaves wouldn’t magically make everyone friends. If you can recall what I said earlier, and provided citations for, even many of the Northerners were against abolition and were angry at Lincoln for wanting it. Lincoln did not want to recolonize them because he was a racist. He saw recolonization as a way to protect them from the lynch mobs that he knew were certain to come. Was it a good plan? No. But it was 1862 and times were desperate. Cherry picking the fact that Lincoln was planning to recolonize black people, yet ignoring the context in which he wanted to do so, is bullshit. Using Lerone Bennett Jr’s biased, and frankly racist, revisionist history book, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream as some sort of accurate telling of history only shows how unskilled in critical thinking Claire is. That is the main source material for everything she’s been vomiting. But hey, she took a course, so she’s superior to me. Like I said, I’ve noticed a weird thing where people think by being contrarian, it makes them feel smarter than everyone else. Is this what passes for college teaching these days? Education does not mean educated.

Do you think Lincoln may have been correct that black people would have been treated viciously? Well, it’s 2016 and #BlackLivesMatter, so yeah. I think he may have been smarter than, and not as evil as, some people want to portray him.

Here’s a statement of twisted facts from Claire about why she believes (is trying to portray) Lincoln was a racist. It relates to what I just explained:

“But Lincoln also specifically stated that former slaves should be deported to colonies in either Africa or Central America because he (along with some former slave owners) did not feel that the two races could coexist in a peaceable manner.”

And here’s a link to the entire speech from which she pulled that manipulated idea:

Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes
August 14, 1862 


To sum up: Lincoln addressed a committee of “colored men” at the White House. He proposed a plan to colonize black people in Liberia or Central America. He asked for volunteers to try it out for a month or so to see if it would work. If it did, he hoped that would convince more to volunteer on a grand and permanent scale. It was not a plan to force black people out of the US. Not to mention that it was an absolute fact that “the two races” could not peacefully coexist, so I don’t understand how that’s supposed to be some kind of nefarious statement. It was an accurate observation. Was colonization a bit fucked up in its logic? Sure. I admit. But to judge it by today’s standards is to impress today’s perspective on 154-year-old history. You know what logical fallacy that is? I hope you do by now. Hell, we don’t even see things the same way as 1962, let alone 1862. Ever see Mad Men?

And here’s another cherry picked quote:

“Lincoln did not at all believe in equality. In 1858 he stated "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.””

That’s from the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The debates primarily about slavery. The two men were running to be US Senator from Illinois. Douglas was pro-slavery and was trying to paint Lincoln as an abolitionist (which he was). And Lincoln was trying to walk a fine line between actually being against slavery but trying not to sound like he wanted black people to be too equal to whites. It was 1858 and most of the country was pro-slavery, or at the very least, anti-black equality. Yes, he was a politician. If he showed up to the debates and said flat-out “Fuck slavery, negroes should have the same rights as whites,” he never would have won. History may have been drastically altered. We might have still had slaves today, who knows. But if you want to cherry pick quotes to further your biased ideology, Claire’s doing it right.

At the end of the day, Lincoln was just a guy. He may have been a prick in real life. I don’t know. But as to the points brought up in this delightful discussion, no.

One last thing before I go:

It’s true, you can’t use Wikipedia as a reference. It also happens to be true that you can’t use Encyclopædia Britannica or any other encyclopedia as a reference. Encyclopedias are only good for basic facts on a given subject. They do not contain all the information on that subject. That’s why it’s called ‘research’ and not ‘flipping-open-one-book-to-get-all-the-answers.’ Go click any of the three links Claire posted in a sad attempt to discredit Wikipedia (and me) - all of which say Wikipedia is a good source for basic facts. Her links are not good for her point, but they do back up mine. I'm reminded of this Dilbert strip:

But hey, what do I know. I didn’t take a course on contrarian Lincoln historiography.

And now for something completely different.

Celebrity Nano-Impressions with Ross Marquand


No comments:

Post a Comment