Friday, February 8, 2019

My Twitter Debate with Yale Student over Civil War, Censorship, & Marxism

By Shane Kastler
I recently had a Twitter debate with a college student from Yale, over why I think Civil War statues should NOT be torn down. I believe history should stand and be preserved for future generations. Even if you don't like the Confederacy, then you can use the statues as teaching tools to share your opinion.  But silencing opinions and destroying history is the dark tool of totalitarianism. Erasing past history, ensures future ignorance.  It is Marxist to its core, and I oppose it.

The following is the original headline that sparked my tweet,  followed by the exchange with Jeremy, who is a sophomore at Yale. By the end of the debate, he was clearly getting rattled, as some of his indoctrinations were being challenged.  His constant accusations of me using "straw man" arguments likewise showed his anxiety in the debate. It also showed that he doesn't really know what a "straw man" argument is; but constantly accusing someone of it is a way to ignore the fact that you're losing the debate.  Here's the transcript: 
Original Headline: James Comey Says In Light Of Recent Racism in Virginia, Confederate Statues Should Come Down
Transcript of Debate:
Shane Kastler: It's always easier to find a 150 yr. old scapegoat, rather than hold the ACTUAL PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE who committed the deeds. Couldn't POSSIBLY blame Ralph Northam. He's a Democrat.
Jeremy From Yale: The statue isn’t the scapegoat. It’s about ridding the state and the country of symbols of hate.
Shane Kastler: The problem is actual living people. Not marble images of dead people. Confront hate by confronting the actual people engaging in it. Erasing past history, ensures future ignorance.
Jeremy From Yale: News flash: you can do both. There shouldn’t be monuments of hate everywhere. People don’t have one track minds. You can hold racist people accountable and also take town symbols of hate as well. No ones erasing history, so don’t even try saying that
Shane Kastler: You espouse "taking down symbols" & also say "no one's erasing history." That's a logical contradiction. It IS erasing history. And who gets to decide what constitutes "hate"? Robert E. Lee lived a far more honorable & loving life than any of today's politicians. There was no hate from him.
Jeremy From Yale: It’s not a logical contradiction. If you learn history through a statue, you aren’t learning history correctly. They were put up decades after the war. They’re not history. They belong in a museum, not erected in the middle of towns.
Shane Kastler: You don't learn history from statues exclusively. But historic landmarks do play a part. If you learn history only through a book you aren't learning history correctly either.
Jeremy From Yale: How the hell else are you supposed to learn history? Through white washed statues put up during the 1900’s and during the Civil Rights Era?
Shane Kastler: Only books huh? A few minutes ago you mentioned museums too. Have you changed your mind? Have you ever been to a statue before? They do typically have markers and plaques on them. Lots of ways to learn history. And the more you avail yourself to the better.
Jeremy From Yale: The statues have no place being in public spaces. They belong in museums, like I said. Historical landmarks are different from erecting statues, and you know that.
Shane Kastler: Do you also believe that mosques should be torn down? Or that they don't belong in "the middle of towns"? Like Confederate statues? Honest question.
Jeremy From Yale: Mosques? Are you comparing the CSA to Islam? Are you seriously comparing a place where people worship to statues of racist traitors? You shouldn't be anywhere in the education industry. This is a reprehensibly charged question that seeks to do nothing but act as a straw man.
Shane Kastler: No, I'm not comparing them. But Muhammad was a slave owner. Would you apply the same "hate test" to him that you would the Confederacy?
Jeremy From Yale: The confederacy is hate. Period. And anyone who supported a traitorous treasonous Confederacy, that was completely based in preserving slavery, also represents hate. Depressing that a teacher doesn’t know this. Muhammad having slaves is not the same as the CSA literally fighting to preserve slavery. Also, mosques are not built to glorify Muhammad. This was a horrible attempt at a comparison.
Shane Kastler: You've clearly not studied the Civil War beyond "the books" (which are heavily propagandized). Numerous reasons for the war. Have you no knowledge of Islam either? Muslims certainly DO glorify Muhammad. And they have a legal right to do so. Just as others have the right to honor Lee.
Jeremy From Yale: Your straw man doesn't change anything I've said. Traitorous racists should not be honored. If you honor them, you are consciously praising a foreign entity that attacked the U.S. to keep black people as objects.
Shane Kastler: You say "Attacked the U.S." --- Actually the NORTH INVADED the SOUTH. 90 percent of the battles were fought in the South. Seriously. You should do some more reading on this issue. I'm not trying to be condescending. Did you know Northerners owned slaves too?
Jeremy From Yale: It's almost like you forgot when the CSA attacked Fort Sumter to start the war. It's almost like you don't understand that the CSA seceded was an act of treason in and of itself. Also, your straw man about northern slavery means absolutely nothing. At all.
Shane Kastler:Why does it mean nothing? Was it OK for the North to have slaves? Did you know the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in Southern states? Northerners were allowed to keep their slaves because they were loyal to the Union. Read the document. That's not a straw man.
Jeremy From Yale: It means nothing because you are using yet another straw man to ignore the fact that the South seceded and went to war because of slavery and the institutions surrounding it. You are actively changing the subject and it's on purpose. The numerous reasons for the war were based around slavery. Period. Don't tell me what I do and don't know about the Civil War. If you learn about it from statues, calling things propagandized is hilarious. And if you honor Lee, you literally honor slavery. Period.
Shane Kastler: In all seriousness. I encourage you to not simply accept everything your Marxist professors tell you. Study history & religion on your own. Learn to think for yourself. Don't follow the masses into a world of censorship. Even if you hate Lee, use the monuments to teach others why.
Jeremy From Yale: "Marxist professors"? It's almost like you are completely ignorant and don't know that I can do my own research. But I don't even have to. The declarations of succession of the CSA states clearly said it was about slavery. You're sounding like a CSA apologist.
Shane Kastler: Yes, I KNOW you can do your own research. And I'm encouraging you to do that.... And by "succession" I assume you meant "secession" - They are different things you know.
Jeremy From Yale: If you deny the basic fact that the war was about slavery, you are not worth having a conversation. Your ill-informed views inform your views on CSA statues and therefore it is not worth having a debate in such bad faith. You don't deserve to be a teacher. Spreading lies about the Civil War and wanting to uphold statues does a disservice. Those "Marxist professors" aren't propagandizing anything. You are, by blatantly lying about the war and defending CSA monuments so ardently.
Shane Kastler: Seems like you're upset because things you've always believed to be true are being challenged. That's a good thing. Embrace that anxiety and use it as fuel to study these issues independently.... Enjoyed visiting with you.
Jeremy From Yale: You haven't provided any evidence that the war wasn't about slavery. I have presented evidence that it was about slavery. You haven't challenged the facts I presented. Your projection is glaring.
Shane Kastler: It WAS about slavery. I never said otherwise. What I DID SAY, was that slavery was not the ONLY ISSUE. Wars are almost always multifaceted. Don't just accept the easy textbook answers. You won't learn much by doing that.
Jeremy From Yale: So please explain what else prompted the War. Was it taxes, because the North was continuing the industrialize and the South could not keep up with taxes because they refused to industrialize because they relied on slavery? Or was it state's rights... to slavery?
Shane Kastler: Taxes and state's rights were legitimate issues. They still are. I'm not denying slavery was a major cause. But there's more to it than that. There's lots of historical facts that your professors will never teach you. Here's a book recommendation. It was written by an economist from the North: “The Real Lincoln” By Thomas Dilorenzo. Read it when you get a chance.
Shane Kastler is Pastor at the Heritage Baptist Church, Lake Charles, LA and Co-Host; "Church & State" KELB Radio, 100.5 FM. He blogs at The Narrow Road.


  1. This guy hates hate, but he sounds so hateful. Should we house him in a museum?

    1. That has potential because he could serve as a shining example clueless snowflake parrot that brings idiocy to a debate and doesnt realize they are unarmed.

      Those ivy league schools are churning out leaders arent they.

  2. Jeremy needs to understand that the South seceded over slavery (and generally, over state sovereignty), and that the North went to war to prevent the South from seceding. Period.
    Maybe he can ponder that during his rehab time in his safe space.

  3. Lincoln said in his writings that if he could maintain the union by upholding slavery, he would have. Grant also said if this war was about slavery then they're wasting their time.