dangerous territory/devil's advocate

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I dunno man. You start seeing gun shops in worcester county. Westawoostah is bostonian for thar be dragons here. We dont know whats out there other than north adams which is practically south west vermont.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I dunno man. You start seeing gun shops in worcester county. Westawoostah is bostonian for thar be dragons here. We dont know whats out there other than north adams which is practically south west vermont.

Rednecks don't go to gun shops.  They buy their firearms at swap meets.

When you hear the phrase, "All the damn niggers are hogging up the welfare", or "my cousin got killed trying to steal the copper out of power disconnects", or "I met my husband by writing to him in prison", then you're getting in the right neighborhood. 

[BabylonHoruv]

I dunno man. You start seeing gun shops in worcester county. Westawoostah is bostonian for thar be dragons here. We dont know whats out there other than north adams which is practically south west vermont.

I think you're talking about the area that Lovecraft wrote about...

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I could see that happene
ing in athol or fitchburg.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Did lovecraft write about western... Ah arkam county. Nevermind.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Best description of a Billygoon:

A Scotsman, but without the cultural sophistication you find in Aberdeen.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Best description of a Billygoon:

A Scotsman, but without the cultural sophistication you find in Aberdeen.

Funny thing is our suburbs are a lot worse than the back country. We have a rough approximation of your hillbilly culture but it's always near densely populated areas. The real sticks is full of good people and upper crust english twats who sometimes need a bit of education as to what rights they have on their "own" land.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Best description of a Billygoon:

A Scotsman, but without the cultural sophistication you find in Aberdeen.

Funny thing is our suburbs are a lot worse than the back country. We have a rough approximation of your hillbilly culture but it's always near densely populated areas. The real sticks is full of good people and upper crust english twats who sometimes need a bit of education as to what rights they have on their "own" land.

Upper crust assholes are always in need of education, in one thing or another.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I give regular courses in - do not attempt to eject drunken scottish people from your landmass when you don't have the law on your side, unless you have an inexplicable desire to experience the kind of mockery that will leave you scarred for life

Testament to my teaching prowess - no one has ever come back to resit the exam

[tyrannosaurus vex]

<warning: I can't decide whether I'm replying to this thread or the one about the South, so bear with me>

Upon further reflection, I think I understand my most fundamental break with (modern) Liberalism. I can't say I agree very often with Conservatism the Political Platform, but I do sympathize with Conservatism the Political Ideal. "Progressivism" seems to share at its core the same top-down "you just shut up and do it our way" mentality that I dislike about the current practice of Conservatism. Legislating morality.

Some laws (Civil Rights, etc.) need to be passed because it's unfair to ask an entire population of people to wait generations for the rest of us monkeys to warm up to the idea of behaving like civilized people. In these cases, the culture and the popular morality will eventually fall into line with the law (as it more or less has in much of the South, albeit not nearly as uniformly or as smoothly as it was supposed to).

Unquestionably, abolition of slavery was the right and moral choice. But slavery as an institution was dying anyway. The North's industrialization had already placed the Free States in the position to win the war, and the South would have found more than enough economic incentive to follow suit. But the Civil War, Abolition, and Reconstruction caused so much turmoil and social upheaval in the South that the Tribe Reflex became a regular institution there (and still is). Had slavery been allowed to dissolve into history, Civil Rights laws would have been a much easier sell -- and probably much sooner than the 1960s. And the South might not be full of people who see every attempt to effect social change as a direct assault on their "right to self-determination." Overall the country would still be to the right of Europe (thanks a lot, Puritans), but probably less than it is now. We might also have something resembling dialogue, instead of just pandering and posturing, on hot-button issues.

So my break with Liberalism is mostly about "hush now, Mommy knows what's good for you" politics. Even if the big brains are right (and we know they usually are), a morally superior conclusion enforced by means that ignore the natural progression of ideas, or that fails to put in the grassroots-level effort to actually change minds, is only going to result in generations of people stuck in bullshit.

[The Johnny]

<warning: I can't decide whether I'm replying to this thread or the one about the South, so bear with me>

Upon further reflection, I think I understand my most fundamental break with (modern) Liberalism. I can't say I agree very often with Conservatism the Political Platform, but I do sympathize with Conservatism the Political Ideal. "Progressivism" seems to share at its core the same top-down "you just shut up and do it our way" mentality that I dislike about the current practice of Conservatism. Legislating morality.

Some laws (Civil Rights, etc.) need to be passed because it's unfair to ask an entire population of people to wait generations for the rest of us monkeys to warm up to the idea of behaving like civilized people. In these cases, the culture and the popular morality will eventually fall into line with the law (as it more or less has in much of the South, albeit not nearly as uniformly or as smoothly as it was supposed to).

Unquestionably, abolition of slavery was the right and moral choice. But slavery as an institution was dying anyway. The North's industrialization had already placed the Free States in the position to win the war, and the South would have found more than enough economic incentive to follow suit. But the Civil War, Abolition, and Reconstruction caused so much turmoil and social upheaval in the South that the Tribe Reflex became a regular institution there (and still is). Had slavery been allowed to dissolve into history, Civil Rights laws would have been a much easier sell -- and probably much sooner than the 1960s. And the South might not be full of people who see every attempt to effect social change as a direct assault on their "right to self-determination." Overall the country would still be to the right of Europe (thanks a lot, Puritans), but probably less than it is now. We might also have something resembling dialogue, instead of just pandering and posturing, on hot-button issues.

So my break with Liberalism is mostly about "hush now, Mommy knows what's good for you" politics. Even if the big brains are right (and we know they usually are), a morally superior conclusion enforced by means that ignore the natural progression of ideas, or that fails to put in the grassroots-level effort to actually change minds, is only going to result in generations of people stuck in bullshit.

So the South gets a free pass on still being racist, because, "look what YOU made me do!".

And the "natural progression of ideas" seems to be "progressing" to the middle ages; all these people pushing intelligent design into education.

And really think through what you are arguing ultimately: fighting racism only made it become entrenched, therefore, nothing should have been done about it, and it would be gone by now.

Also, you are under the assumption that this idea of yours of "natural progression of ideas" does work, and thats a very big one. What is even a "natural progression"? And, in the given case that it does exist, dont you think all them fundamentalists would not allow it to happen?

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

The screwdriver is one of the favourite weapons of the Scottish Ned.  I found a bloodstained one on a bus in Glasgow once.  Since I was the only one on the bus, there didn't seemt to be much I could do about it...

it is a favourite of their English cousins. I almost got threatened with one by a yoof once.. until he realised I used to sell pot to his sister. 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I dunno, Vex.

One of the consequences of the Civil War was the immediate elections of black politicians.

What you talkin about, Twid?

We had black Congressmen immediately after the Civil War. No shit. Black Congressmen. Yeah, it took us 150 and change years to get a black President, but that's big right there. And as far as rights go, the Judicial Branch is probably the most important branch in any government. You can't rely on legislation. It's at the whim of the masses. You can't rely on the executive, it's at the whim of reelection. Every bit of progress (progressive, see, painfully slow that it can be at times) has come from the Judicial.

Let's take same sex marriage. There was a bit for a little while about Hawaii, but that shit was struck down. And actually created DOMA. DOMA was a reaction against the fact that Hawaii might ratify same sex marriage. Which didn't happen.

What got the ball rolling (and this is what makes me proud to be a Masshole, since we were the first to have it statewide, without any bullshit) was a gay couple sued, and the MA Supreme Court said, "yeah, there's nothing in the state constitution (the oldest continuous constitution in the world, I might add) that forbids this. Mazel Tov."

The same with Civil Rights. These were fought in court, not in Congress.

On that note, DOMA is a blatant violation of the bit in the Constitution that says that whatever public records are enacted in one state must be recognized as valid in all others, regardless of local laws (Full Faith and Credit Clause).

[tyrannosaurus vex]

<warning: I can't decide whether I'm replying to this thread or the one about the South, so bear with me>

Upon further reflection, I think I understand my most fundamental break with (modern) Liberalism. I can't say I agree very often with Conservatism the Political Platform, but I do sympathize with Conservatism the Political Ideal. "Progressivism" seems to share at its core the same top-down "you just shut up and do it our way" mentality that I dislike about the current practice of Conservatism. Legislating morality.

Some laws (Civil Rights, etc.) need to be passed because it's unfair to ask an entire population of people to wait generations for the rest of us monkeys to warm up to the idea of behaving like civilized people. In these cases, the culture and the popular morality will eventually fall into line with the law (as it more or less has in much of the South, albeit not nearly as uniformly or as smoothly as it was supposed to).

Unquestionably, abolition of slavery was the right and moral choice. But slavery as an institution was dying anyway. The North's industrialization had already placed the Free States in the position to win the war, and the South would have found more than enough economic incentive to follow suit. But the Civil War, Abolition, and Reconstruction caused so much turmoil and social upheaval in the South that the Tribe Reflex became a regular institution there (and still is). Had slavery been allowed to dissolve into history, Civil Rights laws would have been a much easier sell -- and probably much sooner than the 1960s. And the South might not be full of people who see every attempt to effect social change as a direct assault on their "right to self-determination." Overall the country would still be to the right of Europe (thanks a lot, Puritans), but probably less than it is now. We might also have something resembling dialogue, instead of just pandering and posturing, on hot-button issues.

So my break with Liberalism is mostly about "hush now, Mommy knows what's good for you" politics. Even if the big brains are right (and we know they usually are), a morally superior conclusion enforced by means that ignore the natural progression of ideas, or that fails to put in the grassroots-level effort to actually change minds, is only going to result in generations of people stuck in bullshit.

So the South gets a free pass on still being racist, because, "look what YOU made me do!".

And the "natural progression of ideas" seems to be "progressing" to the middle ages; all these people pushing intelligent design into education.

And really think through what you are arguing ultimately: fighting racism only made it become entrenched, therefore, nothing should have been done about it, and it would be gone by now.

Also, you are under the assumption that this idea of yours of "natural progression of ideas" does work, and thats a very big one. What is even a "natural progression"? And, in the given case that it does exist, dont you think all them fundamentalists would not allow it to happen?

Put down the shit sling shot for a minute.

I never said we should have let them just stew in their backward thinking. If you'd actually read what I typed instead of what you wish I typed so we can have an argument, you'd see I emphasized that a) abolition was absolutely the "right" thing to do, and b) it takes a lot of effort to change a culture. I wasn't giving the South a free pass on anything, I was saying the progression from slavery to equality could have happened without war, and that it would have been a more solid, bottom-up transition if war hadn't brought on the tribe reflex. And it may have happened even sooner than it did happen (or is still happening, actually).

Other slave-holding countries were pressured into abolition by foreign powers. See Brazil, which was done with slavery by 1890 and did it without the added shock of civil war. Economically, slavery was a loser. The South would have figured that out. As for equality (a whole different topic), it would have been an easier pill to swallow had it not been for armies marching across their territory exporting freedom and setting fire to everything in sight.

This is really no different from the argument that the USA has no business exporting freedom to the Middle East, but for some reason that logic doesn't carry through to the Civil War.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I dunno, Vex.

One of the consequences of the Civil War was the immediate elections of black politicians.

What you talkin about, Twid?

We had black Congressmen immediately after the Civil War. No shit. Black Congressmen. Yeah, it took us 150 and change years to get a black President, but that's big right there. And as far as rights go, the Judicial Branch is probably the most important branch in any government. You can't rely on legislation. It's at the whim of the masses. You can't rely on the executive, it's at the whim of reelection. Every bit of progress (progressive, see, painfully slow that it can be at times) has come from the Judicial.

Carpetbaggers; Reconstruction. The Civil War didn't change the culture overnight. While during Reconstruction Blacks could vote, the staying power of that "cultural revolution" was seen all over the South when Reconstruction ended and the South set in for a 75 years or so of intense intimidation of African-Americans through Jim Crow laws.

Let's take same sex marriage. There was a bit for a little while about Hawaii, but that shit was struck down. And actually created DOMA. DOMA was a reaction against the fact that Hawaii might ratify same sex marriage. Which didn't happen.

What got the ball rolling (and this is what makes me proud to be a Masshole, since we were the first to have it statewide, without any bullshit) was a gay couple sued, and the MA Supreme Court said, "yeah, there's nothing in the state constitution (the oldest continuous constitution in the world, I might add) that forbids this. Mazel Tov."

The same with Civil Rights. These were fought in court, not in Congress.

On that note, DOMA is a blatant violation of the bit in the Constitution that says that whatever public records are enacted in one state must be recognized as valid in all others, regardless of local laws (Full Faith and Credit Clause).

The Courts can't interpret laws that haven't been passed yet. And the interpretation of laws that DO exist is more or less at the mercy of the prevailing culture, anyway. I doubt the MA Supreme Court would have allowed same-sex marriage to stand in 1850, even under the exact same Constitution. What motivated progress in this case wasn't a law or a court; it was culture.