Have you ever had someone argue with you that the North crashed down and the South won?
Someone who argued that moderation is actually in fact, BAD for you?
That WW2 didn't only involve Jewish people and Normandy wasn't the only battle?
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 02, 2012, 09:59:52 PM
Have you ever had someone argue with you that the North crashed down and the South won?
Of course the South won. They infected the rest of the country with their bullshit, and we've been fucked up ever since.
Not all victories are on the battlefield.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 10:01:23 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 02, 2012, 09:59:52 PM
Have you ever had someone argue with you that the North crashed down and the South won?
Of course the South won. They infected the rest of the country with their bullshit, and we've been fucked up ever since.
Not all victories are on the battlefield.
But that insists that people here in the South actually think that far.
The South lost the shooting war, and they would have lost the cultural war if Nixon hadn't sold the rest of us out with his "Southern Strategy."
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 02, 2012, 11:44:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 10:01:23 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 02, 2012, 09:59:52 PM
Have you ever had someone argue with you that the North crashed down and the South won?
Of course the South won. They infected the rest of the country with their bullshit, and we've been fucked up ever since.
Not all victories are on the battlefield.
But that insists that people here in the South actually think that far.
No, it doesn't. The South is an infection. Infections don't need to think to be effective. It's a bad meme...IE, "The REAL 'Murrica".
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:50:53 PM
The South lost the shooting war, and they would have lost the cultural war if Nixon hadn't sold the rest of us out with his "Southern Strategy."
It would have crept in anyway.
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory. That the side fighting for state oppression won the shooting does not reflect weakness on the part of the south, but is symptom of the moral decline of the country as a whole. It was the young nation deciding that it wasn't really interested in living up to its divine providence of being the land where the brave freely lived their life in the path of righteousness. Now it's the land where an institution elected by the lowest common denominator makes "moral" decisions for the populace, rather than allowing the individual to think for himself in matters of the soul. We don't trust in God any more, we trust that the statist central government trusts in God (it says so on the money!). Because we fear the personal responsibility of consulting the ultimate source of knowledge ourselves, we've delegated our freedom of thought to an artificial conglomeration of the most cowardly, short-sided, and greedy voices.
That's how we ended up with such ridiculousness as the trendy, progressive notion that abortion is somehow empowering to women, despite the fact that most babies killed that way are girls. It doesn't make any sense, but it panders to the voting majority who can't be bothered to plan ahead or take responsibility for themselves. Or the notion that we can all live more prosperously via a shell game that rotates money from productive citizens to those who are neither. Even a child knows that you can't make more playdoh by rolling it thinner, but grown adults are willing to suspend critical thinking for the sake of a nice tax refund at the end of the year. We've even decided that the ideal society has a faux-egalitarian "flat" structure - why go to the effort of self-improvement if you're already in a 300-million way tie for first (last) place? - because we don't want to admit that we might need to take inspiration from role models ahead of us on the natural hierarchy. And to hold it all in place, our schooling system now more closely resembles re-education camps, explicitly designed to un-teach what children instinctively know or have been taught be non-state sanctioned sources of wisdom like parents or pastors.
All because Northern factory owners wanted to make the South safe for their soulless, but highly profitable*, interpretation of capitalism.
*It only seemed profitable because of huge tariffs imposed on the rest of the country, but they were still willing to kill true patriots over it.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory. That the side fighting for state oppression won the shooting does not reflect weakness on the part of the south, but is symptom of the moral decline of the country as a whole. It was the young nation deciding that it wasn't really interested in living up to its divine providence of being the land where the brave freely lived their life in the path of righteousness. Now it's the land where an institution elected by the lowest common denominator makes "moral" decisions for the populace, rather than allowing the individual to think for himself in matters of the soul. We don't trust in God any more, we trust that the statist central government trusts in God (it says so on the money!). Because we fear the personal responsibility of consulting the ultimate source of knowledge ourselves, we've delegated our freedom of thought to an artificial conglomeration of the most cowardly, short-sided, and greedy voices.
That's how we ended up with such ridiculousness as the trendy, progressive notion that abortion is somehow empowering to women, despite the fact that most babies killed that way are girls. It doesn't make any sense, but it panders to the voting majority who can't be bothered to plan ahead or take responsibility for themselves. Or the notion that we can all live more prosperously via a shell game that rotates money from productive citizens to those who are neither. Even a child knows that you can't make more playdoh by rolling it thinner, but grown adults are willing to suspend critical thinking for the sake of a nice tax refund at the end of the year. We've even decided that the ideal society has a faux-egalitarian "flat" structure - why go to the effort of self-improvement if you're already in a 300-million way tie for first (last) place? - because we don't want to admit that we might need to take inspiration from role models ahead of us on the natural hierarchy. And to hold it all in place, our schooling system now more closely resembles re-education camps, explicitly designed to un-teach what children instinctively know or have been taught be non-state sanctioned sources of wisdom like parents or pastors.
All because Northern factory owners wanted to make the South safe for their soulless, but highly profitable*, interpretation of capitalism.
*It only seemed profitable because of huge tariffs imposed on the rest of the country, but they were still willing to kill true patriots over it.
Are you trolling? Am I missing something?
Quote from: navkat on July 05, 2012, 12:11:52 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory. That the side fighting for state oppression won the shooting does not reflect weakness on the part of the south, but is symptom of the moral decline of the country as a whole. It was the young nation deciding that it wasn't really interested in living up to its divine providence of being the land where the brave freely lived their life in the path of righteousness. Now it's the land where an institution elected by the lowest common denominator makes "moral" decisions for the populace, rather than allowing the individual to think for himself in matters of the soul. We don't trust in God any more, we trust that the statist central government trusts in God (it says so on the money!). Because we fear the personal responsibility of consulting the ultimate source of knowledge ourselves, we've delegated our freedom of thought to an artificial conglomeration of the most cowardly, short-sided, and greedy voices.
That's how we ended up with such ridiculousness as the trendy, progressive notion that abortion is somehow empowering to women, despite the fact that most babies killed that way are girls. It doesn't make any sense, but it panders to the voting majority who can't be bothered to plan ahead or take responsibility for themselves. Or the notion that we can all live more prosperously via a shell game that rotates money from productive citizens to those who are neither. Even a child knows that you can't make more playdoh by rolling it thinner, but grown adults are willing to suspend critical thinking for the sake of a nice tax refund at the end of the year. We've even decided that the ideal society has a faux-egalitarian "flat" structure - why go to the effort of self-improvement if you're already in a 300-million way tie for first (last) place? - because we don't want to admit that we might need to take inspiration from role models ahead of us on the natural hierarchy. And to hold it all in place, our schooling system now more closely resembles re-education camps, explicitly designed to un-teach what children instinctively know or have been taught be non-state sanctioned sources of wisdom like parents or pastors.
All because Northern factory owners wanted to make the South safe for their soulless, but highly profitable*, interpretation of capitalism.
*It only seemed profitable because of huge tariffs imposed on the rest of the country, but they were still willing to kill true patriots over it.
Are you trolling? Am I missing something?
Poe's law.
The South really annoys me. The Confederacy, I mean. They attempt to justify terrible things (read: slavery) by couching it in an argument for arguably noble ideals (read: individual freedom; States' Rights), and by doing so rob those ideals of any shred of legitimacy it should be afforded.
For example, I firmly believe that it should be any State's right to secede from the Union and form a completely autonomous political entity. But since "secession" is still synonymous with the Civil War, anyone who advocates for that right in any concrete way is assumed to be an ignorant Southerner (or a sympathizer of such). I also think the Federal Government should more or less concern itself with international affairs and let the States decide how to run themselves. The problem is that States like Arizona will do crazy shit like prohibit certain shades of brown and States like Alabama would probably go back to Jim Crow.
So we're left with an imperfect system where the Federal Gov't has to babysit the internal affair of States because States are run by idiots. Washington, of course, is also run by idiots. But at least at the national level, the idiots tend to balance each other out instead of going off the deep end. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need the Federal Government to tell the States how to behave, and the South's argument would have won out without the shady reasons they made the argument. But then, in a perfect world we wouldn't need government at all.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 05, 2012, 02:02:44 AM
Quote from: navkat on July 05, 2012, 12:11:52 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory. That the side fighting for state oppression won the shooting does not reflect weakness on the part of the south, but is symptom of the moral decline of the country as a whole. It was the young nation deciding that it wasn't really interested in living up to its divine providence of being the land where the brave freely lived their life in the path of righteousness. Now it's the land where an institution elected by the lowest common denominator makes "moral" decisions for the populace, rather than allowing the individual to think for himself in matters of the soul. We don't trust in God any more, we trust that the statist central government trusts in God (it says so on the money!). Because we fear the personal responsibility of consulting the ultimate source of knowledge ourselves, we've delegated our freedom of thought to an artificial conglomeration of the most cowardly, short-sided, and greedy voices.
That's how we ended up with such ridiculousness as the trendy, progressive notion that abortion is somehow empowering to women, despite the fact that most babies killed that way are girls. It doesn't make any sense, but it panders to the voting majority who can't be bothered to plan ahead or take responsibility for themselves. Or the notion that we can all live more prosperously via a shell game that rotates money from productive citizens to those who are neither. Even a child knows that you can't make more playdoh by rolling it thinner, but grown adults are willing to suspend critical thinking for the sake of a nice tax refund at the end of the year. We've even decided that the ideal society has a faux-egalitarian "flat" structure - why go to the effort of self-improvement if you're already in a 300-million way tie for first (last) place? - because we don't want to admit that we might need to take inspiration from role models ahead of us on the natural hierarchy. And to hold it all in place, our schooling system now more closely resembles re-education camps, explicitly designed to un-teach what children instinctively know or have been taught be non-state sanctioned sources of wisdom like parents or pastors.
All because Northern factory owners wanted to make the South safe for their soulless, but highly profitable*, interpretation of capitalism.
*It only seemed profitable because of huge tariffs imposed on the rest of the country, but they were still willing to kill true patriots over it.
Are you trolling? Am I missing something?
Poe's law.
Jesus.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy..
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 05, 2012, 02:02:44 AM
Quote from: navkat on July 05, 2012, 12:11:52 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory. That the side fighting for state oppression won the shooting does not reflect weakness on the part of the south, but is symptom of the moral decline of the country as a whole. It was the young nation deciding that it wasn't really interested in living up to its divine providence of being the land where the brave freely lived their life in the path of righteousness. Now it's the land where an institution elected by the lowest common denominator makes "moral" decisions for the populace, rather than allowing the individual to think for himself in matters of the soul. We don't trust in God any more, we trust that the statist central government trusts in God (it says so on the money!). Because we fear the personal responsibility of consulting the ultimate source of knowledge ourselves, we've delegated our freedom of thought to an artificial conglomeration of the most cowardly, short-sided, and greedy voices.
That's how we ended up with such ridiculousness as the trendy, progressive notion that abortion is somehow empowering to women, despite the fact that most babies killed that way are girls. It doesn't make any sense, but it panders to the voting majority who can't be bothered to plan ahead or take responsibility for themselves. Or the notion that we can all live more prosperously via a shell game that rotates money from productive citizens to those who are neither. Even a child knows that you can't make more playdoh by rolling it thinner, but grown adults are willing to suspend critical thinking for the sake of a nice tax refund at the end of the year. We've even decided that the ideal society has a faux-egalitarian "flat" structure - why go to the effort of self-improvement if you're already in a 300-million way tie for first (last) place? - because we don't want to admit that we might need to take inspiration from role models ahead of us on the natural hierarchy. And to hold it all in place, our schooling system now more closely resembles re-education camps, explicitly designed to un-teach what children instinctively know or have been taught be non-state sanctioned sources of wisdom like parents or pastors.
All because Northern factory owners wanted to make the South safe for their soulless, but highly profitable*, interpretation of capitalism.
*It only seemed profitable because of huge tariffs imposed on the rest of the country, but they were still willing to kill true patriots over it.
Are you trolling? Am I missing something?
Poe's law.
Remains to be seen.
I saw a little kid with a Confederate flag umbrella the other day. :? Stuff like that is popular among rednecks in Norway and Sweden, though I doubt they know there has ever been an American Civil War.
There was a controversy a couple months ago about a girl in Georgia wearing a prom dress made out of a Confederate flag.
Funny thing is, it turned all racial, angry cultural, and "You're suppressing my rights!" When it simply did not fit the prom dress/tuxedo category that was required at the prom XD
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 05, 2012, 02:23:25 PM
There was a controversy a couple months ago about a girl in Georgia wearing a prom dress made out of a Confederate flag.
Funny thing is, it turned all racial, angry cultural, and "You're suppressing my rights!" When it simply did not fit the prom dress/tuxedo category that was required at the prom XD
How did it not meet the criteria?
It was in Tennessee, sorry about that.
Apparently it was too casual and "racey". She was also told months before-hand since the school had racism issues that it wouldn't be allowed.
Tennesean.com:
School officials said a teacher warned Edwards about two months ago that the dress might not be acceptable. The teacher, who served as prom sponsor, expressed concern and suggested to Edwards in February that she should clear the idea with the principal, but Edwards did not do so, said Eddie Pruett, director of schools for the Gibson County School System.
By Janice Broach
MEMPHIS, TN - (WMC-TV) – A Mid-South teen is banned from prom for wearing a dress that resembles a confederate battle flag.
"It wasn't done to offend anybody," Texanna Edwards explained of her dress. "It was done just for the sole fact that I just wanted a rebel flag dress because I thought it was cool."
But the principal at Gibson High in West Tennessee did not think it was cool. Edwards, a senior at the school, tried to wear the dress that she helped design to the prom Saturday night. She also wore a rebel flag necklace.
"He told us y'all have to leave because the dress is inappropriate," Edwards said.
Texanna, who plans to become a veterinarian, said she almost cried, "I felt like it but I was more mad."
Edit due to additional thought:
It seems to be the whole thing was blown out of proportion due to the fact "She simply thought it was cool." when she was, again, warned in advance. It doesn't seem like rights suppression to me, more of "I don't believe it is appropriate, don't wear it."
I'm trying to think of some way of modifying a classic quote into something pertaining to the current state of political idiocy. Here's the quote:
"Your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
Simply, I am sick of idiot yokels doing something absolutely abhorrent, and claiming their rights have been infringed upon. Like the confederate flag dress, or when a church organizes a "let's piss on the grave of some little girl that died of AIDS" rally, and when the public (rightfully so) says "Hell no" they cry and scream "Waaaaaahhhhh. You're infringing upon my first amendment rights! Waaaaaahhhhh...."
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 05, 2012, 02:48:02 PM
She was also told months before-hand since the school had racism issues that it wouldn't be allowed.
Then it is supression of free expression.
Again, protected speech/expression is not there for popular or appropriate expression.
Quote from: I_Kicked_Kennedy on July 05, 2012, 02:53:39 PM
Simply, I am sick of idiot yokels doing something absolutely abhorrent, and claiming their rights have been infringed upon. Like the confederate flag dress, or when a church organizes a "let's piss on the grave of some little girl that died of AIDS" rally, and when the public (rightfully so) says "Hell no" they cry and scream "Waaaaaahhhhh. You're infringing upon my first amendment rights! Waaaaaahhhhh...."
Then move to North Korea. They don't allow that sort of shit.
I've noticed a lot of Army surplus stores in Prague seem to have the Confederate flag flying.
Then again, it could just be the case that, over here, it's a flag people don't initially recognise, and so makes them curious, rather than some quaint Czech expression of support for slave-owning aristocrats.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 03:00:04 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 05, 2012, 02:48:02 PM
She was also told months before-hand since the school had racism issues that it wouldn't be allowed.
Then it is supression of free expression.
Again, protected speech/expression is not there for popular or appropriate expression.
The Tennessee Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (TOCR) is charged with the responsibility of investigating, ensuring and enforcing compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000d, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C §1681, against ALL Local Education Agencies as defined in the Case Resolution and Investigation Manual. Title VI prohibits discrimination or harassment based on race, color or national origin in all programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance, and Title IX prohibits discrimination or harassment based on sex in all programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Herein lies the problem, should someone find this racist, they answer to this. Their rights based on the Civil Rights Act ensures against racism as a whole. As such, it clashes with the freedom of expression, and since it is a state school and the state has a budget from the government which is federal it complicates things.
The responsibility for K-12 education rests with the states under the Constitution. There is also a compelling national interest in the quality of the nation's public schools.
Therefore, the federal government, through the legislative process, provides assistance to the states and schools in an effort to supplement, not supplant, state support. The primary source of federal K-12 support began in 1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
Since people also sue over every little thing they can, that also wastes money through the school hiring lawyers, wastes people's time on something simply not worth it. Depending on who you talk to, it is a suppression of rights on one or the other side, as that too people have the right to not feel harassed or endangered in school or work. This too, has within itself an issue, of "Does everyone think this is okay?" which is a risk of destroying funding for the rest of the children there. They have to tiptoe around the feelings of the parents and children who go there. From what I see, there is no stomping on the legal rights of anyone at all, though the law favors in tiers. How this became a non-stomp is this one reason: This symbol is used as an identifier in the public eye as racism.
You are correct that it is a suppression of what some would feel as human rights, however not American rights. It almost seems that as a whole the situation screwed itself. An overblown media centered on ''Change your dress." "No."
This is how I understand it, though I do remember something about you working in law enforcement, if I am wrong please correct me.
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 05, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
You are correct that it is a suppression of what some would feel as human rights, however not American rights.
That right there is a stinking load of bullshit. I suggest you give amendment IX a quick read.
And there is a difference between denying someone their civil rights, and wearing something provocative. Wearing a confederate flag may be a hallmark of a hick, but it is not "harrassment". Civil rights work both ways, or they don't exist.
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12826
May a school punish a student for wearing Confederate flag attire?
It depends on whether the school officials can reasonably forecast that the wearing of the Confederate flag will lead to a substantial disruption of the school environment. In one decision, a court rejected a student's First Amendment right to wear a Confederate flag jacket because the school officials had cited "several incidents of racial tension." According to the court, "school officials are not required to wait until disorder or invasion occurs" but only need "the existence of facts which might reasonably lead school officials to forecast substantial disruption."
Since the school before had racial issues, this court ruling applies. Thus upholding the schools judgements, it is flimsy though as there have been courts upholding and banishing decisions like these as they come up, as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
:lulz:
Actually, I think it is indeed a symbol of a system that endorsed racism and slavery. But that doesn't mean it can't be displayed.
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 05, 2012, 05:11:58 PM
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12826
May a school punish a student for wearing Confederate flag attire?
It depends on whether the school officials can reasonably forecast that the wearing of the Confederate flag will lead to a substantial disruption of the school environment. In one decision, a court rejected a student's First Amendment right to wear a Confederate flag jacket because the school officials had cited "several incidents of racial tension." According to the court, "school officials are not required to wait until disorder or invasion occurs" but only need "the existence of facts which might reasonably lead school officials to forecast substantial disruption."
Since the school before had racial issues, this court ruling applies. Thus upholding the schools judgements, it is flimsy though as there have been courts upholding and banishing decisions like these as they come up, as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District
Yeah, that's great. But the decisions of the court system has not always reflected the cause of civil rights, and in this case it doesn't. We are not discussing the law or the interpretations of that law, but the actual civil liberties involved, which is an entirely separate thing.
Seriously, asking people to accept the decisions of the US government as the standard for civil liberties is just plain silly.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 05:31:04 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
:lulz:
Actually, I think it is indeed a symbol of a system that endorsed racism and slavery. But that doesn't mean it can't be displayed.
Alas, as with Nazi uniforms, the Confederate flag looks cool but it's impossible to divorce it from it's morally corrupt origins. I dream of a parallel universe where the bad guys always wear jeans and t-shirts, and the good guys get to look
cool.
I disagree but I have also been up for 24 hours, and it's time to hit the sack after feeding little girl :P
I do wish to discuss the 9th amendment however, sometime soon ^.^ I quite enjoy this :)
I missed PD.
Also I bring up "Obscenity" for later in case we discuss more on this so I remember where I'm at LOL
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 05:34:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 05:31:04 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
:lulz:
Actually, I think it is indeed a symbol of a system that endorsed racism and slavery. But that doesn't mean it can't be displayed.
Alas, as with Nazi uniforms, the Confederate flag looks cool but it's impossible to divorce it from it's morally corrupt origins. I dream of a parallel universe where the bad guys always wear jeans and t-shirts, and the good guys get to look cool.
Yeah, one of the many crimes of 20th century fascism is that they ruined the snappy black uniform forever.
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 05:34:26 PM
the bad guys always wear jeans and t-shirts, and the good guys get to look cool.
(http://polaroidsonsidewalks.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/annex-dean-james_nrfpt_361.jpg)
You were saying?
Fuck that guy. The fauxhawk (or faux-fauxhawk, in this case) was never cool.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 05, 2012, 07:21:55 PM
Fuck that guy. The fauxhawk (or faux-fauxhawk, in this case) was never cool.
Is that what it's called? I always thought it was the "we thought it would be funny to pay the hairdresser to do our son's hair up like a fresh turd" hairdo.
Quote from: I_Kicked_Kennedy on July 05, 2012, 02:53:39 PM
I'm trying to think of some way of modifying a classic quote into something pertaining to the current state of political idiocy. Here's the quote:
"Your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
Simply, I am sick of idiot yokels doing something absolutely abhorrent, and claiming their rights have been infringed upon. Like the confederate flag dress, or when a church organizes a "let's piss on the grave of some little girl that died of AIDS" rally, and when the public (rightfully so) says "Hell no" they cry and scream "Waaaaaahhhhh. You're infringing upon my first amendment rights! Waaaaaahhhhh...."
THAT IS
a totally hot picture of mr.d., and in fact, whilst drinking a "swampwater" at a local hole when i was 21, this was my gateway into , "ok, i get why all the chicks are about that old thing"
YOU ARE
an ass for comparing phelps with a high school girl. or a genius. but i'm leaning toward ass.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not
Freedom if you can't abuse it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 03:00:43 PM
Quote from: I_Kicked_Kennedy on July 05, 2012, 02:53:39 PM
Simply, I am sick of idiot yokels doing something absolutely abhorrent, and claiming their rights have been infringed upon. Like the confederate flag dress, or when a church organizes a "let's piss on the grave of some little girl that died of AIDS" rally, and when the public (rightfully so) says "Hell no" they cry and scream "Waaaaaahhhhh. You're infringing upon my first amendment rights! Waaaaaahhhhh...."
Then move to North Korea. They don't allow that sort of shit.
:lulz:
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
THIS
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.
Did they ever raise money for the NAACP?
Quote from: Deepthroat Chopra on July 06, 2012, 03:54:24 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.
Did they ever raise money for the NAACP?
I'M GUESSING
You think that's cunning, but it comes across as juvenile/ ignorant and basically a reactiontard statement.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.
This is bullshit. Both the Confederate flag and the KKK have their roots in the Confederacy (the KKK somewhat less officially so), and both are emblems of a problematic and offensive period of political thought. But where the KKK from the outset made a point to define themselves by violence and intimidation, the flag has no inherent agenda. It has survived as a symbol of rebellion
in general. Yes, it's a symbol steeped in the history of a Southern aristocracy that took up arms against Fedgov to defend slavery.
Yes, it's flashed by toothless, racist, mush-faced goons to show off how they don't care who tells them to evolve, they're just not gonna. If you think
that's bad, you should read about some of the things the Christian cross symbolizes. But we (by "we" I mean the majority of Americans) don't call people who who wear crosses theocratic pro-genocide tyrants. That's because besides the admittedly unfortunate history of the cross, it can symbolize something much more. So it is with the Confederate flag.
Also: Son of a bitch. In doing some further reading, it turns out the Confederate States Constitution was substantially superior to ours. :(
A few things worth mentioning:
* Congress was not allowed to construe the Commerce Clause as an excuse to stick its nose into everyone's business, or to blackmail states for federal funding, by an explicit rule against passing any laws intended to "facilitate commerce."
* Any bill passed by Congress was required to address only one subject. (Take that, earmarkers!)
* The President was limited to a single term.
* Amendments could be ratified by the States without any help from Congress.
* States were not allowed to determine for themselves who was and who wasn't allowed to vote.
* States were allowed to impeach and remove from office Federal judges and magistrates operating in their borders.
Now for the Slavery part (oddly, there was no mention of the fabled CSA "Neener neener we're gonna have slavery forever!" doctrine):
* Importing slaves from anywhere except the USA was prohibited. (The US Constitution explicitly bars Congress from enacting any legislation restricting the importation of slaves until 1888, and even then didn't provide for any actual prohibition). This section is important because it is basically an admission by the CSA that slavery was a dying institution. Surely they realized with no guarantee that the USA would continue enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, and would surely eliminate slavery within its borders altogether, and no importation from foreign countries, the costs of slavery would soon outstrip the benefits as the value of slaves waned against the costs of keeping them in the country.
* Furthermore the CSA Congress was specifically granted the power to pass laws restricting or prohibiting even importation of new slaves from the USA.
Most of the wording is similar between the two Constitutions, but if the Confederate States had survived, they would have nothing like the overarching Federal system we have in the USA now (although still quite a bit stronger than the Articles of Confederation). It makes me wonder of the North really was more concerned about "preserving the Union" than it was about abolishing slavery. You know, as they specifically said when the war started.
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 04:43:30 AM
Quote from: Deepthroat Chopra on July 06, 2012, 03:54:24 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.
Did they ever raise money for the NAACP?
I'M GUESSING
You think that's cunning, but it comes across as juvenile/ ignorant and basically a reactiontard statement.
Cunning? :lulz:
Quote from: Deepthroat Chopra on July 06, 2012, 07:31:04 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 04:43:30 AM
Quote from: Deepthroat Chopra on July 06, 2012, 03:54:24 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.
Did they ever raise money for the NAACP?
I'M GUESSING
You think that's cunning, but it comes across as juvenile/ ignorant and basically a reactiontard statement.
Cunning? :lulz:
YEAH
I know, totally not your style.
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 05:40:25 AM
Also: Son of a bitch. In doing some further reading, it turns out the Confederate States Constitution was substantially superior to ours. :(
It enshrined a static aristocracy.
If that's "better", I'll take "worse", thanks.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
I think I got reverse Poe's Law-ed. I could have sworn that GA was rolling on satire.
I'm 100% certain GA is trolling here.
I may be wrong, and if so I will fully admit it, but I'm pretty sure he's poking fun at every defense of the South that has been made.
I'm kind of surprised at the way people buy Civil War history exactly as packaged, and how quick they are to make the assume any defense of the South is evidence of racism. I guess the campaign to equate the two has been pretty successful for it to infect a group of people deeply distrustful of authority. I still think it's artificial, though.
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 03:00:11 PM
I'm kind of surprised at the way people buy Civil War history exactly as packaged, and how quick they are to make the assume any defense of the South is evidence of racism. I guess the campaign to equate the two has been pretty successful for it to infect a group of people deeply distrustful of authority. I still think it's artificial, though.
They will say the same thing about the teabaggers in 50 years.
Oddly enough, sometimes A actually is A.
Fair enough, I guess. My problem is I wasn't alive 150 years ago. I'll leave it at not supporting the Confederacy per se, but having a somewhat naive and idealistic affection for the political arguments they used.
I do think adding the (slavery-unrelated) CSA Constitution provisions above would substantially improve our own, though.
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 03:24:23 PM
Fair enough, I guess. My problem is I wasn't alive 150 years ago. I'll leave it at not supporting the Confederacy per se, but having a somewhat naive and idealistic affection for the political arguments they used.
I do think adding the (slavery-unrelated) CSA Constitution provisions above would substantially improve our own, though.
One Northern general, guy by the name of Chamberlain, wrote the best argument against the CSA...That it was an incipient hereditary aristocracy, and that this alone made it worth fighting.
Basically, the South fought for two reasons:
1. The Smoot/Hawley tariff, arguably the stupidest idea ever to come out of congress, and
2. "States rights"...Specifically, the right to their "peculiar institution", which was how they referred to "chattel slavery". This was in fact the driving force behind the war, no matter what revisionists say, the proof of which is that they seceded upon the election of Lincoln - as they said they would - because they perceived him to be an abolitionist.
Don't go looking for noble causes where there are none. The South was going to be for "Quality People" (rich Whites), with the buckra beneath them, and the slaves at the bottom.
My local news station (which specializes in throwing shit in the air rather than reporting news) covered the prom dress thing. The completely expected irony was that the people who were up in arms about the violations of the girls First Amendment rights were the same ones who are always all for violation of students' Fourth Amendment rights when the argument of the day is about drug testing or strip searches.
On the flag:
Short answer: Except for a few open racists and reenactors (who are their own special brand of crazy), most people who wear/fly/whatever the confederate flag have little or no idea what it's supposed to mean. It's about tribal branding, like wearing a Nike shirt or St. Louis Cardinals hat.
Long answer: http://goatheadgumbo.blogspot.com/2012/05/heritage-or-hate.html (http://goatheadgumbo.blogspot.com/2012/05/heritage-or-hate.html)
I am really surprised how many people here actually believe that the Civil War was about slavery. And Thanksgiving was about indians and pilgrims cooperating and sitting down to dinner together.
Sorry guys, but although there are valid perspectives on either side, Vex has done his homework. The war wasn't about great justice, it was about keeping the union together for economic reasons. Slavery was a divisive factor, but as Vex rightly pointed out, it was a dying institution even before the war began. It was used as a politically divisive instrument in much the same way as abortion and gay marriage are used now, but all existing evidence (of which there is a lot) indicates that the Civil War would have occurred even had slavery already been abolished in the South. The war actually exacerbated existing racism in ways that we are still dealing with the effects of.
As far as the South having a heavily stratified class system with what essentially amounts to a hereditary aristocracy, that was and is true. Not particularly relevant, unless you are in favor of the mentality that if we don't like a culture we have a moral imperative to invade it and force it to be like us, but true. I find it repugnant, but that's their culture, and war didn't beat it out of them. In fact, it probably reinforced it. Regardless of how much we may dislike it and believe that the North was in the right, the South was (IMO) within their rights to secede.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 06, 2012, 06:16:37 PM
I am really surprised how many people here actually believe that the Civil War was about slavery. And Thanksgiving was about indians and pilgrims cooperating and sitting down to dinner together.
Sorry guys, but although there are valid perspectives on either side, Vex has done his homework. The war wasn't about great justice, it was about keeping the union together for economic reasons. Slavery was a divisive factor, but as Vex rightly pointed out, it was a dying institution even before the war began. It was used as a politically divisive instrument in much the same way as abortion and gay marriage are used now, but all existing evidence (of which there is a lot) indicates that the Civil War would have occurred even had slavery already been abolished in the South. The war actually exacerbated existing racism in ways that we are still dealing with the effects of.
As far as the South having a heavily stratified class system with what essentially amounts to a hereditary aristocracy, that was and is true. Not particularly relevant, unless you are in favor of the mentality that if we don't like a culture we have a moral imperative to invade it and force it to be like us, but true. I find it repugnant, but that's their culture, and war didn't beat it out of them. In fact, it probably reinforced it. Regardless of how much we may dislike it and believe that the North was in the right, the South was (IMO) within their rights to secede.
I just think it's unfortunate that real self-determination was the primary casualty of the war. In using slavery to justify both sides of the war, we effectively sunk the entire argument over a State's Rights -- which, contrary to what they tell you in school, really is an argument on its own and doesn't depend on racism or even conservatism. But thanks to 150 years of equating "States' Rights" with slavery, the Civil War, ignorance, and backwards thinking, we can't have that discussion anymore.
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 06:28:09 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 06, 2012, 06:16:37 PM
I am really surprised how many people here actually believe that the Civil War was about slavery. And Thanksgiving was about indians and pilgrims cooperating and sitting down to dinner together.
Sorry guys, but although there are valid perspectives on either side, Vex has done his homework. The war wasn't about great justice, it was about keeping the union together for economic reasons. Slavery was a divisive factor, but as Vex rightly pointed out, it was a dying institution even before the war began. It was used as a politically divisive instrument in much the same way as abortion and gay marriage are used now, but all existing evidence (of which there is a lot) indicates that the Civil War would have occurred even had slavery already been abolished in the South. The war actually exacerbated existing racism in ways that we are still dealing with the effects of.
As far as the South having a heavily stratified class system with what essentially amounts to a hereditary aristocracy, that was and is true. Not particularly relevant, unless you are in favor of the mentality that if we don't like a culture we have a moral imperative to invade it and force it to be like us, but true. I find it repugnant, but that's their culture, and war didn't beat it out of them. In fact, it probably reinforced it. Regardless of how much we may dislike it and believe that the North was in the right, the South was (IMO) within their rights to secede.
I just think it's unfortunate that real self-determination was the primary casualty of the war. In using slavery to justify both sides of the war, we effectively sunk the entire argument over a State's Rights -- which, contrary to what they tell you in school, really is an argument on its own and doesn't depend on racism or even conservatism. But thanks to 150 years of equating "States' Rights" with slavery, the Civil War, ignorance, and backwards thinking, we can't have that discussion anymore.
Yup.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Quote from: Hoopla on July 06, 2012, 06:36:32 PM
This is why we can't have nice things.
DAMN YOU,
LINCOLN THE SOUTH AMERICA HUMAN NATURE !!
People in The South were idiots. Not surprising really, given their idea of a strategy was "threatening, then direct military attack on a nation with more money, greater population and greater industrial output" than they had.
Obviously anyone who thought that was a good idea probably really thought they could get away with seceding with no consequences, either. Sure, nice in theory, but ignores the practicality of the situation, which is those with more guns gets to make the rules. Also ignores the history of the USA directly after founding, with The Whisky Rebellion, Shays Rebellion etc
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2012, 07:49:35 PM
People in The South were idiots. Not surprising really, given their idea of a strategy was "threatening, then direct military attack on a nation with more money, greater population and greater industrial output" than they had.
Obviously anyone who thought that was a good idea probably really thought they could get away with seceding with no consequences, either. Sure, nice in theory, but ignores the practicality of the situation, which is those with more guns gets to make the rules. Also ignores the history of the USA directly after founding, with The Whisky Rebellion, Shays Rebellion etc
The South's military mistake wasn't in thinking they could defeat the North in a full war. They underestimated the North's resolve to fight at all. The South thought the war would amount to a few skirmishes and the North would eventually give up and just let the South go without much of a fight. This was actually likely until late in 1862 since the North failed to win a single major victory in the first part of the war, and the public was quickly losing any real desire to fight. That's when the North suddenly decided to say the war was about "slavery," and the rest is history. The South was full of idiots, but so was the North, for buying the false justification. Even the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to Confederate States where Lincoln had no power at the time.
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2012, 07:49:35 PM
People in The South were idiots. Not surprising really, given their idea of a strategy was "threatening, then direct military attack on a nation with more money, greater population and greater industrial output" than they had.
Obviously anyone who thought that was a good idea probably really thought they could get away with seceding with no consequences, either. Sure, nice in theory, but ignores the practicality of the situation, which is those with more guns gets to make the rules. Also ignores the history of the USA directly after founding, with The Whisky Rebellion, Shays Rebellion etc
ARE YOU
drunk, as you said you'd be? cause this is one of the few truly bone headed things i've ever read by you. especially the first part
The North had the industrial output, the money and the population. "Will" is easy enough to conjure up, once a war is started, those tangibles are far more critical for success. The South may have thought they could force concessions with a limited campaign, but, clearly, they were wrong. Once you start a war, when it finishes is not up to you anymore.
The North had twenty million white citizens. The South had six. The North had much more immigration, and could rely on black troops as well, a choice the South did not make until the very end of the war. The North had over 110,000 manufacturing establishments, the South only 18,000. The entire South only produced 36,700 tons of pig iron - Pennsylvania alone produced 580,000 tons. New York State's economy was as large as Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi combined.
This meant the South was outnumbered, could not rely on its economic strength for protracted campaigns, its railway system could not be maintained and it could not produce as many weapons as the North. Land, cotton and slaves are not a great basis for an economy, so international banks were not willing to lend. European powers had no interest in supporting yet another competitor in the cotton market, and were more concerned about events in Europe anyway.
The South could never overrun the North, not with such imbalances. Their only viable strategy was to drag out the war as to show to the North that it should abandon its claims to try and coerce the South - over slavery, or secession - and let them tire of war. But that meant, unavoidably, a long-term conflict, which, as mentioned above, played to the Union's strengths.
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 08:04:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2012, 07:49:35 PM
People in The South were idiots. Not surprising really, given their idea of a strategy was "threatening, then direct military attack on a nation with more money, greater population and greater industrial output" than they had.
Obviously anyone who thought that was a good idea probably really thought they could get away with seceding with no consequences, either. Sure, nice in theory, but ignores the practicality of the situation, which is those with more guns gets to make the rules. Also ignores the history of the USA directly after founding, with The Whisky Rebellion, Shays Rebellion etc
ARE YOU
drunk, as you said you'd be? cause this is one of the few truly bone headed things i've ever read by you. especially the first part
SORRY AM I
not typing slow enough?
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 06, 2012, 06:16:37 PM
I am really surprised how many people here actually believe that the Civil War was about slavery. And Thanksgiving was about indians and pilgrims cooperating and sitting down to dinner together.
Sorry guys, but although there are valid perspectives on either side, Vex has done his homework. The war wasn't about great justice, it was about keeping the union together for economic reasons.
I am not arguing why the North fought to keep the South, but rather why the South chose to secede.
There were two somewhat separate motivations in play.
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2012, 08:11:06 PM
The North had the industrial output, the money and the population. "Will" is easy enough to conjure up, once a war is started, those tangibles are far more critical for success. The South may have thought they could force concessions with a limited campaign, but, clearly, they were wrong. Once you start a war, when it finishes is not up to you anymore.
The North had twenty million white citizens. The South had six. The North had much more immigration, and could rely on black troops as well, a choice the South did not make until the very end of the war. The North had over 110,000 manufacturing establishments, the South only 18,000. The entire South only produced 36,700 tons of pig iron - Pennsylvania alone produced 580,000 tons. New York State's economy was as large as Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi combined.
This meant the South was outnumbered, could not rely on its economic strength for protracted campaigns, its railway system could not be maintained and it could not produce as many weapons as the North. Land, cotton and slaves are not a great basis for an economy, so international banks were not willing to lend. European powers had no interest in supporting yet another competitor in the cotton market, and were more concerned about events in Europe anyway.
The South could never overrun the North, not with such imbalances. Their only viable strategy was to drag out the war as to show to the North that it should abandon its claims to try and coerce the South - over slavery, or secession - and let them tire of war. But that meant, unavoidably, a long-term conflict, which, as mentioned above, played to the Union's strengths.
This, and they were waiting for help from Britain and France, which never came. In part, probably, because of their stupid insistence on slavery as an economic basis (if they'd have kept slavery as punishment as we have it today, it probably would have been OK). In the end, I think you're right that the South did it wrong, maybe because they were stupid or maybe just because they let their emotions get the best of them on a tragic scale (which could also be described as 'stupid'). Either way the end result was that Americans can no longer argue for secession, states' rights, or limited federal government without being immediately cast as racists and "ignorant Southerners," regardless of how valid or important those arguments might be. The Civil War stopped slavery - that's obviously a good thing. But it also dealt a deathblow to very important parts of the domestic political discussion regarding the balance between local power and centralized power.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 08:18:30 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 06, 2012, 06:16:37 PM
I am really surprised how many people here actually believe that the Civil War was about slavery. And Thanksgiving was about indians and pilgrims cooperating and sitting down to dinner together.
Sorry guys, but although there are valid perspectives on either side, Vex has done his homework. The war wasn't about great justice, it was about keeping the union together for economic reasons.
I am not arguing why the North fought to keep the South, but rather why the South chose to secede.
There were two somewhat separate motivations in play.
The South seceded because they were afraid slavery was going to be abolished for them. You're right about that. All I'm saying is that the timing was unfortunate, in that Slavery was the hot-button issue of the day instead of something less awful, like a tax or something. As a result all discussion of states' rights is now forever married to racism and slavery, even when it crops up for entirely different reasons (California's environmental standards, for example).
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 08:19:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2012, 08:11:06 PM
The North had the industrial output, the money and the population. "Will" is easy enough to conjure up, once a war is started, those tangibles are far more critical for success. The South may have thought they could force concessions with a limited campaign, but, clearly, they were wrong. Once you start a war, when it finishes is not up to you anymore.
The North had twenty million white citizens. The South had six. The North had much more immigration, and could rely on black troops as well, a choice the South did not make until the very end of the war. The North had over 110,000 manufacturing establishments, the South only 18,000. The entire South only produced 36,700 tons of pig iron - Pennsylvania alone produced 580,000 tons. New York State's economy was as large as Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi combined.
This meant the South was outnumbered, could not rely on its economic strength for protracted campaigns, its railway system could not be maintained and it could not produce as many weapons as the North. Land, cotton and slaves are not a great basis for an economy, so international banks were not willing to lend. European powers had no interest in supporting yet another competitor in the cotton market, and were more concerned about events in Europe anyway.
The South could never overrun the North, not with such imbalances. Their only viable strategy was to drag out the war as to show to the North that it should abandon its claims to try and coerce the South - over slavery, or secession - and let them tire of war. But that meant, unavoidably, a long-term conflict, which, as mentioned above, played to the Union's strengths.
This, and they were waiting for help from Britain and France, which never came. In part, probably, because of their stupid insistence on slavery as an economic basis (if they'd have kept slavery as punishment as we have it today, it probably would have been OK). In the end, I think you're right that the South did it wrong, maybe because they were stupid or maybe just because they let their emotions get the best of them on a tragic scale (which could also be described as 'stupid'). Either way the end result was that Americans can no longer argue for secession, states' rights, or limited federal government without being immediately cast as racists and "ignorant Southerners," regardless of how valid or important those arguments might be. The Civil War stopped slavery - that's obviously a good thing. But it also dealt a deathblow to very important parts of the domestic political discussion regarding the balance between local power and centralized power.
Which has prevented us from turning into what used to be Yugoslavia.
Just saying.
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 08:23:59 PM
The South seceded because they were afraid slavery was going to be abolished for them. You're right about that. All I'm saying is that the timing was unfortunate, in that Slavery was the hot-button issue of the day instead of something less awful, like a tax or something. As a result all discussion of states' rights is now forever married to racism and slavery, even when it crops up for entirely different reasons (California's environmental standards, for example).
Well, there was also the Smoot/Hawley tariff, which was designed to allow the North to dominate the South economically as well as politically.
And to be honest, when I hear "states' rights" now, I think of people trying to dictate what women can do with their own bodies, not racism, etc.
That part of the discussion is probably also damaged, in a large part, because a lot of people who do talk about those things to tend to be somewhat racist.
I know it's not everyone, and you know it's not everyone. But you have to admit, phrases like "state rights" certainly are used as codewords by mouth-breathers with a...complicated view of non-whites with disturbing frequency. That tendency certainly doesn't help matters any.
I still say that, in the long run, any state with sufficient power and resources to fight a secession will, sooner or later, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of their cause. Therefore, the question shouldn't be "is secession a moral right" but "do we have a sufficient latent military threat and economic power to affect a secession, or are we simply going to be getting people killed for no good reason?" Of course, the reason for secession may already be that "people getting killed for no good reason", in which case you probably have little to lose. On the other hand, maybe it's not.
There can be no excuse for bad strategy, if your plan is to win. If you want to make a final stand, go down in a blaze of glory etc, maybe. But such thinking has never held much appeal for me.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 08:24:12 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 08:19:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2012, 08:11:06 PM
The North had the industrial output, the money and the population. "Will" is easy enough to conjure up, once a war is started, those tangibles are far more critical for success. The South may have thought they could force concessions with a limited campaign, but, clearly, they were wrong. Once you start a war, when it finishes is not up to you anymore.
The North had twenty million white citizens. The South had six. The North had much more immigration, and could rely on black troops as well, a choice the South did not make until the very end of the war. The North had over 110,000 manufacturing establishments, the South only 18,000. The entire South only produced 36,700 tons of pig iron - Pennsylvania alone produced 580,000 tons. New York State's economy was as large as Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi combined.
This meant the South was outnumbered, could not rely on its economic strength for protracted campaigns, its railway system could not be maintained and it could not produce as many weapons as the North. Land, cotton and slaves are not a great basis for an economy, so international banks were not willing to lend. European powers had no interest in supporting yet another competitor in the cotton market, and were more concerned about events in Europe anyway.
The South could never overrun the North, not with such imbalances. Their only viable strategy was to drag out the war as to show to the North that it should abandon its claims to try and coerce the South - over slavery, or secession - and let them tire of war. But that meant, unavoidably, a long-term conflict, which, as mentioned above, played to the Union's strengths.
This, and they were waiting for help from Britain and France, which never came. In part, probably, because of their stupid insistence on slavery as an economic basis (if they'd have kept slavery as punishment as we have it today, it probably would have been OK). In the end, I think you're right that the South did it wrong, maybe because they were stupid or maybe just because they let their emotions get the best of them on a tragic scale (which could also be described as 'stupid'). Either way the end result was that Americans can no longer argue for secession, states' rights, or limited federal government without being immediately cast as racists and "ignorant Southerners," regardless of how valid or important those arguments might be. The Civil War stopped slavery - that's obviously a good thing. But it also dealt a deathblow to very important parts of the domestic political discussion regarding the balance between local power and centralized power.
Which has prevented us from turning into what used to be Yugoslavia.
Just saying.
The South had failure written all over it. But the IDEA of separatism shouldn't be killed off. Secession as a right should have been enshrined in the Constitution to begin with (instead of just taken for granted as it was by Thomas Jefferson). Not all separatist movements end badly -- you may have heard of a bunch of Awful Secessionists around the Boston area in the 1770s.
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2012, 08:28:23 PM
That part of the discussion is probably also damaged, in a large part, because a lot of people who do talk about those things to tend to be somewhat racist.
I know it's not everyone, and you know it's not everyone. But you have to admit, phrases like "state rights" certainly are used as codewords by mouth-breathers with a...complicated view of non-whites with disturbing frequency. That tendency certainly doesn't help matters any.
I still say that, in the long run, any state with sufficient power and resources to fight a secession will, sooner or later, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of their cause. Therefore, the question shouldn't be "is secession a moral right" but "do we have a sufficient latent military threat and economic power to affect a secession, or are we simply going to be getting people killed for no good reason?" Of course, the reason for secession may already be that "people getting killed for no good reason", in which case you probably have little to lose. On the other hand, maybe it's not.
There can be no excuse for bad strategy, if your plan is to win. If you want to make a final stand, go down in a blaze of glory etc, maybe. But such thinking has never held much appeal for me.
Absolutely right about States Rights. It IS discussed mostly by mouthbreathers and racists. But that's a symptom of the problem I'm talking about, not a cause. These idiots use this argument all the time, for all the wrong reasons, and they're the only ones using it because they're the only ones who are socially ALLOWED to use it. If anybody else uses it -- it'll be assumed he's one of THEM.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 08:25:45 PM
And to be honest, when I hear "states' rights" now, I think of people trying to dictate what women can do with their own bodies, not racism, etc.
But the idea is the same...Whenever you hear "state's rights", it means "We want the power to fuck over residents in our states in one manner or another." I have NEVER seen an exception to this.
It's not always used for fucking people over. When a policy is popular, it doesn't get painted with the scarlet letter of "States' Rights." See: Same-Sex Marriage, Medical Marijuana, CA environmental regulations, and other policies that take root in individual States without top-down, Federal intervention.
But then, as I've been researching the larger "States' Rights" argument, reading articles, and trying to trace the roots of our institutionalized avoidance of the issue, I've found that we don't really have as much of an aversion to the argument as I thought we did. So it looks like I'm either wrong, or at least less right than I thought I was. America still has the same lively debate between Nationalism and Federalism that we've had for 230 years or so. It's just that the Federalist side has a great difficulty in resorting to their argument's "nuclear option" -- secession -- because going that far immediately conjures uncomfortable connotations that are nearly impossible to outrun.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 09:10:52 PM
But the idea is the same...Whenever you hear "state's rights", it means "We want the power to fuck over residents in our states in one manner or another." I have NEVER seen an exception to this.
weed legalization.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2012, 10:12:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 09:10:52 PM
But the idea is the same...Whenever you hear "state's rights", it means "We want the power to fuck over residents in our states in one manner or another." I have NEVER seen an exception to this.
weed legalization.
legal weed fucks you over.
i mean up. sorry.
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2012, 08:11:37 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 08:04:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2012, 07:49:35 PM
People in The South were idiots. Not surprising really, given their idea of a strategy was "threatening, then direct military attack on a nation with more money, greater population and greater industrial output" than they had.
Obviously anyone who thought that was a good idea probably really thought they could get away with seceding with no consequences, either. Sure, nice in theory, but ignores the practicality of the situation, which is those with more guns gets to make the rules. Also ignores the history of the USA directly after founding, with The Whisky Rebellion, Shays Rebellion etc
ARE YOU
drunk, as you said you'd be? cause this is one of the few truly bone headed things i've ever read by you. especially the first part
SORRY AM I
not typing slow enough?
OOWWW!!
that was an uncharacteristic post for you, it reads more opinion than having any real substance.
AND
no matter how fast you type, i can still get through the whole thing if someone holds my hand. except i have a drink in one and my cock in the other, so it may take longer than expected.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2012, 08:11:06 PM
The North had the industrial output, the money and the population. "Will" is easy enough to conjure up, once a war is started, those tangibles are far more critical for success. The South may have thought they could force concessions with a limited campaign, but, clearly, they were wrong. Once you start a war, when it finishes is not up to you anymore.
The North had twenty million white citizens. The South had six. The North had much more immigration, and could rely on black troops as well, a choice the South did not make until the very end of the war. The North had over 110,000 manufacturing establishments, the South only 18,000. The entire South only produced 36,700 tons of pig iron - Pennsylvania alone produced 580,000 tons. New York State's economy was as large as Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi combined.
This meant the South was outnumbered, could not rely on its economic strength for protracted campaigns, its railway system could not be maintained and it could not produce as many weapons as the North. Land, cotton and slaves are not a great basis for an economy, so international banks were not willing to lend. European powers had no interest in supporting yet another competitor in the cotton market, and were more concerned about events in Europe anyway.
The South could never overrun the North, not with such imbalances. Their only viable strategy was to drag out the war as to show to the North that it should abandon its claims to try and coerce the South - over slavery, or secession - and let them tire of war. But that meant, unavoidably, a long-term conflict, which, as mentioned above, played to the Union's strengths.
The South wasn't planning on "overrunning" the North. They didn't need to; they were in a defensive position. What they were banking on was the North not being willing to go to great expense and suffer major casualties in order to retain power over the South... in short, they thought that they could defend themselves and that the North wouldn't consider them worth the cost of full-blown war. They were wrong.
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 03:00:11 PM
I'm kind of surprised at the way people buy Civil War history exactly as packaged, and how quick they are to make the assume any defense of the South is evidence of racism. I guess the campaign to equate the two has been pretty successful for it to infect a group of people deeply distrustful of authority. I still think it's artificial, though.
How it's packaged depends a lot on which state you were in for basic schooling. In Tennessee, you hear more people loudly making the argument that flying the Confederate flag has nothing to do with slavery/racism than you hear people saying it's insensitive and anachronistic, and more than a couple of my elementary/middle school teachers (I changed schools a lot in primary school, and somehow always managed to land on leading up to the civil war period, didn't get to anything post-Reconstruction until highschool/college) took great pains to point out all of the things about the Civil War which weren't about slavery.* You had to arrive at the Civil War = Slavery conclusion by wondering what prompted all of those suspiciously specific denials.
There's a lot of pride involved in remembering the war. The Confederates had their share of war heroes, and almost any white Southerner can trace his family back to the Confederate Army if he tries hard enough. Telling people that they can't be proud of their family history is a non-starter. Seceding is viewed as ultimate expression of freedom & democracy, and therefore American and patriotic, even though it actually, literally divides the country in half. Like how liberals maintain that burning the flag in protest is an activity that can only happen with First Amendment rights, which makes it a uniquely American and therefore patriotic tradition. Weirdly, almost nobody believes both things at the same time. You'd think there'd be greater overlap between people who burn the official flag and people who fly alternative flags...
*Did you know that there were black soldiers fighting for the Confederacy? That most white people didn't own slaves? That many freed slaves could be considered worse off immediately after being freed? That there were black soldiers fighting for the Confederacy? That Lincoln only freed the slaves for re-captured Confederate states, as a military tactic? That the factories up North had even more dangerous working conditions than Southern slaves, because the owners had no monetary stake in their employees lives? DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE WERE BLACK SOLDIERS WHO FOUGHT FOR THE CONFEDERACY? DEFINITELY AT LEAST TEN, MAYBE MORE.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 08:18:30 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 06, 2012, 06:16:37 PM
I am really surprised how many people here actually believe that the Civil War was about slavery. And Thanksgiving was about indians and pilgrims cooperating and sitting down to dinner together.
Sorry guys, but although there are valid perspectives on either side, Vex has done his homework. The war wasn't about great justice, it was about keeping the union together for economic reasons.
I am not arguing why the North fought to keep the South, but rather why the South chose to secede.
There were two somewhat separate motivations in play.
Abolition was the red-flag issue of the day, but ultimately it was primarily symbolic of the increasing culture clash and discontent of the South with Federal control. If it hadn't been slavery, it very likely would have been some other hot-button issue. For the most part people tend to view the "State's rights" argument as nothing but a red herring to draw attention away from the issue of slavery, but I think it was the other way around, with Southern politicians absolutely aware of the decreasing viability of slavery as an economic driver, and using it as a fulcrum for gaining leverage with the conservative families who were already starting to resent the pressures of change and wanted a scapegoat and an enemy, which was handed to them in the form of Federal interference.
Pretty much exactly the way the current immigration issues are handed to conservatives who want a scapegoat for the economic pressures they're facing, so they don't have to stare down the barrel at the reality that the system they advocate fucked them over.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 09:10:52 PM
But the idea is the same...Whenever you hear "state's rights", it means "We want the power to fuck over residents in our states in one manner or another." I have NEVER seen an exception to this.
Living where I do, I tend to hear the exact opposite a lot. Fuck the Feds coming in here and busting up our family marijuana farms, telling us we can't have death with dignity, and trying to block our socialized health care! Ever hear of Cascadia?
Secessionism is alive and well in the Northwest, and it's not what you might think it is.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 07, 2012, 12:23:37 AM
The South wasn't planning on "overrunning" the North. They didn't need to; they were in a defensive position. What they were banking on was the North not being willing to go to great expense and suffer major casualties in order to retain power over the South... in short, they thought that they could defend themselves and that the North wouldn't consider them worth the cost of full-blown war. They were wrong.
Which is exactly my point. They weren't planning on overrunning the north and were not in a position to do so. Which means, ultimately, all they were doing is needling the nation with the right demographic, economic and historical-political mix to be able to invade and successfully occupy them. Not to mention the whole "rally around the flag" effect that military action tends to create.
For the North, the costs of a fully blown war were already much lower than they would be for the South. In such a situation, the vast power disparity needs to be taken into account, because what one side considers reasonable costs and balances will not be the same as what the other side considers them to be. Wars tend to escalate once fighting starts, and descalation is both hard and rare. By escalating, the South was playing with fire, and they got burnt. No different to the Japanese trying to knock America out of the Pacific, except, you know, the Japanese actually had an ocean between them and America, which led them to think they would gain some kind of spatial advantage. The South had a direct border.
Oh, and Japan got nuked. Though if America policymakers want to retroactively nuke Florida for its past crimes, I'm sure no-one would complain much.
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:08:46 PM
OOWWW!!
that was an uncharacteristic post for you, it reads more opinion than having any real substance.
Unlike your reply to me, which was just
full of substance and not at all a random ad hominem backed up by a gaping void of silence.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2012, 10:12:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 09:10:52 PM
But the idea is the same...Whenever you hear "state's rights", it means "We want the power to fuck over residents in our states in one manner or another." I have NEVER seen an exception to this.
weed legalization.
Allowing me to do something is exactly the same in principle as not allowing me to do something, ie it's acting as if they have some kind of fucking say in what I do. It's bullshit. It's sticking their nose in where it's not welcome. It's oppression. It's downright fucking rude and I support anyone who takes it upon themselves to destroy them. My liberty means more to me than their life.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 07, 2012, 04:43:56 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2012, 10:12:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 09:10:52 PM
But the idea is the same...Whenever you hear "state's rights", it means "We want the power to fuck over residents in our states in one manner or another." I have NEVER seen an exception to this.
weed legalization.
Allowing me to do something is exactly the same in principle as not allowing me to do something, ie it's acting as if they have some kind of fucking say in what I do. It's bullshit. It's sticking their nose in where it's not welcome. It's oppression. It's downright fucking rude and I support anyone who takes it upon themselves to destroy them. My liberty means more to me than their life.
Just because you
approve of a States Rights action doesn't mean it isn't a States Rights issue. The argument is the same: "States have the sovereign authority to pass this law, even if it violates Federal law or contradicts laws in other States."
Quote from: Cain on July 07, 2012, 04:33:05 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 07, 2012, 12:23:37 AM
The South wasn't planning on "overrunning" the North. They didn't need to; they were in a defensive position. What they were banking on was the North not being willing to go to great expense and suffer major casualties in order to retain power over the South... in short, they thought that they could defend themselves and that the North wouldn't consider them worth the cost of full-blown war. They were wrong.
Which is exactly my point. They weren't planning on overrunning the north and were not in a position to do so. Which means, ultimately, all they were doing is needling the nation with the right demographic, economic and historical-political mix to be able to invade and successfully occupy them. Not to mention the whole "rally around the flag" effect that military action tends to create.
For the North, the costs of a fully blown war were already much lower than they would be for the South. In such a situation, the vast power disparity needs to be taken into account, because what one side considers reasonable costs and balances will not be the same as what the other side considers them to be. Wars tend to escalate once fighting starts, and descalation is both hard and rare. By escalating, the South was playing with fire, and they got burnt. No different to the Japanese trying to knock America out of the Pacific, except, you know, the Japanese actually had an ocean between them and America, which led them to think they would gain some kind of spatial advantage. The South had a direct border.
Oh, and Japan got nuked. Though if America policymakers want to retroactively nuke Florida for its past crimes, I'm sure no-one would complain much.
You have to keep in mind that America's FUCK NO, DO AS WE SAY nature was not yet established, and the South had no historic evidence that the North would launch a full-scale invasion in order to maintain control. Like I said, they were banking on simply not being worth the trouble. That, however, was essentially the event that clearly identified what would become America's militaristic base nature. Of course it seems stupid in hindsight; we now have a lot of history that clearly highlights how the USA reacts to any opposition. But at the time, that was merely a possible reaction, and not the obvious and inevitable reaction we know it is today.
What I'm trying to highlight by saying that the South wasn't planning on "overrunning" the North is that the South wasn't invading; they were defending. You do not "overrun" your opposition when you are defending in a ground battle; you hold your own. It generally requires fewer soldiers in a ground battle to hold a defense than it does to launch an offense. So yes, the Union had enough soldiers to overrun the Confederate defenses, and they did, but the South was not "stupid" in strategizing that their defensive advantage and overall political position was enough of a deterrent that the Union would not send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to die in order to retain control of them.
In discussions of the South and the Confederate flag and racism and the Civil War, I think that it's useful to mentally treat them as a conquered nation, because that is essentially what they are. At this point, I strongly suspect that their heavily entrenched racism has been deeply exacerbated by their status as a conquered nation, because slavery was the divisive issue-du-jour that has been flagged as being central to the war, so race relations in the South have been inextricably culturally linked to being conquered.
It's probably also prudent to keep in mind that the Confederate leadership really didn't in any way entertain the slightest inkling of a possibility that, had they won the war, Blacks would ever have anything resembling equality. Their VP's speech shortly after the adoption of their permanent Constitution made numerous references to the prevailing American Christian theology that the Blacks' color was imposed on them as a curse and that they were divinely designated to be eternally subservient to whites. In many ways the Confederate government really was the "Based on Christianity" outfit that many Christians think the US Government is. Maybe they're confused and think the US Government is actually in Richmond.
Anyway, had the outcome of the war been reversed, or even if it had never happened at all and the South was allowed to simply secede "in peace," it's no doubt that it would have given renewed strength and longevity not only to slavery itself but to the cultural and religious divisions between Whites and Blacks. The road from there to equality for minorities in the CSA would have had an entirely different character from the one we ended up with, and there are too many variables to know for sure how it would have played out. But it would have played out in some way, and I think that struggle would not only have nullified much of the entrenched racism from the bottom up rather than from the top down, it would have also neutralized much of the right-wing religious extremism that pervades American politics in the process.
Actually, the United States had a long history of not accepting other powers in its considered sphere of influence and using military force to drive them out or force them into an overall weaker strategic position. In the decade before the Civil War, the American military saw action in the Ottoman Empire, Japan, Argentina, Nicaragua, China, Fiji, Uruguay, Panama, Paraguay and Mexico. Almost all of these actions were either to defend American commerical interests or punitive expeditions.
And yes, the South were stupid in thinking their defensive posture was enough to deter the North. Clearly and obviously. Even beyond the historical record, it was not a reasonable proposition to make at the time because of the aforementioned advantages held by the Union and the noted patterns of behaviour by the American military in the decade before. A military power that sent ships to punish Fijians and broke open Japan is not going to be deterred by an agrarian society with a much lower military potential because of a few successful raids.
The facts are, they were the weaker party from the start, and they were inviting the kind of conflict which played to the strengths of the Union. If that isn't stupid, I might as well leave this thread now, because I can't think of a better way to define the word.
Quote from: Cain on July 07, 2012, 05:14:13 PM
Actually, the United States had a long history of not accepting other powers in its considered sphere of influence and using military force to drive them out or force them into an overall weaker strategic position. In the decade before the Civil War, the American military saw action in the Ottoman Empire, Japan, Argentina, Nicaragua, China, Fiji, Uruguay, Panama, Paraguay and Mexico. Almost all of these actions were either to defend American commerical interests or punitive expeditions.
And yes, the South were stupid in thinking their defensive posture was enough to deter the North. Clearly and obviously. Even beyond the historical record, it was not a reasonable proposition to make at the time because of the aforementioned advantages held by the Union and the noted patterns of behaviour by the American military in the decade before. A military power that sent ships to punish Fijians and broke open Japan is not going to be deterred by an agrarian society with a much lower military potential because of a few successful raids.
The facts are, they were the weaker party from the start, and they were inviting the kind of conflict which played to the strengths of the Union. If that isn't stupid, I might as well leave this thread now, because I can't think of a better way to define the word.
It was a stupid military and strategical mistake. But it doesn't extrapolate to the entire population being "idiots."
Quote from: Cain on July 07, 2012, 05:14:13 PM
Actually, the United States had a long history of not accepting other powers in its considered sphere of influence and using military force to drive them out or force them into an overall weaker strategic position. In the decade before the Civil War, the American military saw action in the Ottoman Empire, Japan, Argentina, Nicaragua, China, Fiji, Uruguay, Panama, Paraguay and Mexico. Almost all of these actions were either to defend American commerical interests or punitive expeditions.
And yes, the South were stupid in thinking their defensive posture was enough to deter the North. Clearly and obviously. Even beyond the historical record, it was not a reasonable proposition to make at the time because of the aforementioned advantages held by the Union and the noted patterns of behaviour by the American military in the decade before. A military power that sent ships to punish Fijians and broke open Japan is not going to be deterred by an agrarian society with a much lower military potential because of a few successful raids.
The facts are, they were the weaker party from the start, and they were inviting the kind of conflict which played to the strengths of the Union. If that isn't stupid, I might as well leave this thread now, because I can't think of a better way to define the word.
Well, you know military history better than I do, so I'll concede that point. I find the social and cultural aspect of the discussion more interesting and I don't want to argue military strategy.
Like Vex, I find the categorization of all Southerners as "idiots" to be a kind of disturbing, yet very interesting trend that's pretty pervasive, especially in the US but evidently overseas as well. It has interesting parallels with typical attitudes toward other conquered societies.
Quote from: v3x on July 07, 2012, 05:20:39 PM
It was a stupid military and strategical mistake. But it doesn't extrapolate to the entire population being "idiots."
"The South" is short hand for "the military and political leaders of the South". I would have thought this was obvious.
Leaving this thread now. I'm not going argue with people putting words in my mouth.
BUT WHAT WILL WE DO with all these words? SOMEbody's got to eat them. As an alternative, I will put them in someone else's mouth:
"The South is full if idiots."
"Southerners are all rednecks and racists."
-- Everybody
When you phrase a statement verbatim like a commonly held generalization, it's easy to think you are parroting that generalization.
Quote from: Cain on July 07, 2012, 05:33:44 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 07, 2012, 05:20:39 PM
It was a stupid military and strategical mistake. But it doesn't extrapolate to the entire population being "idiots."
"The South" is short hand for "the military and political leaders of the South". I would have thought this was obvious.
Leaving this thread now. I'm not going argue with people putting words in my mouth.
I would have assumed that you meant "military and political leadership", but you said "People in The South", which has a different connotation, and one which mirrors popular perception. I am completely willing to accept that it was a misspeak. That is not in any way me putting words in your mouth; it's what you typed. Clarifying that it was not what you meant is good enough for me, and a damn sight better than accusing me of deliberately misinterpreting you.
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2012, 07:49:35 PM
People in The South were idiots. Not surprising really, given their idea of a strategy was "threatening, then direct military attack on a nation with more money, greater population and greater industrial output" than they had.
Obviously anyone who thought that was a good idea probably really thought they could get away with seceding with no consequences, either. Sure, nice in theory, but ignores the practicality of the situation, which is those with more guns gets to make the rules. Also ignores the history of the USA directly after founding, with The Whisky Rebellion, Shays Rebellion etc
Quote from: Cain on July 07, 2012, 04:38:01 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:08:46 PM
OOWWW!!
that was an uncharacteristic post for you, it reads more opinion than having any real substance.
Unlike your reply to me, which was just full of substance and not at all a random ad hominem backed up by a gaping void of silence.
UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE
i don't have 24/7 access to the internet, an immediate response is not always possible. it's like the high middle ages, scotus says something and if you weren't there to hear it, it'd have to wait til the next meeting. and then often times, one might take a bit to consider what was said.
AND CAIN
there was no hominem in my statement. that's actually what i was addressing in your initial post, calling an entire group of people idiots. i asked if you were drunk and pointed out that it was actually an odd occurrence for you to make such a low comment. which is a compliment actually, cain.
I HAVE
no real interest in addressing the details of arm chair military strategics, and i don't think that actually has much to do with the focus of this thread. if at all.
Everyone everywhere are idiots.
THE END.
I gotta say, in alot of ways I like "people" in the south better than "people" in the northeast or the west coast. Speaking very generally, people tend to be more open and direct, with a premium placed on politeness and, in many cases, actual friendliness. Clearly the culture is not without some serious flaws and I'm aware that I'd be treated very differently in many places if not for the privilege of my skin color. I've also noticed, however, that racism and prejudice are equally prevalent everywhere in America, they just take different forms. Were I in a position to be subjected to racial discrimination, I'm not sure I wouldn't rather have the direct and blunt type shown in the south instead of the "snake in the grass" racism of the north and west. The end result is the same shit end of the stick, but at least the southerners let you know it's coming and rarely leave you wondering where you stand.
I'm not really sure what the basis is for the belief that there is more racism in the south than in the rest of the country. I've only ever lived in the south, so I really can't make a thorough comparison, but I have known many people who have moved here the north or west who had racist tendencies, especially if they were from one of the larger cities where gang activity is a problem.
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 07, 2012, 07:56:32 PM
I'm not really sure what the basis is for the belief that there is more racism in the south than in the rest of the country. I've only ever lived in the south, so I really can't make a thorough comparison, but I have known many people who have moved here the north or west who had racist tendencies, especially if they were from one of the larger cities where gang activity is a problem.
Uh
dude.
I don't know what to say to this, except that it's good that at least you know that you don't know.
There is racism everywhere. The racism in the South is more open, as ECH stated, and the evidence is that it's also more widespread and more virulent. In the South you have shit like white high school kids lynching a black kid for sitting under the "white" tree, and racists firebombing black churches and Sunday schools. Any claims (typically from people whose skin color does not subject them to a direct view of racial prejudice) that racism is not a greater issue in the South need to be examined with a highly skeptical eye, because they directly contradict the experiences of black people from the South who have moved north, and of black people from the north who have traveled to the South.
I wonder, is anyone else getting a bit of a tickle out of the fact that people are getting pissed off in this thread because it can't be a black and white argument? :lol:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 07, 2012, 08:19:48 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 07, 2012, 07:56:32 PM
I'm not really sure what the basis is for the belief that there is more racism in the south than in the rest of the country. I've only ever lived in the south, so I really can't make a thorough comparison, but I have known many people who have moved here the north or west who had racist tendencies, especially if they were from one of the larger cities where gang activity is a problem.
Uh
dude.
I don't know what to say to this, except that it's good that at least you know that you don't know.
There is racism everywhere. The racism in the South is more open, as ECH stated, and the evidence is that it's also more widespread and more virulent. In the South you have shit like white high school kids lynching a black kid for sitting under the "white" tree, and racists firebombing black churches and Sunday schools. Any claims (typically from people whose skin color does not subject them to a direct view of racial prejudice) that racism is not a greater issue in the South need to be examined with a highly skeptical eye, because they directly contradict the experiences of black people from the South who have moved north, and of black people from the north who have traveled to the South.
I live in Tennessee, which is probably not as bad as, say, Alabama...
(http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/Jerry_Frankster/AlabamaRacistPreachers.jpg)
Where I work, we have showers so that Muslims can shower before they pray, and a prayer cubicle. I remember when I was a kid in a smaller town than the one I'm in now, a white woman with a black baby was something worth talking about. These days, not so much.
I remember somebody doing a study in the mid-90's on the Tennessee justice system that showed that blacks were being punished more severely in Tennessee courts than were whites for the same crimes. Not sure if anybody did anything about it.
But I can tell you, that I don't see any open racism here by whites against blacks. I'm sure it exists, but people don't walk around saying "Somebody should really do something about all these black people". They walk around saying "Somebody should really do something about all these Muslims". Which they will point out to you isn't racist... technically. There for a little while it was Mexicans, but then the 2000's happened. Basically Tennesseans seem to only be able fear/hate one group at a time, when a new threat is perceived, we team up with our former adversaries to defend the land against the latest "bad guy". It's kind of like professional wrestling, now that I think about it.
I have heard that there is an Aryan Nation compound somewhere out in the country, nearby here, but I have no confirmation on that. Unlike the local mosque, Aryan Nation compounds don't advertise in the yellow pages.
But yeah.. no. I really don't feel that I have enough points of reference to feel confident in my perception of the distribution of racism in my own community, much less the country as a whole.
Not to be a broken record, but it's usually the people who are being discriminated against who are in a position to see it. It is certainly better than it was in 1965, but racism is still pretty rampant, and the South is worse, overall, than most places in the North, for a number of historical reasons. There is no dearth of books and articles on this if you feel like researching it.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.
For the same reasons the guys who did this to Emmet Till weren't convicted.
(http://s3.timetoast.com/public/uploads/photos/1260539/emmitt_till.jpg?1291643527)
I had no idea you were like that. Pardon me while I go puke my lungs out. :x
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
Yeah. I didn't need this shit today either.
Innocent until proven guilty. Or is that only when you find it personally convenient?
On the racism thing, I don't have any experience or data regarding the US, but my general impression is that racism is rampant everywhere, and basically most people everywhere are racists, on some level. But there are cultural differences which make a huge difference – in more progressive/enlightened/anti-racist/?? cultures it's less acceptable to openly display racism, and thus far less likely for someone to be actively discriminated against due to everyone's racism. This doesn't mean the people are less racist, they're just more aware of the fact that that part of them is reprehensible and mustn't be shown. Even the most racism-aware and progressive groups in the most racism-aware countries are mostly composed of racists, there's just a group dynamic that keeps the racism in check. People who self-reflect and self-adjust well, especially in that kind of environment, can slowly work on actually eliminating their racist thoughts and perceptions, but I'm willing to guess that while that kind of person is a majority on this board, it's a tiny minority in the world and in any given region. Most people repress their racism without ever shedding much of it.
Because of all this, I don't think it makes any sense to speak of someone population being more or less racist on the individual level. It's more like there are more racism-friendly/unaware and racism-unfriendly/aware cultures.
Unlike ECH (and perhaps since I actually belong to an ethnic group that has been an oppressed minority for most of history) I'm pretty sure I prefer the latter kind of culture, where people don't feel it's okay to shit on me because I'm Jewish and I don't have to worry too much about being murdered for no reason. But then, I'm personally so paranoid and distrustful that I'll suspect a lot of people of hating me no matter what kind of culture I'm surrounded by, so it makes no difference if people secretly hate me. ymmv, and obviously being Jewish is not that similar to being Black anymore.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 01:21:54 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.
For the same reasons the guys who did this to Emmet Till weren't convicted.
(http://s3.timetoast.com/public/uploads/photos/1260539/emmitt_till.jpg?1291643527)
I had no idea you were like that. Pardon me while I go puke my lungs out. :x
That is a related but separate conversation. There IS rampant racism and violence and injustice in the South, but like with schoolyard bullying, we need the dialogue to go deeper than "the bullies are bad people" and open it up to "what are the formative forces behind the desire to bully?"
There can't and won't be resolution there until both sides of the dialogue are heard. They DON'T cancel each other out; we can, and must, acknowledge both for any real progress to be made.
Posting emotionally loaded images in order to shut down the conversation is not productive; it's the forum equivalent to waving a sign with a dead baby on it to shut down productive dialogue about abortion.
Quote from: VERBL on July 08, 2012, 01:46:37 PM
On the racism thing, I don't have any experience or data regarding the US, but my general impression is that racism is rampant everywhere, and basically most people everywhere are racists, on some level. But there are cultural differences which make a huge difference – in more progressive/enlightened/anti-racist/?? cultures it's less acceptable to openly display racism, and thus far less likely for someone to be actively discriminated against due to everyone's racism. This doesn't mean the people are less racist, they're just more aware of the fact that that part of them is reprehensible and mustn't be shown. Even the most racism-aware and progressive groups in the most racism-aware countries are mostly composed of racists, there's just a group dynamic that keeps the racism in check. People who self-reflect and self-adjust well, especially in that kind of environment, can slowly work on actually eliminating their racist thoughts and perceptions, but I'm willing to guess that while that kind of person is a majority on this board, it's a tiny minority in the world and in any given region. Most people repress their racism without ever shedding much of it.
Because of all this, I don't think it makes any sense to speak of someone population being more or less racist on the individual level. It's more like there are more racism-friendly/unaware and racism-unfriendly/aware cultures.
Unlike ECH (and perhaps since I actually belong to an ethnic group that has been an oppressed minority for most of history) I'm pretty sure I prefer the latter kind of culture, where people don't feel it's okay to shit on me because I'm Jewish and I don't have to worry too much about being murdered for no reason. But then, I'm personally so paranoid and distrustful that I'll suspect a lot of people of hating me no matter what kind of culture I'm surrounded by, so it makes no difference if people secretly hate me. ymmv, and obviously being Jewish is not that similar to being Black anymore.
I don't think you are understanding the dynamic in the South. It goes way beyond simple "everyone is racist to some degree" (which is nauseatingly facile when describing situations as complex as, say, the South or the dynamic between the Isrealis and Palestinians), to "we resent the shit out of these people in a way that is now ingrained into our culture".
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 08, 2012, 03:05:40 AM
Innocent until proven guilty. Or is that only when you find it personally convenient?
Racists are always ignorant. Why read up on institutionalized racism in the courts? Your little friends might think you're some kind of nigger-lover.
Fuck you.
Nigel's right about this conversation. If you can't have it without resorting to appeal to emotion, you should probably bow out of it. We all know how you (and presumably everybody else ITT) feel about racism. Shouting it loudly with an incendiary image and a "FUCK YOU" added in does nothing to advance the dialogue and get to the root of the issue. Especially since some of the people defending the right of the south to secede form the union have raised some incredibly interesting points. Points that remain valid even when applied in a context that makes you angry or uncomfortable.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 08, 2012, 05:28:02 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 01:21:54 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.
For the same reasons the guys who did this to Emmet Till weren't convicted.
(http://s3.timetoast.com/public/uploads/photos/1260539/emmitt_till.jpg?1291643527)
I had no idea you were like that. Pardon me while I go puke my lungs out. :x
That is a related but separate conversation. There IS rampant racism and violence and injustice in the South, but like with schoolyard bullying, we need the dialogue to go deeper than "the bullies are bad people" and open it up to "what are the formative forces behind the desire to bully?"
There can't and won't be resolution there until both sides of the dialogue are heard. They DON'T cancel each other out; we can, and must, acknowledge both for any real progress to be made.
Posting emotionally loaded images in order to shut down the conversation is not productive; it's the forum equivalent to waving a sign with a dead baby on it to shut down productive dialogue about abortion.
OK, point taken.
Let me try this again: I think the formative forces behind racial bullying are a manipulation. Letting poor ignorant southern whites think they're better than another group keeps them where the ruling class wants them.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 08, 2012, 05:49:50 PM
Nigel's right about this conversation. If you can't have it without resorting to appeal to emotion, you should probably bow out of it. We all know how you (and presumably everybody else ITT) feel about racism. Shouting it loudly with an incendiary image and a "FUCK YOU" added in does nothing to advance the dialogue and get to the root of the issue. Especially since some of the people defending the right of the south to secede form the union have raised some incredibly interesting points. Points that remain valid even when applied in a context that makes you angry or uncomfortable.
Secession might be a decent option if done for the right reasons. IOW, without the "south will rise again" crap.
I am surprised and disappointed by how much kneejerking has happened in this thread, by intelligent people I respect, at the mere hint that there might be anything valid in the Confederate perspective. It's dishearteningly similar to the dehumanizing reaction I've seen towards Iraqis. It's normal to dehumanize the enemy; this is the survival mechanism that allows us to feel good about letting our neighboring tribe's children starve to death during a famine because we stole all their food. But as rational people, we should be able to step back from that and have a conversation that takes the perspective of the conquered into consideration.
This is reminding me a lot of the reaction I got just a few years ago, when I was flat-out accused of antisemitism and called a Nazi because I dared suggest there might be some validity to the Palestinian resentment toward Israel.
I would suggest that if you are at the point of accusing people of being white supremacists and throwing out the term "nigger-lover" because they aren't spewing 100% condemnation for people who culturally identify with the Confederate south, that you might need to take a deep breath and a reality check on your own prejudices.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 05:51:25 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 08, 2012, 05:28:02 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 01:21:54 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 05, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
The Confederate flag also is not inherently synonymous with racism or slavery. It can also express a general distrust of authority, a willingness to rebel against what one sees as overbearing government, or a desire to decorate one's orange '69 Charger and escape the grasp of clumsy law enforcement.
Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.
For the same reasons the guys who did this to Emmet Till weren't convicted.
I had no idea you were like that. Pardon me while I go puke my lungs out. :x
That is a related but separate conversation. There IS rampant racism and violence and injustice in the South, but like with schoolyard bullying, we need the dialogue to go deeper than "the bullies are bad people" and open it up to "what are the formative forces behind the desire to bully?"
There can't and won't be resolution there until both sides of the dialogue are heard. They DON'T cancel each other out; we can, and must, acknowledge both for any real progress to be made.
Posting emotionally loaded images in order to shut down the conversation is not productive; it's the forum equivalent to waving a sign with a dead baby on it to shut down productive dialogue about abortion.
OK, point taken.
Let me try this again: I think the formative forces behind racial bullying are a manipulation. Letting poor ignorant southern whites think they're better than another group keeps them where the ruling class wants them.
That is a valid point. It's not a rebuttal to anything, but it is a valid element of the dynamic.
I'd also like to point out that the us/them dichotomy is also a manipulative trap, and you're falling into it right there when you say "poor ignorant southern whites".
The whole situation is really complex, and obviously a lot of people feel really threatened by it, which drives us to try to find simplistic ways to pigeonhole the issue and everyone involved in it into some simple, tidy package. It's not simple, and it's not tidy.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 08, 2012, 06:09:53 PM
I'd also like to point out that the us/them dichotomy is also a manipulative trap, and you're falling into it right there when you say "poor ignorant southern whites".
The whole situation is really complex, and obviously a lot of people feel really threatened by it, which drives us to try to find simplistic ways to pigeonhole the issue and everyone involved in it into some simple, tidy package. It's not simple, and it's not tidy.
OK. Admittedly there are a lot of racists who are not poor, or southern.
Racism is willed ignorance, though.
I think it started as a way to manipulate the lower classes. Let the white sharecroppers think they're better, etc. It's a method of exploitation.
It spread and metasticized, so now we have people like Newt Gingrich. :x
But my point in the beginning was that a lot of klan members weren't convicted because of institutionalized racism. A lot of judges were klan affiliated. We're talking about an era when Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.
There are also alot of poor southerners who aren't racist, which is an important point.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 06:32:00 PM
But my point in the beginning was that a lot of klan members weren't convicted because of institutionalized racism. A lot of judges were klan affiliated. We're talking about an era when Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.
And that's one of the reasons for this discussion. We're interested in the historical and cultural context that lead to racism being so culturally and legally entrenched in the Confederate South, and whether or not things would have been different (or even better) if the south hadn't been subjected to both military conquest and the subsequent cultural and financial domination at the hands of the conquerors.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 08, 2012, 06:32:40 PM
There are also alot of poor southerners who aren't racist, which is an important point.
*raises hand*
Though Texas isn't 100% "the south".
I think a lot of our pols think it's still a "sovereign republic". :lol:
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 08, 2012, 06:35:21 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 06:32:00 PM
But my point in the beginning was that a lot of klan members weren't convicted because of institutionalized racism. A lot of judges were klan affiliated. We're talking about an era when Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.
And that's one of the reasons for this discussion. We're interested in the historical and cultural context that lead to racism being so culturally and legally entrenched in the Confederate South, and whether or not things would have been different (or even better) if the south hadn't been subjected to both military conquest and the subsequent cultural and financial domination at the hands of the conquerors.
True. The south was forced.
And when you force things on people, the usual response is "Hey, fuck you!"
The thing is, the aristocracy owned slaves. A lot of people didn't want to fight for that, any more than they want to fight oil wars now. I've read stories about people in Appalachia who ran off to fight for the Union because they didn't want to be conscripted into fighting for rich peoples' right to own slaves. And not everybody in the north was an abolitionist. Boston had draft riots.
I'm not sure how it went from that to what it became later, but I think you're right that cultural and financial domination had a lot to do with it.
This is interesting, if Lincoln hadn't been shot, things might have taken a different track.
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/reconstruction/section1.html
But I've seen a lot of conflicting information about what the "ten percent plan" actually WAS. Some sources say it would have allowed slavery again.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 06:26:58 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 08, 2012, 06:09:53 PM
I'd also like to point out that the us/them dichotomy is also a manipulative trap, and you're falling into it right there when you say "poor ignorant southern whites".
The whole situation is really complex, and obviously a lot of people feel really threatened by it, which drives us to try to find simplistic ways to pigeonhole the issue and everyone involved in it into some simple, tidy package. It's not simple, and it's not tidy.
OK. Admittedly there are a lot of racists who are not poor, or southern.
Racism is willed ignorance, though.
I think it started as a way to manipulate the lower classes. Let the white sharecroppers think they're better, etc. It's a method of exploitation.
It spread and metasticized, so now we have people like Newt Gingrich. :x
At the time of emancipation, just about all whites, everywhere, knew absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that they were better than blacks. It wasn't even a question for most white people, and the rare few who did question it were outliers.
The manipulation that happened in the South had almost nothing to do with letting poor white people think they were "better", and everything to do with presenting the threat of abolition as a core economic issue in the power struggle between the Union and the South. It was the "They'll take our jerbs!" of the day, and it worked very well in galvanizing the population to fight a war for an independence that was, supposedly, going to preserve their economy and their way of life, which were already under pressure by the looming shifts brought by industrialization. The North also had economic incentives, as slavery is a very poor choice in an industrial setting as opposed to an agricultural setting, where you can have the slaves farm their own food and build their own shelters. In this shifting economic environment, it made perfect sense to make the abolition of slavery into a public moral talking point, in order to shift the sentiment of the northern whites toward hatred and distain for those bad people in the South. After abolition, many freedmen, suddenly homeless and without work in the economic aftermath of the war, poured Northward to work in factories and coalmines under atrocious and dangerous conditions, for little pay, and without any investment whatsoever to protect, the kings of industry treated them as completely disposable. Let's not harbor any illusions; blacks were not treated much better in the North, by any stretch of the imagination, but they did at least have some protection from violence under the law, as rarely as it was enforced.
Meanwhile, in the South, it was exactly as they had feared; the North had come in and imposed its will, their way of life was ripped apart, and their economy was destroyed. They had been headed towards a major shift anyway, but that was invisible to them. The freed blacks became symbolic of the upheaval, subjugation, and poverty experienced by the white Southerners, who were now a conquered people.
That is the element that has translated to a culturally ingrained resentment. f you have ever wondered about the origins of "I might be poor, but at least I ain't a nigger",
that is what it arose from. Meanwhile, the entire rest of the nation despised and looked down on them.
It may be repugnant, but in order to make any progress, we HAVE to examine and acknowledge both sides of the story. Healing a society isn't that different from healing an individual; a guy who beats his kid might go into therapy and discover that it comes from being beaten as a kid, and he has to acknowledge, validate and forgive the beaten kid he used to be in order to grow and heal.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 08, 2012, 05:33:24 PM
I don't think you are understanding the dynamic in the South. It goes way beyond simple "everyone is racist to some degree" (which is nauseatingly facile when describing situations as complex as, say, the South or the dynamic between the Isrealis and Palestinians), to "we resent the shit out of these people in a way that is now ingrained into our culture".
I should clarify: most people seem to me
cognitively racist, i.e. thinking in racist categories and assigning attributes to groups the way racists do. Obviously the specific categories and attributes are very different from one culture to another; it's the basic pattern of thinking that I see everywhere, and different patterns of its expression.
I might still be missing something major here but it sounds to me like that situation isn't all that different from the dynamics I'm more familiar with (latent taboo racism in Germany and the more overt socially-acceptable racism in Israel). Please elaborate if I'm still not getting you.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 08, 2012, 07:05:15 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 06:26:58 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 08, 2012, 06:09:53 PM
I'd also like to point out that the us/them dichotomy is also a manipulative trap, and you're falling into it right there when you say "poor ignorant southern whites".
The whole situation is really complex, and obviously a lot of people feel really threatened by it, which drives us to try to find simplistic ways to pigeonhole the issue and everyone involved in it into some simple, tidy package. It's not simple, and it's not tidy.
OK. Admittedly there are a lot of racists who are not poor, or southern.
Racism is willed ignorance, though.
I think it started as a way to manipulate the lower classes. Let the white sharecroppers think they're better, etc. It's a method of exploitation.
It spread and metasticized, so now we have people like Newt Gingrich. :x
At the time of emancipation, just about all whites, everywhere, knew absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that they were better than blacks. It wasn't even a question for most white people, and the rare few who did question it were outliers.
The manipulation that happened in the South had almost nothing to do with letting poor white people think they were "better", and everything to do with presenting the threat of abolition as a core economic issue in the power struggle between the Union and the South. It was the "They'll take our jerbs!" of the day, and it worked very well in galvanizing the population to fight a war for an independence that was, supposedly, going to preserve their economy and their way of life, which were already under pressure by the looming shifts brought by industrialization. The North also had economic incentives, as slavery is a very poor choice in an industrial setting as opposed to an agricultural setting, where you can have the slaves farm their own food and build their own shelters. In this shifting economic environment, it made perfect sense to make the abolition of slavery into a public moral talking point, in order to shift the sentiment of the northern whites toward hatred and distain for those bad people in the South. After abolition, many freedmen, suddenly homeless and without work in the economic aftermath of the war, poured Northward to work in factories and coalmines under atrocious and dangerous conditions, for little pay, and without any investment whatsoever to protect, the kings of industry treated them as completely disposable. Let's not harbor any illusions; blacks were not treated much better in the North, by any stretch of the imagination, but they did at least have some protection from violence under the law, as rarely as it was enforced.
Meanwhile, in the South, it was exactly as they had feared; the North had come in and imposed its will, their way of life was ripped apart, and their economy was destroyed. They had been headed towards a major shift anyway, but that was invisible to them. The freed blacks became symbolic of the upheaval, subjugation, and poverty experienced by the white Southerners, who were now a conquered people. That is the element that has translated to a culturally ingrained resentment. f you have ever wondered about the origins of "I might be poor, but at least I ain't a nigger", that is what it arose from. Meanwhile, the entire rest of the nation despised and looked down on them.
It may be repugnant, but in order to make any progress, we HAVE to examine and acknowledge both sides of the story. Healing a society isn't that different from healing an individual; a guy who beats his kid might go into therapy and discover that it comes from being beaten as a kid, and he has to acknowledge, validate and forgive the beaten kid he used to be in order to grow and heal.
Yes, but how did it
start? What in the blue fuck gave so-called functional people - thousands of them - the common idea that Africans were draft animals and Native Americans were wild animals? Calvinism???
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 08:51:24 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 08, 2012, 07:05:15 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 06:26:58 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 08, 2012, 06:09:53 PM
I'd also like to point out that the us/them dichotomy is also a manipulative trap, and you're falling into it right there when you say "poor ignorant southern whites".
The whole situation is really complex, and obviously a lot of people feel really threatened by it, which drives us to try to find simplistic ways to pigeonhole the issue and everyone involved in it into some simple, tidy package. It's not simple, and it's not tidy.
OK. Admittedly there are a lot of racists who are not poor, or southern.
Racism is willed ignorance, though.
I think it started as a way to manipulate the lower classes. Let the white sharecroppers think they're better, etc. It's a method of exploitation.
It spread and metasticized, so now we have people like Newt Gingrich. :x
At the time of emancipation, just about all whites, everywhere, knew absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that they were better than blacks. It wasn't even a question for most white people, and the rare few who did question it were outliers.
The manipulation that happened in the South had almost nothing to do with letting poor white people think they were "better", and everything to do with presenting the threat of abolition as a core economic issue in the power struggle between the Union and the South. It was the "They'll take our jerbs!" of the day, and it worked very well in galvanizing the population to fight a war for an independence that was, supposedly, going to preserve their economy and their way of life, which were already under pressure by the looming shifts brought by industrialization. The North also had economic incentives, as slavery is a very poor choice in an industrial setting as opposed to an agricultural setting, where you can have the slaves farm their own food and build their own shelters. In this shifting economic environment, it made perfect sense to make the abolition of slavery into a public moral talking point, in order to shift the sentiment of the northern whites toward hatred and distain for those bad people in the South. After abolition, many freedmen, suddenly homeless and without work in the economic aftermath of the war, poured Northward to work in factories and coalmines under atrocious and dangerous conditions, for little pay, and without any investment whatsoever to protect, the kings of industry treated them as completely disposable. Let's not harbor any illusions; blacks were not treated much better in the North, by any stretch of the imagination, but they did at least have some protection from violence under the law, as rarely as it was enforced.
Meanwhile, in the South, it was exactly as they had feared; the North had come in and imposed its will, their way of life was ripped apart, and their economy was destroyed. They had been headed towards a major shift anyway, but that was invisible to them. The freed blacks became symbolic of the upheaval, subjugation, and poverty experienced by the white Southerners, who were now a conquered people. That is the element that has translated to a culturally ingrained resentment. f you have ever wondered about the origins of "I might be poor, but at least I ain't a nigger", that is what it arose from. Meanwhile, the entire rest of the nation despised and looked down on them.
It may be repugnant, but in order to make any progress, we HAVE to examine and acknowledge both sides of the story. Healing a society isn't that different from healing an individual; a guy who beats his kid might go into therapy and discover that it comes from being beaten as a kid, and he has to acknowledge, validate and forgive the beaten kid he used to be in order to grow and heal.
Yes, but how did it start? What in the blue fuck gave so-called functional people - thousands of them - the common idea that Africans were draft animals and Native Americans were wild animals? Calvinism???
People have been enslaving each other since prehistory... the fact that we now live in an era relatively free from open slavery (underground slavery still exists) is pretty unique, as far as human civilizations go. Linking slavery to race is a relatively new practice, but in a land made up primarily of immigrants it probably seemed like a pretty surefire way to identify people who were "other" and therefore acceptable to enslave. In the early United States, white slavery was very common.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 08:51:24 PM
Yes, but how did it start? What in the blue fuck gave so-called functional people - thousands of them - the common idea that Africans were draft animals and Native Americans were wild animals? Calvinism???
It was, at the time, a commonly held Christian doctrine that Blacks and Arabs were all the descendents of Ham, Noah's dishonored son who received a "curse" from God and sentenced to forever be a servant. This is the "Hamitic Myth," which was used as justification for race-based slavery. Prior to the Transatlantic African slave trade, slavery was usually not based on skin color, and it's debatable if the concept of "race" even existed, at least as concretely as it does today.
Thanks, Nigel.
I had some vague memory of white people agreeing to be owned for a few years in exchange for passage, but I wanted to verify and found this http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-forgotten-white-slaves-part-ii-nehesy/
Don't know how reputable the info is, but it's got a longish list, including:
- The kidnapped people of London, Bristol and Liverpool (Men, Women, Children); It was a Royal policy : POOR RELIEF
With that kind of thing going on, it's not hard to picture people saying "STFU, it's not us anymore" when a lot of planters started switching over to Africans. Wrong as fuck, but I can see it.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 06:32:00 PM
But my point in the beginning was that a lot of klan members weren't convicted because of institutionalized racism. A lot of judges were klan affiliated. We're talking about an era when Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.
I BELIEVE
there are three separate and distinctive historical eras of the kkk. That which developed around the period of the civil war was inherently different in it's nature and purpose than the present day kkk, which would be connected to the time of Kennedy. I feel that here is perhaps a point of misinterpreting what golden applesauce was saying in regards to the kkk earlier, which i have to assume was a comment about the original kkk.
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 08, 2012, 11:59:41 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 06:32:00 PM
But my point in the beginning was that a lot of klan members weren't convicted because of institutionalized racism. A lot of judges were klan affiliated. We're talking about an era when Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.
I BELIEVE
there are three separate and distinctive historical eras of the kkk. That which developed around the period of the civil war was inherently different in it's nature and purpose than the present day kkk, which would be connected to the time of Kennedy. I feel that here is perhaps a point of misinterpreting what golden applesauce was saying in regards to the kkk earlier, which i have to assume was a comment about the original kkk.
Uhhh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK
"The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army...Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans."Second KKK:
"Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism. Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants. Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.
..."At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930"Weren't lynchings pretty common in the 20's and 30's?
Third KKK:
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama. Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham."
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 08, 2012, 11:59:41 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 06:32:00 PM
But my point in the beginning was that a lot of klan members weren't convicted because of institutionalized racism. A lot of judges were klan affiliated. We're talking about an era when Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.
I BELIEVE
there are three separate and distinctive historical eras of the kkk. That which developed around the period of the civil war was inherently different in it's nature and purpose than the present day kkk, which would be connected to the time of Kennedy. I feel that here is perhaps a point of misinterpreting what golden applesauce was saying in regards to the kkk earlier, which i have to assume was a comment about the original kkk.
Uhhh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK
"The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army...Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans."
Second KKK:
"Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism. Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants. Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.
..."At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930"
Weren't lynchings pretty common in the 20's and 30's?
Third KKK:
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama. Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham."
LISTEN TEXAS FAIRy
although wiki is the undisputed authority of all information, i'm not seeking to create a splinter thread here. however, please have patience and give me a bit of time to respond to this. The very first kkk i know to have actually had "black"/ african "american" chapters and the creation of which, had a markedly different purpose and function than the two later incarnations.
PLEASE,
understand that i'm making this point purely because i believe this issue actually is that complex and more than worth our attention. i am not from the south nor am i a christian, i do not identify with the viewpoints of the kkk.
MOST PROBABLY,
if i were to be instantly transported to your location in texas or anywhere in the south, my life expectancy would be about five minutes before a bunch of guys in a truck showed up to eliminate my ass.
My understanding is that the original KKK did indeed start as a social club, but the masks and costumes provided an anonymity that quickly attracted angry and disaffected people seeking an opportunity to intimidate and vandalize people they did not care for, which included Freedmen, Republicans, and carpetbaggers.
QuoteThe Klan's first incarnation began in late 1865 or early 1866 in Pulaski, Tennessee. It was founded as a local social club, but quickly its main purpose became to resist Reconstruction after the American Civil War. It focused on intimidating Freedmen using terror and violence, and was involved in a wave of killings of Republican voters in 1868. A rapid reaction set in, with the Klan's leadership disowning the violence, and Southern elites blaming the Klan as an excuse for Federal troops to continue their activities in the South. The organization was in decline from 1868 to 1870, and was destroyed in the early 1870s by President Ulysses S. Grant's vigorous action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act). The first Klan was never well organized. As a secret or "invisible" group, it had no membership rosters, no dues, no newspapers, no spokesmen, no chapters, no local officers, no state or national officials. Its popularity came from its reputation, and that was greatly enhanced by its outlandish costumes and its theatricality. As historian Elaine Frantz Parsons discovered [Parsons p 816]:
"Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen."
http://www.johnnyleeclary.com/files/page.php?p=21
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 09, 2012, 01:31:23 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 08, 2012, 11:59:41 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 08, 2012, 06:32:00 PM
But my point in the beginning was that a lot of klan members weren't convicted because of institutionalized racism. A lot of judges were klan affiliated. We're talking about an era when Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.
I BELIEVE
there are three separate and distinctive historical eras of the kkk. That which developed around the period of the civil war was inherently different in it's nature and purpose than the present day kkk, which would be connected to the time of Kennedy. I feel that here is perhaps a point of misinterpreting what golden applesauce was saying in regards to the kkk earlier, which i have to assume was a comment about the original kkk.
Uhhh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK
"The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army...Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans."
Second KKK:
"Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism. Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants. Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.
..."At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930"
Weren't lynchings pretty common in the 20's and 30's?
Third KKK:
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama. Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham."
LISTEN TEXAS FAIRy
although wiki is the undisputed authority of all information,
:lol:
Hey, they're a lot better vetted than they were a few years ago when we were calling them "wackypedia".
Quote
i'm not seeking to create a splinter thread here. however, please have patience and give me a bit of time to respond to this. The very first kkk i know to have actually had "black"/ african "american" chapters and the creation of which, had a markedly different purpose and function than the two later incarnations.
I'd be interested in seeing something about that.
I think Nigel has a point, though. That couldn't have lasted long. :x
Quote
PLEASE,
understand that i'm making this point purely because i believe this issue actually is that complex and more than worth our attention. i am not from the south nor am i a christian, i do not identify with the viewpoints of the kkk.
Dude, I know. I've been reading you here for awhile, you're ok. :)
Quote
MOST PROBABLY,
if i were to be instantly transported to your location in texas or anywhere in the south, my life expectancy would be about five minutes before a bunch of guys in a truck showed up to eliminate my ass.
You have to tell them you're FBI like TGRR did. :lulz:
DEAR TEXAS FAIRy
in regards to the original klan (kkk) having not lasted long, you are correct. it was officially/ voluntarily disbanded just a few years after it's creation. There are absolutely books on the black klan chapters available.
SIMILAR
to the worthlessness of the contemporary or "king james' bible, being a text altered over time to reflect contemporary viewpoints or even, political objectives, it's not a mistake that accurate historical perspectives are difficult to dig up. For instance, I'm not at home to dig through my personal library, but following just a few links that were not either wiki, the southern poverty law center or the adl, the two "kkk" sites i visited looking for a history of the klan, in my opinion were totally not, not, not real klan sites because the wording was just too trigger happy and not believable.
THAT SAID,
something what may help move things along could be perhaps vex and golden applesauce helping us out with some sources for what early southern reactions were in this period & also accounts of black n white relations prior to the civil war. ?
SO FAR AS
slavery is concerned. since the many individuals who chose indentured servitude as their ticket to america is concerned (due to the cost of simply getting to the "new world") were accounted for as actual passangers on a ship, not as cargo, we have no real numbers to represent, what is believed to be a great amount, of white slaves in the u.s. africans were actually purchased as part of an existing slave trade in africa. quite unlike the made for t.v. version. thusly, there are records of how many purchased from where and where they went to.
IN REGARDS TO
your earlier inquiry as to "how can it happen?!" that seemingly/ assumedly rational people can view others as livestock, that's a great fucking question. but apparently we humans are big fans of it. similarly, i voiced to nigel the other day that i can't wrap my head around the fact that a bunch of extremely xenophobic people would even want something as alien to them as black africans, anywhere in their culture, even as slaves. but then we, as soldiers, can burn a barn full of women and children. why? how?
I FEEL
that what vex and ga are getting at, is that over time, where european americans and african slaves had coexisted, the nature of their relationships began to change, to become something more approaching a real understanding of one another, with slavery already on its way out the (side) door, but the politics of the civil war borked all that, and twisted it. i hope i'm not digressing or derailing this too much.
In a lesser, but equally vicious and entrenched way, this reminds me of Southie (South Boston) culture, and the whole Boston busing riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_busing_crisis) in the 70s. There is still open racism and hostility to other cultures in some parts of Southie, unrepentant. It seems to linger due to self-imposed social isolation, primate territorialism, economic disadvantages, and resentment towards an authority forcing their actions.
In an even quiter form of semi-conscious racism, The Red Sox didn't integrate until 1962 (twenty years after Jackie Robinson).
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 09, 2012, 02:18:27 PM
In a lesser, but equally vicious and entrenched way, this reminds me of Southie (South Boston) culture, and the whole Boston busing riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_busing_crisis) in the 70s. There is still open racism and hostility to other cultures in some parts of Southie, unrepentant. It seems to linger due to self-imposed social isolation, primate territorialism, economic disadvantages, and resentment towards an authority forcing their actions.
In an even quiter form of semi-conscious racism, The Red Sox didn't integrate until 1962 (twenty years after Jackie Robinson).
Yes, the racism up there surprised me. I used to have this naive idea that I wouldn't see much racism once I got out of the region where you open the "weddings" section of the paper and see guys in cowboy hats.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 05:17:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 09, 2012, 02:18:27 PM
In a lesser, but equally vicious and entrenched way, this reminds me of Southie (South Boston) culture, and the whole Boston busing riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_busing_crisis) in the 70s. There is still open racism and hostility to other cultures in some parts of Southie, unrepentant. It seems to linger due to self-imposed social isolation, primate territorialism, economic disadvantages, and resentment towards an authority forcing their actions.
In an even quiter form of semi-conscious racism, The Red Sox didn't integrate until 1962 (twenty years after Jackie Robinson).
Yes, the racism up there surprised me. I used to have this naive idea that I wouldn't see much racism once I got out of the region where you open the "weddings" section of the paper and see guys in cowboy hats.
It's unfortunate, but true. Racism in the South is more institutional but no more prevalent than racism in the North or the West. This is why it's silly that so many people assume the South is somehow unique in its racism, or that Southerners are all ignorant and/or stupid because they live in a place where racism prevails. Considering the history of the South you'd think they would be applauded for the progress that's been made there in the last century. How fast could New York go from its current culture to one of equality between people and horses? It seems ridiculous and offensive to say that, but that is
literally how blacks were viewed in the South 150 years ago.
I wouldn't say "equality", there's a lot of selective enforcement that goes on. But it happens up north, too. I remember a lot of Black people getting pulled over for driving through Marblehead, Mass. It happened enough to make the news.
That kind of thing happens here, too, and usually doesn't get picked up by the news. It's a culture of "STFU if you know what's good for you".
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 08, 2012, 03:05:40 AM
Innocent until proven guilty. Or is that only when you find it personally convenient?
All White Juries.
:dream:
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
Thank you, you nailed it.
Yes, they're human, but the way to look at it IS as an infectious meme, not "Oh the klan wasn't so bad".
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 07, 2012, 12:31:49 AM
There's a lot of pride involved in remembering the war.
Why?
1. It was an ignoble cause.
2. The South lost.
3. Heroism means jack shit when you're fighting for bad guys.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 06:05:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
Thank you, you nailed it.
Yes, they're human, but the way to look at it IS as an infectious meme, not "Oh the klan wasn't so bad".
But nobody said the Klan wasn't bad. And nobody said slavery was good. And nobody said blacks were anything like respected or equal in the South. And nobody said the justice system wasn't horribly corrupt to the point of practically enouraging murder (except GA maybe, depending on whether he's trolling or not, which I can't seem to tell). All that's been said here boils down to the following few statements:
- Despite the morally ruinous foundations of the Confederacy, the South should have had every
legal right to secede, and the Civil War really was a "War of Northern Aggression," in that the justification on the North's side had nothing to do with slavery or equality and everything to do with power and greed, as usual.
- The Civil War exacerbated the race problem in the South. Whereas blacks were considered subhuman before the war, after the war they were considered both subhuman
and representative of a mortal wound to the South. As a result the cultural changes that have opened the South and dissolved (some of the) racism there have been harder to fight than they otherwise would have been.
Nobody here is condoning slavery or racism. So let's leave out the knee-jerk reactions and the "you disagree with Commonly Held Conception X; therefore you are by definition a proponent of the opposite of Commonly Held Conception X." In reality the common perception of the South is a caricature, grounded in and propagated by the same kind of ignorance and Us vs. Them bullshit that allows racism to thrive.
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 06:18:26 PM
But nobody said the Klan wasn't bad. And nobody said slavery was good. And nobody said blacks were anything like respected or equal in the South. And nobody said the justice system wasn't horribly corrupt to the point of practically enouraging murder (except GA maybe, depending on whether he's trolling or not, which I can't seem to tell). All that's been said here boils down to the following few statements:
- Despite the morally ruinous foundations of the Confederacy, the South should have had every legal right to secede, and the Civil War really was a "War of Northern Aggression," in that the justification on the North's side had nothing to do with slavery or equality and everything to do with power and greed, as usual.
- The Civil War exacerbated the race problem in the South. Whereas blacks were considered subhuman before the war, after the war they were considered both subhuman and representative of a mortal wound to the South. As a result the cultural changes that have opened the South and dissolved (some of the) racism there have been harder to fight than they otherwise would have been.
Nobody here is condoning slavery or racism. So let's leave out the knee-jerk reactions and the "you disagree with Commonly Held Conception X; therefore you are by definition a proponent of the opposite of Commonly Held Conception X." In reality the common perception of the South is a caricature, grounded in and propagated by the same kind of ignorance and Us vs. Them bullshit that allows racism to thrive.
I wasn't talking about the discussion here. I was referring to the recurring meme that I have seen every time I have been to the Southeast.
v3x, I find myself disagreeing with your second point. Is there a way to demonstrate that institutionalized racism and slavery can be overcome without external coersion?
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 06:18:26 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 06:05:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
Thank you, you nailed it.
Yes, they're human, but the way to look at it IS as an infectious meme, not "Oh the klan wasn't so bad".
But nobody said the Klan wasn't bad.
Somebody did.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:19:56 AM
Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:23:01 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 06:18:26 PM
But nobody said the Klan wasn't bad. And nobody said slavery was good. And nobody said blacks were anything like respected or equal in the South. And nobody said the justice system wasn't horribly corrupt to the point of practically enouraging murder (except GA maybe, depending on whether he's trolling or not, which I can't seem to tell). All that's been said here boils down to the following few statements:
- Despite the morally ruinous foundations of the Confederacy, the South should have had every legal right to secede, and the Civil War really was a "War of Northern Aggression," in that the justification on the North's side had nothing to do with slavery or equality and everything to do with power and greed, as usual.
- The Civil War exacerbated the race problem in the South. Whereas blacks were considered subhuman before the war, after the war they were considered both subhuman and representative of a mortal wound to the South. As a result the cultural changes that have opened the South and dissolved (some of the) racism there have been harder to fight than they otherwise would have been.
Nobody here is condoning slavery or racism. So let's leave out the knee-jerk reactions and the "you disagree with Commonly Held Conception X; therefore you are by definition a proponent of the opposite of Commonly Held Conception X." In reality the common perception of the South is a caricature, grounded in and propagated by the same kind of ignorance and Us vs. Them bullshit that allows racism to thrive.
I wasn't talking about the discussion here. I was referring to the recurring meme that I have seen every time I have been to the Southeast.
I've only been once that I can recall with any clarity. My dad's aunt and uncle lived there, and that old lady spent an entire 2 days cooking and baking for us ahead of our arrival. When we arrived, there was more food than I've ever seen in a single kitchen, and it was all
very very good. Fried chicken, apple pie, peach cobbler, dumplings. Etc. Etc. Etc. I remember that food, and I remember my great-uncle's hands being hardly more than knots of arthritis caused by handling radioactive material at one of the Manhattan Project's secret bases in Tennessee in the 30s and 40s.
Everyone I met in the South was nice. But then, my family is white, and I can admit I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about when it comes to Southern racism -- nor can I, except to say I know it's there and I deplore it. As for whether they're stupid or not... who isn't?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 09, 2012, 06:26:58 PM
v3x, I find myself disagreeing with your second point. Is there a way to demonstrate that institutionalized racism and slavery can be overcome without external coersion?
External coersion doesn't necessarily mean "war." It's the war that I object to, not outside pressure of any sort. It didn't take anyone invading the North to eliminate slavery there. It didn't take an invasion to eliminate slavery in Brazil, or the rest of the New World. As far as institutionalized racism -- that's the problem. External coersion
increased that, it didn't eliminate it. If invasion and occupation is any kind of solution to institutionalized racism, why did Jim Crow happen at all?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
That's been my personal experience everywhere in America. And I honestly haven't noticed it being any worse in the South than, say, Utah or Oregon or Michigan or Maine.
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 06:35:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:23:01 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 06:18:26 PM
But nobody said the Klan wasn't bad. And nobody said slavery was good. And nobody said blacks were anything like respected or equal in the South. And nobody said the justice system wasn't horribly corrupt to the point of practically enouraging murder (except GA maybe, depending on whether he's trolling or not, which I can't seem to tell). All that's been said here boils down to the following few statements:
- Despite the morally ruinous foundations of the Confederacy, the South should have had every legal right to secede, and the Civil War really was a "War of Northern Aggression," in that the justification on the North's side had nothing to do with slavery or equality and everything to do with power and greed, as usual.
- The Civil War exacerbated the race problem in the South. Whereas blacks were considered subhuman before the war, after the war they were considered both subhuman and representative of a mortal wound to the South. As a result the cultural changes that have opened the South and dissolved (some of the) racism there have been harder to fight than they otherwise would have been.
Nobody here is condoning slavery or racism. So let's leave out the knee-jerk reactions and the "you disagree with Commonly Held Conception X; therefore you are by definition a proponent of the opposite of Commonly Held Conception X." In reality the common perception of the South is a caricature, grounded in and propagated by the same kind of ignorance and Us vs. Them bullshit that allows racism to thrive.
I wasn't talking about the discussion here. I was referring to the recurring meme that I have seen every time I have been to the Southeast.
I've only been once that I can recall with any clarity. My dad's aunt and uncle lived there, and that old lady spent an entire 2 days cooking and baking for us ahead of our arrival. When we arrived, there was more food than I've ever seen in a single kitchen, and it was all very very good. Fried chicken, apple pie, peach cobbler, dumplings. Etc. Etc. Etc. I remember that food, and I remember my great-uncle's hands being hardly more than knots of arthritis caused by handling radioactive material at one of the Manhattan Project's secret bases in Tennessee in the 30s and 40s.
Everyone I met in the South was nice. But then, my family is white, and I can admit I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about when it comes to Southern racism -- nor can I, except to say I know it's there and I deplore it. As for whether they're stupid or not... who isn't?
Since we're doing anecdotal evidence, once a seismograph crew from Kentucky stayed in my home town for awhile.
They were always blowing money and throwing parties and we used to go hang around with them a lot. They'd feed everybody, get everybody drunk, high, whatever they wanted, no problem.
One day they quit talking to me. At all. It was like they'd collectively decided I was a baby raper or something.
I got one of my friends to ask what it was about. She came back and told me I'd been seen "with a car full of n-s".
Fuck 'em.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 06:39:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
That's been my personal experience everywhere in America. And I honestly haven't noticed it being any worse in the South than, say, Utah or Oregon or Michigan or Maine.
Texas is bad. But I've never had Texas people TOTALLY FREEZE ME OUT because I gave some Black friends a ride someplace.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 06:35:31 PM
I've only been once that I can recall with any clarity. My dad's aunt and uncle lived there, and that old lady spent an entire 2 days cooking and baking for us ahead of our arrival. When we arrived, there was more food than I've ever seen in a single kitchen, and it was all very very good. Fried chicken, apple pie, peach cobbler, dumplings. Etc. Etc. Etc. I remember that food, and I remember my great-uncle's hands being hardly more than knots of arthritis caused by handling radioactive material at one of the Manhattan Project's secret bases in Tennessee in the 30s and 40s.
Everyone I met in the South was nice. But then, my family is white, and I can admit I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about when it comes to Southern racism -- nor can I, except to say I know it's there and I deplore it. As for whether they're stupid or not... who isn't?
Since we're doing anecdotal evidence, once a seismograph crew from Kentucky stayed in my home town for awhile.
They were always blowing money and throwing parties and we used to go hang around with them a lot. They'd feed everybody, get everybody drunk, high, whatever they wanted, no problem.
One day they quit talking to me. At all. It was like they'd collectively decided I was a baby raper or something.
I got one of my friends to ask what it was about. She came back and told me I'd been seen "with a car full of n-s".
Fuck 'em.
You don't like to read thoroughly, do you.
The Southeastern Meme:
1. "America is for 'real Americans'". The definition of "real Americans" varies to a degree, but it typically means American born people with conservative Christian & jingoistic views. Blacks and Hispanics may be excluded regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
2. "Nuke the bastards." The identity of the bastards may change from time to time, and "nuke" may be substituted with "invade", "bomb", or "starve 'em out". Just because.
3. "Women are only good for fucking and fucking up." This is a fairly rare component of the meme, usually found in the Appalachias and Texas. In other areas, it may simply be "women have their place; they should stay in it".
4. "Support the Troops." Nobody knows what the fuck this means. It seems to have something to do with supporting wars regardless of motive and regardless of cost in cash or human lives.
5. "Education < a punch in the face." If you feel intimidated intellectually, beat the fucker up.
6. "NASCAR = Patriotism". No shit.
7. "The South shall rise again." (Lost Cause) IE, we were right to fight, and one day we'll do it again.
8. "There's a difference between Black people and niggers". Nuff said.
9. "Any White woman who sleeps with or even associates with non-Whites is 'tainted'." This is pretty much EVERYWHERE.
10. "This is a Christian nation, so faggots should die."
There's probably some that I've forgotten, but those are the major points.
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 06:46:34 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 06:35:31 PM
I've only been once that I can recall with any clarity. My dad's aunt and uncle lived there, and that old lady spent an entire 2 days cooking and baking for us ahead of our arrival. When we arrived, there was more food than I've ever seen in a single kitchen, and it was all very very good. Fried chicken, apple pie, peach cobbler, dumplings. Etc. Etc. Etc. I remember that food, and I remember my great-uncle's hands being hardly more than knots of arthritis caused by handling radioactive material at one of the Manhattan Project's secret bases in Tennessee in the 30s and 40s.
Everyone I met in the South was nice. But then, my family is white, and I can admit I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about when it comes to Southern racism -- nor can I, except to say I know it's there and I deplore it. As for whether they're stupid or not... who isn't?
Since we're doing anecdotal evidence, once a seismograph crew from Kentucky stayed in my home town for awhile.
They were always blowing money and throwing parties and we used to go hang around with them a lot. They'd feed everybody, get everybody drunk, high, whatever they wanted, no problem.
One day they quit talking to me. At all. It was like they'd collectively decided I was a baby raper or something.
I got one of my friends to ask what it was about. She came back and told me I'd been seen "with a car full of n-s".
Fuck 'em.
You don't like to read thoroughly, do you.
I read it. I was giving you a possible outcome if you're seen "fraternizing".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
The Southeastern Meme:
1. "America is for 'real Americans'". The definition of "real Americans" varies to a degree, but it typically means American born people with conservative Christian & jingoistic views. Blacks and Hispanics may be excluded regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
2. "Nuke the bastards." The identity of the bastards may change from time to time, and "nuke" may be substituted with "invade", "bomb", or "starve 'em out". Just because.
3. "Women are only good for fucking and fucking up." This is a fairly rare component of the meme, usually found in the Appalachias and Texas. In other areas, it may simply be "women have their place; they should stay in it".
4. "Support the Troops." Nobody knows what the fuck this means. It seems to have something to do with supporting wars regardless of motive and regardless of cost in cash or human lives.
5. "Education < a punch in the face." If you feel intimidated intellectually, beat the fucker up.
6. "NASCAR = Patriotism". No shit.
7. "The South shall rise again." (Lost Cause) IE, we were right to fight, and one day we'll do it again.
8. "There's a difference between Black people and niggers". Nuff said.
9. "Any White woman who sleeps with or even associates with non-Whites is 'tainted'." This is pretty much EVERYWHERE.
10. "This is a Christian nation, so faggots should die."
There's probably some that I've forgotten, but those are the major points.
With the exception of the "South shall rise again" bit, that's the exact same as everywhere else in America. I am, however, enjoying the irony of watching people turn southerners into "Other" for the crime of, uhh, turning other people into "Other".
I would also suggest that people who haven't spent much if any time in the southeast have little to no business generalizing an entire region of the country in such a manner. It comes off as foolish at best, at worst it reeks of bigotry.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
The Southeastern Meme:
1. "America is for 'real Americans'". The definition of "real Americans" varies to a degree, but it typically means American born people with conservative Christian & jingoistic views. Blacks and Hispanics may be excluded regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
2. "Nuke the bastards." The identity of the bastards may change from time to time, and "nuke" may be substituted with "invade", "bomb", or "starve 'em out". Just because.
3. "Women are only good for fucking and fucking up." This is a fairly rare component of the meme, usually found in the Appalachias and Texas. In other areas, it may simply be "women have their place; they should stay in it".
4. "Support the Troops." Nobody knows what the fuck this means. It seems to have something to do with supporting wars regardless of motive and regardless of cost in cash or human lives.
5. "Education < a punch in the face." If you feel intimidated intellectually, beat the fucker up.
6. "NASCAR = Patriotism". No shit.
7. "The South shall rise again." (Lost Cause) IE, we were right to fight, and one day we'll do it again.
8. "There's a difference between Black people and niggers". Nuff said.
9. "Any White woman who sleeps with or even associates with non-Whites is 'tainted'." This is pretty much EVERYWHERE.
10. "This is a Christian nation, so faggots should die."
There's probably some that I've forgotten, but those are the major points.
With the exception of the "South shall rise again" bit, that's the exact same as everywhere else in America. I am, however, enjoying the irony of watching people turn southerners into "Other" for the crime of, uhh, turning other people into "Other".
As I said, keeping the South was a mistake, as the bastards contaminated the rest of the country.
And as far as I'm concerned, all humans are "Other". That's why I hang out with freaks.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
The Southeastern Meme:
1. "America is for 'real Americans'". The definition of "real Americans" varies to a degree, but it typically means American born people with conservative Christian & jingoistic views. Blacks and Hispanics may be excluded regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
2. "Nuke the bastards." The identity of the bastards may change from time to time, and "nuke" may be substituted with "invade", "bomb", or "starve 'em out". Just because.
3. "Women are only good for fucking and fucking up." This is a fairly rare component of the meme, usually found in the Appalachias and Texas. In other areas, it may simply be "women have their place; they should stay in it".
4. "Support the Troops." Nobody knows what the fuck this means. It seems to have something to do with supporting wars regardless of motive and regardless of cost in cash or human lives.
5. "Education < a punch in the face." If you feel intimidated intellectually, beat the fucker up.
6. "NASCAR = Patriotism". No shit.
7. "The South shall rise again." (Lost Cause) IE, we were right to fight, and one day we'll do it again.
8. "There's a difference between Black people and niggers". Nuff said.
9. "Any White woman who sleeps with or even associates with non-Whites is 'tainted'." This is pretty much EVERYWHERE.
10. "This is a Christian nation, so faggots should die."
There's probably some that I've forgotten, but those are the major points.
This meme isn't limited to the Southeast. It's basically the Republican Party Platform, without all the shit that makes it playable on TV. HALF OF AMERICA identifies with this, or at least enough of it to make the parts they don't identify with seem tolerable. And much of this, or at least the depth to which it is ingrained, is directly due to the perceived attack on Southern culture during Reconstruction. These ideas became entrenched in the minds of anyone who didn't want the Old Ways to die -- even though they NEEDED to die, even though it was a GOOD THING to kill them. The bitter, disgruntled, hateful former Confederate became the bitter, disgruntled, hateful American Conservative.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 06:53:24 PM
I would also suggest that people who haven't spent much if any time in the southeast have little to no business generalizing an entire region of the country in such a manner. It comes off as foolish at best, at worst it reeks of bigotry.
I've spent literally years in the Southwest, as described as "South of the Mason/Dixon Line, and everything East of the West border of Texas." This particular hate is based entirely on experience.
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 06:54:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
The Southeastern Meme:
1. "America is for 'real Americans'". The definition of "real Americans" varies to a degree, but it typically means American born people with conservative Christian & jingoistic views. Blacks and Hispanics may be excluded regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
2. "Nuke the bastards." The identity of the bastards may change from time to time, and "nuke" may be substituted with "invade", "bomb", or "starve 'em out". Just because.
3. "Women are only good for fucking and fucking up." This is a fairly rare component of the meme, usually found in the Appalachias and Texas. In other areas, it may simply be "women have their place; they should stay in it".
4. "Support the Troops." Nobody knows what the fuck this means. It seems to have something to do with supporting wars regardless of motive and regardless of cost in cash or human lives.
5. "Education < a punch in the face." If you feel intimidated intellectually, beat the fucker up.
6. "NASCAR = Patriotism". No shit.
7. "The South shall rise again." (Lost Cause) IE, we were right to fight, and one day we'll do it again.
8. "There's a difference between Black people and niggers". Nuff said.
9. "Any White woman who sleeps with or even associates with non-Whites is 'tainted'." This is pretty much EVERYWHERE.
10. "This is a Christian nation, so faggots should die."
There's probably some that I've forgotten, but those are the major points.
This meme isn't limited to the Southeast. It's basically the Republican Party Platform, without all the shit that makes it playable on TV. HALF OF AMERICA identifies with this, or at least enough of it to make the parts they don't identify with seem tolerable. And much of this, or at least the depth to which it is ingrained, is directly due to the perceived attack on Southern culture during Reconstruction. These ideas became entrenched in the minds of anyone who didn't want the Old Ways to die -- even though they NEEDED to die, even though it was a GOOD THING to kill them. The bitter, disgruntled, hateful former Confederate became the bitter, disgruntled, hateful American Conservative.
See my post directly above yours.
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
That discussion was dropped when Cain clarified he was talking about the leaders and not the populace.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 06:27:18 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 06:18:26 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 06:05:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
Thank you, you nailed it.
Yes, they're human, but the way to look at it IS as an infectious meme, not "Oh the klan wasn't so bad".
But nobody said the Klan wasn't bad.
Somebody did.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:19:56 AM
Exactly! Similarly, the KKK was a social club where guys could go to get away from their wives. They raised money for charity and did volunteer work and stuff, but all anyone associates with pointy white hoods is a relatively small number of lynchings allegedly carried out by rotten eggs who also happened to be members. Allegedly, because compared to the numbers of murders the KKK was accused of, almost nobody was ever convicted of homicide.
I am so terribly, terribly not surprised.
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 07:01:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
That discussion was dropped when Cain clarified he was talking about the leaders and not the populace.
Dropped by whom? If I were him, and it was merely "dropped" after an accusation of bigotry, I'd never speak to anyone here ever again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 07:02:54 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 07:01:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
That discussion was dropped when Cain clarified he was talking about the leaders and not the populace.
Dropped by whom? If I were him, and it was merely "dropped" after an accusation of bigotry, I'd never speak to anyone here ever again.
Dropped by me and Nigel, after he clarified the targets of his statement, and we admitted the misunderstanding.
Hay guise. I heard that you were feeling attacked. I'm here to tell you " Take a breath, plz," because you guys are all sort of on the same page, its the absolutes vs eprime that seems to be causing the ruckus.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 09, 2012, 07:22:34 PM
Hay guise. I heard that you were feeling attacked. I'm here to tell you " Take a breath, plz," because you guys are all sort of on the same page, its the absolutes vs eprime that seems to be causing the ruckus.
STOP TRYING TO INSTILL TOLERANCE IN THIS THREAD FREEKY.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:55:24 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 06:53:24 PM
I would also suggest that people who haven't spent much if any time in the southeast have little to no business generalizing an entire region of the country in such a manner. It comes off as foolish at best, at worst it reeks of bigotry.
I've spent literally years in the Southwest, as described as "South of the Mason/Dixon Line, and everything East of the West border of Texas." This particular hate is based entirely on experience.
There are vast cultural differences between the southeast and southwest. Your experience with Arizona/Texas/etc. is not particularly relevant to generalizations about Virginia/Georgia/Tennessee/etc.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
Odd, since the implied stance of everyone ITT engaging in anti-southern bigotry seems to be "defending the south in any way implies racism".
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 09, 2012, 07:22:34 PM
Hay guise. I heard that you were feeling attacked. I'm here to tell you " Take a breath, plz," because you guys are all sort of on the same page, its the absolutes vs eprime that seems to be causing the ruckus.
STOP TRYING TO INSTILL TOLERANCE IN THIS THREAD FREEKY.
I DO WHAT I WANT! YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME! YOU'RE NOT SO BIG.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:25:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:55:24 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 06:53:24 PM
I would also suggest that people who haven't spent much if any time in the southeast have little to no business generalizing an entire region of the country in such a manner. It comes off as foolish at best, at worst it reeks of bigotry.
I've spent literally years in the Southwest, as described as "South of the Mason/Dixon Line, and everything East of the West border of Texas." This particular hate is based entirely on experience.
There are vast cultural differences between the southeast and southwest. Your experience with Arizona/Texas/etc. is not particularly relevant to generalizations about Virginia/Georgia/Tennessee/etc.
I think when he said Southwest he meant Southeast.
The Southwest is sort of like the Southeast, except instead of green we have dirt brown; instead of good food we have Americans botching Mexican food; and instead of 'Southern hospitality,' we have 'fuck no I don't have a spare bedroom you fuck!" Oh, and we still have slavery (thanks, Sheriff Joe.)
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:25:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:55:24 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 06:53:24 PM
I would also suggest that people who haven't spent much if any time in the southeast have little to no business generalizing an entire region of the country in such a manner. It comes off as foolish at best, at worst it reeks of bigotry.
I've spent literally years in the Southwest, as described as "South of the Mason/Dixon Line, and everything East of the West border of Texas." This particular hate is based entirely on experience.
There are vast cultural differences between the southeast and southwest. Your experience with Arizona/Texas/etc. is not particularly relevant to generalizations about Virginia/Georgia/Tennessee/etc.
1. You are partially correct: Arizona is very different, having absorbed both the Southeastern meme and the Northern meme (What's yours is mine; what's mine is mine. Get off my oil/banana plantation/etc).
2. Much of my experience was in Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina. So it's relevant.
I think I got hung up on a typo. I assume you meant "southeast" when you said "southwest".
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:32:23 PM
I think I got hung up on a typo. I assume you meant "southeast" when you said "southwest".
You are correct. My bad. I had intended to say "Southeast".
Again, I'd like to stress that the unpleasantness wasn't universal, just prevalent.
And to be fair, the vast majority of my experience in the south comes from tidewater Virginia, which seems to have done a better job of ditching the rampant racism than other places in the south I've been. But none of that changes my point, which is that simply falling back on the "southerners are racist rednecks" trope does nothing to advance the racial and cultural dialogue and, in a large-scale application, makes it a mortal-lock cinch that southerners are gonna cling even harder to their cultural cues (both good and bad) in the face of regional bigotry.
The Southwestern meme is:
1. "Rugged individualist". There are about 5 actual rugged individualists. The rest are land whales.
2. "Git offa my propitty". Aw, I was just so desparate to tromp all over YOUR coyote poop, seeing as how it's so Goddamn different than all the OTHER coyote poop.
3. "MAH GUNS! DERE TRYIN' TA TAKE MAH GUNS!" We have the least gun control in the country.
4. "We're better than those soft Easterners."...Spoken by a guy wearing size 50 jeans.
5. "Those damn illegals all over the place." 80% of our Hispanics are 3-7th generation Arizonans. Note that this can and does predate Arizona as a state or even a territory.
6. "Fucking California." We're California without the water or the veneer of class.
Again, this isn't complete.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:35:41 PM
But none of that changes my point, which is that simply falling back on the "southerners are racist rednecks" trope
I can only speak from my own experience...and again, as I've said, it's not a universal set of behaviors.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:26:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
Odd, since the implied stance of everyone ITT engaging in anti-southern bigotry seems to be "defending the south in any way implies racism".
Cain said nothing of the kind.
I said nothing of the kind. I DID say that GA has his/her head firmly up the poop-chute. I didn't say that about anyone else in the thread.
Cain was talking about military/political strategy, not the entire culture of a region.
As for everyone else, that's why I said "implied stance".
And GA may have her head firmly up her poop chute, but that doesn't mean she wasn't right about alot of what she said. Which is kind of the point, that the discussion here needs to move beyond emotional knee-jerk shit if any sort of real understanding is to be had.
#5 is particularly embarrassing and offensive, IMO.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 09, 2012, 07:45:13 PM
#5 is particularly embarrassing and offensive, IMO.
But it's one of my favorite things to point out at family functions. It shuts people up, and at a family gathering, silence is as rare and valuable as diamonds.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:43:57 PM
Cain was talking about military/political strategy, not the entire culture of a region.
As for everyone else, that's why I said "implied stance".
I'd really prefer to advance my own arguments. I am not, I believe, known for pussy-footing around. If I was going to say it, I'd say it...No need for implying anything.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
And GA may have her head firmly up her poop chute, but that doesn't mean she wasn't right about alot of what she said. Which is kind of the point, that the discussion here needs to move beyond emotional knee-jerk shit if any sort of real understanding is to be had.
If the Klan is indeed only a social club, and a lack of Klan convictions by all-White juries from 1900-1975 is proof that the Klan is only a social club, then I suppose you are correct concerning her motivations.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:35:41 PM
And to be fair, the vast majority of my experience in the south comes from tidewater Virginia, which seems to have done a better job of ditching the rampant racism than other places in the south I've been. But none of that changes my point, which is that simply falling back on the "southerners are racist rednecks" trope does nothing to advance the racial and cultural dialogue and, in a large-scale application, makes it a mortal-lock cinch that southerners are gonna cling even harder to their cultural cues (both good and bad) in the face of regional bigotry.
Nobody's saying "all southerners". I was born in Houston, FFS. Squiddy's in Florida of all places, Emo Howard mentioned being a southerner, there's a lot of us.
There's individuals and little pockets or enclaves or what have you, areas where it's better or worse. Austin strikes me as being better, generally, than a lot of places up north. But as a whole, yes, the south is worse.
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 07:49:36 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 09, 2012, 07:45:13 PM
#5 is particularly embarrassing and offensive, IMO.
But it's one of my favorite things to point out at family functions. It shuts people up, and at a family gathering, silence is as rare and valuable as diamonds.
I know. I am still kicking myself over lost opportunities of correcting certain family members' behavior.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 07:51:54 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:43:57 PM
Cain was talking about military/political strategy, not the entire culture of a region.
As for everyone else, that's why I said "implied stance".
I'd really prefer to advance my own arguments. I am not, I believe, known for pussy-footing around. If I was going to say it, I'd say it...No need for implying anything.
I think you're still missing my point. Resorting to the "southerners are racist rednecks" trope
automatically implies some bigotry on the part of the person using the trope (whether conscious or not) and, by extension, makes it that much less likely that their input on the subject is going to be taken seriously or even considered at all, except by other people who already agree that southerners are a bunch of racist rednecks. So if preaching to the choir and/or maintaining a feedback loop are your goals, then it works just fine. If the idea is to find the root cause of some of the more unfortunate adjuncts to southern culture, then it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 07:51:54 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:43:57 PM
Cain was talking about military/political strategy, not the entire culture of a region.
As for everyone else, that's why I said "implied stance".
I'd really prefer to advance my own arguments. I am not, I believe, known for pussy-footing around. If I was going to say it, I'd say it...No need for implying anything.
I think you're still missing my point. Resorting to the "southerners are racist rednecks" trope automatically implies some bigotry on the part of the person using the trope (whether conscious or not) and, by extension, makes it that much less likely that their input on the subject is going to be taken seriously or even considered at all, except by other people who already agree that southerners are a bunch of racist rednecks. So if preaching to the choir and/or maintaining a feedback loop are your goals, then it works just fine. If the idea is to find the root cause of some of the more unfortunate adjuncts to southern culture, then it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Okay.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 07:53:33 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
And GA may have her head firmly up her poop chute, but that doesn't mean she wasn't right about alot of what she said. Which is kind of the point, that the discussion here needs to move beyond emotional knee-jerk shit if any sort of real understanding is to be had.
If the Klan is indeed only a social club, and a lack of Klan convictions by all-White juries from 1900-1975 is proof that the Klan is only a social club, then I suppose you are correct concerning her motivations.
If her idiotic remarks about the KKK completely invalidate everything else she said, then I suppose YOU are correct. About something.
And I could really give a shit about her motivations. Those aren't what we're discussing. Or even anything I remotely care about.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 07:39:50 PM
The Southwestern meme is:
1. "Rugged individualist". There are about 5 actual rugged individualists. The rest are land whales.
2. "Git offa my propitty". Aw, I was just so desparate to tromp all over YOUR coyote poop, seeing as how it's so Goddamn different than all the OTHER coyote poop.
3. "MAH GUNS! DERE TRYIN' TA TAKE MAH GUNS!" We have the least gun control in the country.
4. "We're better than those soft Easterners."...Spoken by a guy wearing size 50 jeans.
5. "Those damn illegals all over the place." 80% of our Hispanics are 3-7th generation Arizonans. Note that this can and does predate Arizona as a state or even a territory.
6. "Fucking California." We're California without the water or the veneer of class.
Again, this isn't complete.
May I suggest the white ranchers motto "IF IT DON'T MAKE ME MONEY IT NEEDS TO BE GOT RID OF"
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:35:41 PM
And to be fair, the vast majority of my experience in the south comes from tidewater Virginia, which seems to have done a better job of ditching the rampant racism than other places in the south I've been. But none of that changes my point, which is that simply falling back on the "southerners are racist rednecks" trope does nothing to advance the racial and cultural dialogue and, in a large-scale application, makes it a mortal-lock cinch that southerners are gonna cling even harder to their cultural cues (both good and bad) in the face of regional bigotry.
Nobody's saying "all southerners". I was born in Houston, FFS. Squiddy's in Florida of all places, Emo Howard mentioned being a southerner, there's a lot of us.
There's individuals and little pockets or enclaves or what have you, areas where it's better or worse. Austin strikes me as being better, generally, than a lot of places up north. But as a whole, yes, the south is worse.
I'd argue that neither Texas nor Florida are part of "The South". But that's beside the point. The point is that statements like "as a whole, the south is worse" are exactly what I'm talking about. Worse than what?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:35:41 PM
And to be fair, the vast majority of my experience in the south comes from tidewater Virginia, which seems to have done a better job of ditching the rampant racism than other places in the south I've been. But none of that changes my point, which is that simply falling back on the "southerners are racist rednecks" trope does nothing to advance the racial and cultural dialogue and, in a large-scale application, makes it a mortal-lock cinch that southerners are gonna cling even harder to their cultural cues (both good and bad) in the face of regional bigotry.
I think this was echelons's point, of dismissing the people in the region as worse than us and leaving it at that, instead of acknowledging that the behavior we are engaging in also fuels more tension and grudges.?
Nobody's saying "all southerners". I was born in Houston, FFS. Squiddy's in Florida of all places, Emo Howard mentioned being a southerner, there's a lot of us.
There's individuals and little pockets or enclaves or what have you, areas where it's better or worse. Austin strikes me as being better, generally, than a lot of places up north. But as a whole, yes, the south is worse.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:59:27 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:35:41 PM
And to be fair, the vast majority of my experience in the south comes from tidewater Virginia, which seems to have done a better job of ditching the rampant racism than other places in the south I've been. But none of that changes my point, which is that simply falling back on the "southerners are racist rednecks" trope does nothing to advance the racial and cultural dialogue and, in a large-scale application, makes it a mortal-lock cinch that southerners are gonna cling even harder to their cultural cues (both good and bad) in the face of regional bigotry.
Nobody's saying "all southerners". I was born in Houston, FFS. Squiddy's in Florida of all places, Emo Howard mentioned being a southerner, there's a lot of us.
There's individuals and little pockets or enclaves or what have you, areas where it's better or worse. Austin strikes me as being better, generally, than a lot of places up north. But as a whole, yes, the south is worse.
I'd argue that neither Texas nor Florida are part of "The South". But that's beside the point. The point is that statements like "as a whole, the south is worse" are exactly what I'm talking about. Worse than what?
Texas fought for the Confederacy.
After the Republic, Sam Houston had sense enough to want Texas to join the Union but the yahoos pretty much said "fuck off". The rebels marched right past Sam's house in Huntsville on their way to fight and called him a traitor.
Bet old Sam had the last laugh, though. :lol:
I was right and EOT was wrong. I need to stay out of this conversation.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:59:27 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:35:41 PM
And to be fair, the vast majority of my experience in the south comes from tidewater Virginia, which seems to have done a better job of ditching the rampant racism than other places in the south I've been. But none of that changes my point, which is that simply falling back on the "southerners are racist rednecks" trope does nothing to advance the racial and cultural dialogue and, in a large-scale application, makes it a mortal-lock cinch that southerners are gonna cling even harder to their cultural cues (both good and bad) in the face of regional bigotry.
Nobody's saying "all southerners". I was born in Houston, FFS. Squiddy's in Florida of all places, Emo Howard mentioned being a southerner, there's a lot of us.
There's individuals and little pockets or enclaves or what have you, areas where it's better or worse. Austin strikes me as being better, generally, than a lot of places up north. But as a whole, yes, the south is worse.
I'd argue that neither Texas nor Florida are part of "The South". But that's beside the point. The point is that statements like "as a whole, the south is worse" are exactly what I'm talking about. Worse than what?
Worse than say, Massachusetts, where there's at least an effort or a veneer of tolerance.
Like I said earlier, there's at least some public outrage over racial incidents up there. I've seen it make the evening news when some kid painted a swastika, FFS. Down here, it's "STFU". Doing something about this stuff usually means you'd better move away from the place where it took place first.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:08:53 PM
I was right and EOT was wrong. I need to stay out of this conversation.
It is going that way, isn't it?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 08:13:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:08:53 PM
I was right and EOT was wrong. I need to stay out of this conversation.
It is going that way, isn't it?
GA states that the Klan is just a social group, and the fact that all-White juries never convicted them (after 1975, convictions have in fact occurred) proves both the fact that is only a social club, and that anyone who disagrees hates due process.
This is apparenly reasonable, and right on the mark.
I state that "based on my experience", my opinion is that a great number of people in the South walk around with a meme strapped to their forehead.
This "implies" that I am a bigot.
In fact, anyone taking the side I have taken is "implied" to be a bigot, no matter what. That being the case, there is precisely zero reason to talk about the subject, as absolutely nothing positive can occur.
No it's the opposite.
Frustration: I see what everyone is arguing and can't explain suitably the difference withoutfeeling like I'm putting words in mouths.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:16:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 08:13:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:08:53 PM
I was right and EOT was wrong. I need to stay out of this conversation.
It is going that way, isn't it?
GA states that the Klan is just a social group, and the fact that all-White juries never convicted them (after 1975, convictions have in fact occurred) proves both the fact that is only a social club, and that anyone who disagrees hates due process.
This is apparenly reasonable, and right on the mark.
I state that "based on my experience", my opinion is that a great number of people in the South walk around with a meme strapped to their forehead.
This "implies" that I am a bigot.
In fact, anyone taking the side I have taken is "implied" to be a bigot, no matter what. That being the case, there is precisely zero reason to talk about the subject, as absolutely nothing positive can occur.
But wouldn't that make them "implied" bigots for "implying" that we're "implying" that the inbred ignorant hillbilly stereotype applies to all southerners without exception?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:16:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 08:13:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:08:53 PM
I was right and EOT was wrong. I need to stay out of this conversation.
It is going that way, isn't it?
GA states that the Klan is just a social group, and the fact that all-White juries never convicted them (after 1975, convictions have in fact occurred) proves both the fact that is only a social club, and that anyone who disagrees hates due process.
This is apparenly reasonable, and right on the mark.
I state that "based on my experience", my opinion is that a great number of people in the South walk around with a meme strapped to their forehead.
This "implies" that I am a bigot.
In fact, anyone taking the side I have taken is "implied" to be a bigot, no matter what. That being the case, there is precisely zero reason to talk about the subject, as absolutely nothing positive can occur.
Your response is perfectly reasonable. If GA is not trolling, I'm going to switch sides in this argument.
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 08:22:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:16:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 08:13:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:08:53 PM
I was right and EOT was wrong. I need to stay out of this conversation.
It is going that way, isn't it?
GA states that the Klan is just a social group, and the fact that all-White juries never convicted them (after 1975, convictions have in fact occurred) proves both the fact that is only a social club, and that anyone who disagrees hates due process.
This is apparenly reasonable, and right on the mark.
I state that "based on my experience", my opinion is that a great number of people in the South walk around with a meme strapped to their forehead.
This "implies" that I am a bigot.
In fact, anyone taking the side I have taken is "implied" to be a bigot, no matter what. That being the case, there is precisely zero reason to talk about the subject, as absolutely nothing positive can occur.
Your response is perfectly reasonable. If GA is not trolling, I'm going to switch sides in this argument.
If it
is a troll, it's a
seriously fucked up troll, which amounts to the same thing in my estimation.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 08:03:38 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:59:27 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:35:41 PM
And to be fair, the vast majority of my experience in the south comes from tidewater Virginia, which seems to have done a better job of ditching the rampant racism than other places in the south I've been. But none of that changes my point, which is that simply falling back on the "southerners are racist rednecks" trope does nothing to advance the racial and cultural dialogue and, in a large-scale application, makes it a mortal-lock cinch that southerners are gonna cling even harder to their cultural cues (both good and bad) in the face of regional bigotry.
Nobody's saying "all southerners". I was born in Houston, FFS. Squiddy's in Florida of all places, Emo Howard mentioned being a southerner, there's a lot of us.
There's individuals and little pockets or enclaves or what have you, areas where it's better or worse. Austin strikes me as being better, generally, than a lot of places up north. But as a whole, yes, the south is worse.
I'd argue that neither Texas nor Florida are part of "The South". But that's beside the point. The point is that statements like "as a whole, the south is worse" are exactly what I'm talking about. Worse than what?
Texas fought for the Confederacy.
After the Republic, Sam Houston had sense enough to want Texas to join the Union but the yahoos pretty much said "fuck off". The rebels marched right past Sam's house in Huntsville on their way to fight and called him a traitor.
Bet old Sam had the last laugh, though. :lol:
Fair enough. I always think of them as being a completely separate cultural entity from either the southeast, southwest, or midwest, but in the context of this conversation you're right, they should be considered part of the confederate south.
And if GA is trolling, it's brilliant. But everyone seems to be latching onto the KKK comment (which was a total red herring) and letting that obscure the discussion about the several valid points that were raised. I'm much more interested in the political and cultural implications of secession and/or conquest & occupation of a failed secessionist state by the state it attempted to secede from than I am in making sure we all agree that the KKK were dicks.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 09:44:07 PM
And if GA is trolling, it's brilliant. But everyone seems to be latching onto the KKK comment (which was a total red herring) and letting that obscure the discussion about the several valid points that were raised. I'm much more interested in the political and cultural implications of secession and/or conquest & occupation of a failed secessionist state by the state it attempted to secede from than I am in making sure we all agree that the KKK were dicks.
I'm missing the brilliance, it reminded me of Benacalypse more than anything.
But as far as Reconstruction affected the southern states, I think people are so prone to forget history (the US today in a lot of ways resembles Germany in the 1930's) or just tune it out and not bother to learn, that any lingering effects are likely sublimninal...the effects are
there, but they're not consciously
recognized.
I think a lot of the political turmoil we're in now is a direct descendant of the Civil War. Until the 1960s, the South was more or less viewed as retaining its own distinct culture (and it still does now, to a lesser extent). The North, the Midwest, and the West were more or less on the same page politically, with the South remaining a remnant of an older era. Racism of course existed throughout the country regardless of region (and don't let anyone tell you any different, because they'll be wrong), but the South alone was the home of its unique, brooding kind of ignorance.
Two things changed that. The Civil Rights movement, which more or less led to "Reconstruction Part II," reopened old wounds (festering and gangrenous though they were) and set the South off again. At first this was internal to the South (the Civil Rights Act mentions Southern states by name, where new voter legislation must be approved by the Department of Justice), and the rest of the country was more or less "well the South hates these rules, so they must be good ideas!" And they were, for the most part.
The other factor was Nixon's "Southern Strategy," where he won his bid for the Presidency by stealing large swaths of conservative Southern Democrats for the Republican Party by identifying with their sense of "family values." Ever since then, the Republicans have had to pay lip service to the very boisterous part of their political power base -- namely, Confederates. This maneuver not only poisoned the GOP with the same exact people (well, 20th-Century carbon copies of them, anyway) that the GOP fought to DEFEAT in the Civil War, but legitimized their ignorance, and scattered it all over America, where of course it took root and grew, because people everywhere are idiots and seem to think the only things that keeps them alive are beer, NASCAR, and bullshit.
Anyway, although the Democratic and Republican parties have switched sides, America today is still composed of the same two factions who fought the Civil War, and American political discourse is dominated by the same philosophical arguments that have provided the subtext for our politics since the time of the Articles of Confederation. We are still bickering with each other about what degree of influence the Government in general, and in particular the Federal Government, should have over our individual lives.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 09:44:07 PM
I'm much more interested in the political and cultural implications of secession and/or conquest & occupation of a failed secessionist state by the state it attempted to secede from than I am in making sure we all agree that the KKK were dicks.
I was talking about the effects felt
by the occupying state. Nobody invades anyone without being somehow influenced by the occupied state. The response I received was a "poisoned well" argument...IE, that the
implied argument was bigoted, therefore the argument
as stated is invalid, regardless of what was stated and how.
I fail to see how this is different from the normal forms of political correctness. If we are to have a discussion, then all points of view must be considered in broad daylight. If, on the other hand, GA gets to make strawman cracks about my supposed disgust for due process, but legitimate observations are "automatically" bigoted, then there is no discussion. It is instead preaching...Get in the choirbox or get out of the church, so to speak.
Also, I don't believe that GA was trolling. I'm pretty sure GA has found a not-so-shiny, not-so-new cause; "Southern Pride™", aka, "Southern Partisanship".
The Confederacy's victory in the Civil War merely masqueraded as defeat for 150 years. What the USA is today, is exactly what the CSA wanted to become.
If anyone should have seceded, it was the North. In 1972.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 10:27:46 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 09:44:07 PM
I'm much more interested in the political and cultural implications of secession and/or conquest & occupation of a failed secessionist state by the state it attempted to secede from than I am in making sure we all agree that the KKK were dicks.
I was talking about the effects felt by the occupying state. Nobody invades anyone without being somehow influenced by the occupied state. The response I received was a "poisoned well" argument...IE, that the implied argument was bigoted, therefore the argument as stated is invalid, regardless of what was stated and how.
I fail to see how this is different from the normal forms of political correctness. If we are to have a discussion, then all points of view must be considered in broad daylight. If, on the other hand, GA gets to make strawman cracks about my supposed disgust for due process, but legitimate observations are "automatically" bigoted, then there is no discussion. It is instead preaching...Get in the choirbox or get out of the church, so to speak.
OK, I gotcha. I missed that part of it because the noise to signal ration ITT was getting a little squirrely. And yeah, I agree that that influence runs both ways. So essentially what we ended up with was a South that was so resentful that they took the one facet of their defeat that they could still exert any measure of control over (slavery/race issues) and took it to extremes, and a North that ended up absorbing too much of the bad meme that they created with their military victory.
FWIW, there IS some pretty ugly and OUT IN THE OPEN racism here in the North. Even here in liberal New England. The Native American and refugee immigrant populations in these parts can attest to that.
Well yeah, the cops still work over the Native Americans at Plymouth on Thanksgiving, but Plymouth is tourist $$$.
Down here they do it for sport.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 11:19:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 10:27:46 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 09:44:07 PM
I'm much more interested in the political and cultural implications of secession and/or conquest & occupation of a failed secessionist state by the state it attempted to secede from than I am in making sure we all agree that the KKK were dicks.
I was talking about the effects felt by the occupying state. Nobody invades anyone without being somehow influenced by the occupied state. The response I received was a "poisoned well" argument...IE, that the implied argument was bigoted, therefore the argument as stated is invalid, regardless of what was stated and how.
I fail to see how this is different from the normal forms of political correctness. If we are to have a discussion, then all points of view must be considered in broad daylight. If, on the other hand, GA gets to make strawman cracks about my supposed disgust for due process, but legitimate observations are "automatically" bigoted, then there is no discussion. It is instead preaching...Get in the choirbox or get out of the church, so to speak.
OK, I gotcha. I missed that part of it because the noise to signal ration ITT was getting a little squirrely. And yeah, I agree that that influence runs both ways. So essentially what we ended up with was a South that was so resentful that they took the one facet of their defeat that they could still exert any measure of control over (slavery/race issues) and took it to extremes, and a North that ended up absorbing too much of the bad meme that they created with their military victory.
...And added to their own bad signal. The North had its own "issues"...In fact, given that the various parts of the nation were isolated by distance prior to civil war, each major region had its own "America". The North's was basically blatant brigandry and plutocracy, the South was aristocracy oriented, and the West was psychotic.
The North's influence on the South was muted, because it took several generations for the South to get over their butthurt (it still hasn't, at least entirely). The South's influence was HUGE, vastly out of proportion to their relative populations...And they had a more infectious meme: America for REAL Americans, which spread so fast that the "know-nothings" and other "nativist" groups were brawling in New York city within 15 years.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 09:44:07 PM
And if GA is trolling, it's brilliant. But everyone seems to be latching onto the KKK comment (which was a total red herring) and letting that obscure the discussion about the several valid points that were raised. I'm much more interested in the political and cultural implications of secession and/or conquest & occupation of a failed secessionist state by the state it attempted to secede from than I am in making sure we all agree that the KKK were dicks.
This.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 10, 2012, 12:21:20 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 09:44:07 PM
And if GA is trolling, it's brilliant. But everyone seems to be latching onto the KKK comment (which was a total red herring) and letting that obscure the discussion about the several valid points that were raised. I'm much more interested in the political and cultural implications of secession and/or conquest & occupation of a failed secessionist state by the state it attempted to secede from than I am in making sure we all agree that the KKK were dicks.
This.
Gimme a sec on that Nathan Bedford Forrest stuff.
Is it appropriate for this thread, or should I start another?
I've been trying for a couple days to come up with something to add to this thread. I really don't have much except that my experience in Nashville, Atlanta, Kentucky, and the Carolinas can't be characterized with a single meme. Nashville is where I've been most recently. I've never run into a bad crowd in Nashville, though most of my excursions have been to museums, Centennial Park, and universities and other such places. People seemed genuinely friendly and open regardless of race or perceived otherness. My stay in Atlanta was brief, but similar. I can't really comment on being a kid in North Carolina, because my father was a Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, and I was also 4. Living this close to Kentucky, however, I've noticed that regardless of race, most people are "Others". In certain places, distrust is palpable.
Okay, we agreed that wikipedia is not a good source, but I'm going to use it as a starting point, with better sources to follow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest
He was the first "grand wizard" of the KKK.
Also here:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkkk.htm
QuoteThe first branch of the Ku Klux Klan was established in Pulaski, Tennessee, in May, 1866. A year later a general organization of local Klans was established in Nashville in April, 1867. Most of the leaders were former members of the Confederate Army and the first Grand Wizard was Nathan Forrest, an outstanding general during the American Civil War. During the next two years Klansmen wearing masks, white cardboard hats and draped in white sheets, tortured and killed black Americans and sympathetic whites. Immigrants, who they blamed for the election of Radical Republicans, were also targets of their hatred. Between 1868 and 1870 the Ku Klux Klan played an important role in restoring white rule in North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia.
You'll also note that the terrorism was immediate.
Also here:
http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
QuoteFounding of the Ku Klux Klan
A group including many former Confederate veterans founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866. The first two words of the organization's name supposedly derived from the Greek word "kyklos," meaning circle. In the summer of 1867, local branches of the Klan met in a general organizing convention and established what they called an "Invisible Empire of the South." Leading Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest was chosen as the first leader, or "grand wizard," of the Klan; he presided over a hierarchy of grand dragons, grand titans and grand cyclopses.
Immediate terrorism:
QuoteFrom 1867 onward, African-American participation in public life in the South became one of the most radical aspects of Reconstruction, as blacks won election to southern state governments and even to the U.S. Congress. For its part, the Ku Klux Klan dedicated itself to an underground campaign of violence against Republican leaders and voters (both black and white) in an effort to reverse the policies of Radical Reconstruction and restore white supremacy in the South. They were joined in this struggle by similar organizations such as the Knights of the White Camelia (launched in Louisiana in 1867) and the White Brotherhood. At least 10 percent of the black legislators elected during the 1867-1868 constitutional conventions became victims of violence during Reconstruction, including seven who were killed. White Republicans (derided as "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags") and black institutions such as schools and churches—symbols of black autonomy—were also targets for Klan attacks.
By 1870, the Ku Klux Klan had branches in nearly every southern state. Even at its height, the Klan did not boast a well-organized structure or clear leadership. Local Klan members–often wearing masks and dressed in the organization's signature long white robes and hoods–usually carried out their attacks at night, acting on their own but in support of the common goals of defeating Radical Reconstruction and restoring white supremacy in the South. Klan activity flourished particularly in the regions of the South where blacks were a minority or a small majority of the population, and was relatively limited in others. Among the most notorious zones of Klan activity was South Carolina, where in January 1871 500 masked men attacked the Union county jail and lynched eight black prisoners.
As for NBF's racial outlook:
"That's a good thing; that's a damn good thing. We can use that to keep the niggers in their place."
- NBF, in reference to the KKK (disputed)
Interesting. Before the war:
QuoteHe had relatively enlightened ideas about slavery, describing it in 1856 as a "moral and political evil" even as he criticized abolitionists for trying to hurry along God's plan.
But also:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2004/winter/a-different-kind-of-hero
QuoteThe severest of the criticism of Forrest — subjects studiously avoided by today's neo-Confederate activists — centers on three indisputable facts:
Forrest was a Memphis slave trader who acquired fabulous wealth before the war;
He commanded the troops who carried out an 1864 massacre of mostly black prisoners; and
He led violent resistance to Reconstruction as the first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
As Hurst points out, friendly Forrest biographers have attempted to describe him as a kindly slave trader, a man who cared for his charges and always avoided separating families.
But a Civil War newspaper account described whippings in which four slaves held the victim stretched out in the air while Forrest personally administered the bullwhip. Women were allegedly stripped naked and whipped with a leather thong dipped in salt water.
Might just be media bias: Papers were even more notorious then than now.
But (from the same link):
QuoteSuch accounts were later backed up by former slaves who described terrifying brutality and the break-up of their families.
Forrest despised blacks who fought for the Union, and was accused by one Union general of personally shooting a captured free mulatto who was a servant of a Federal officer. A Confederate cavalryman once recounted how Forrest "cussed [him] out" for failing to execute a captured black Union soldier.
But it was the slaughter of Union forces at Fort Pillow, Tenn., that was the most damning episode of all.
After surrounding the fort, Forrest demanded surrender from the 580 men within or, he said, "I cannot be responsible for the fate of your command."
While this demand was being negotiated under the white flag, Forrest illegally improved his position, according to later Union allegations. In any event, the Union commander refused to surrender, and soon Forrest's men were pouring over the ramparts.
"The slaughter was awful," a Confederate sergeant later wrote his family. "I with several others tried to stop the butchery and at one time partially succeeded, but Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs, and the carnage continued."
More on terrorism:
QuoteAlthough he repeatedly denied membership — even lying to Congress — Forrest in fact led the Klan through one of its most violent and successful periods, when robed terrorists succeeded in rolling back Reconstruction. He even told one newspaper reporter that while he was no member, he "intend[ed]" to kill radical Republicans. He added that he could raise 40,000 men in four days.
Forrest sympathizers have long claimed that he disbanded the Klan when it became violent. In fact, it had been extremely violent for years under Forrest, and was only disbanded when its work was essentially done — blacks and Republicans had been terrified into not voting — and when it came under intense criticism.
In fact, he only "disbanded" the Klan when asked to by a sympathetic politician by the name of Bedlow, who wanted to let the heat die down a bit.
More upon request.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 10, 2012, 12:34:36 AM
I've been trying for a couple days to come up with something to add to this thread. I really don't have much except that my experience in Nashville, Atlanta, Kentucky, and the Carolinas can't be characterized with a single meme. Nashville is where I've been most recently. I've never run into a bad crowd in Nashville, though most of my excursions have been to museums, Centennial Park, and universities and other such places. People seemed genuinely friendly and open regardless of race or perceived otherness. My stay in Atlanta was brief, but similar. I can't really comment on being a kid in North Carolina, because my father was a Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, and I was also 4. Living this close to Kentucky, however, I've noticed that regardless of race, most people are "Others". In certain places, distrust is palpable.
I know people don't like the simple "racism is everywhere" statement, but, well racism IS everywhere and seems to be an engrained trait of humanity. And it morphs and takes on other flavors, bigotry, religious intolerance.
Basically, one set of people who think another set of people's reality grids aren't just wrong, they are EVIL wrong.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 10, 2012, 12:34:36 AM
I've been trying for a couple days to come up with something to add to this thread. I really don't have much except that my experience in Nashville, Atlanta, Kentucky, and the Carolinas can't be characterized with a single meme. Nashville is where I've been most recently. I've never run into a bad crowd in Nashville, though most of my excursions have been to museums, Centennial Park, and universities and other such places. People seemed genuinely friendly and open regardless of race or perceived otherness. My stay in Atlanta was brief, but similar. I can't really comment on being a kid in North Carolina, because my father was a Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, and I was also 4. Living this close to Kentucky, however, I've noticed that regardless of race, most people are "Others". In certain places, distrust is palpable.
Outsiders can receive a cold reception. It depends on what it looks like you're up to. If they think you're there to upset their social balance, they won't have anything to do with you. The South is funny that way. As long as you just keep everything nice and quiet, nobody gets hurt. They don't like it when you go rocking the boat. Or when you look like you might rock the boat. Or when there's been a lot of boat-rocking lately and you don't look familiar. And if you're
black, well, the best way to make sure you don't rock the boat is to use you as an anchor. That's how the South has been forever. They don't like change. Never have, and probably never will. And, oddly enough, sending an army right through the deepest part of the South to burn the change into them only made them hate it even more.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 12:40:52 AM
Okay, we agreed that wikipedia is not a good source, but I'm going to use it as a starting point, with better sources to follow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest
He was the first "grand wizard" of the KKK.
Also here:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkkk.htm
QuoteThe first branch of the Ku Klux Klan was established in Pulaski, Tennessee, in May, 1866. A year later a general organization of local Klans was established in Nashville in April, 1867. Most of the leaders were former members of the Confederate Army and the first Grand Wizard was Nathan Forrest, an outstanding general during the American Civil War. During the next two years Klansmen wearing masks, white cardboard hats and draped in white sheets, tortured and killed black Americans and sympathetic whites. Immigrants, who they blamed for the election of Radical Republicans, were also targets of their hatred. Between 1868 and 1870 the Ku Klux Klan played an important role in restoring white rule in North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia.
You'll also note that the terrorism was immediate.
Also here:
http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
QuoteFounding of the Ku Klux Klan
A group including many former Confederate veterans founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866. The first two words of the organization's name supposedly derived from the Greek word "kyklos," meaning circle. In the summer of 1867, local branches of the Klan met in a general organizing convention and established what they called an "Invisible Empire of the South." Leading Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest was chosen as the first leader, or "grand wizard," of the Klan; he presided over a hierarchy of grand dragons, grand titans and grand cyclopses.
Immediate terrorism:
QuoteFrom 1867 onward, African-American participation in public life in the South became one of the most radical aspects of Reconstruction, as blacks won election to southern state governments and even to the U.S. Congress. For its part, the Ku Klux Klan dedicated itself to an underground campaign of violence against Republican leaders and voters (both black and white) in an effort to reverse the policies of Radical Reconstruction and restore white supremacy in the South. They were joined in this struggle by similar organizations such as the Knights of the White Camelia (launched in Louisiana in 1867) and the White Brotherhood. At least 10 percent of the black legislators elected during the 1867-1868 constitutional conventions became victims of violence during Reconstruction, including seven who were killed. White Republicans (derided as "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags") and black institutions such as schools and churches—symbols of black autonomy—were also targets for Klan attacks.
By 1870, the Ku Klux Klan had branches in nearly every southern state. Even at its height, the Klan did not boast a well-organized structure or clear leadership. Local Klan members–often wearing masks and dressed in the organization's signature long white robes and hoods–usually carried out their attacks at night, acting on their own but in support of the common goals of defeating Radical Reconstruction and restoring white supremacy in the South. Klan activity flourished particularly in the regions of the South where blacks were a minority or a small majority of the population, and was relatively limited in others. Among the most notorious zones of Klan activity was South Carolina, where in January 1871 500 masked men attacked the Union county jail and lynched eight black prisoners.
As for NBF's racial outlook:
"That's a good thing; that's a damn good thing. We can use that to keep the niggers in their place."
- NBF, in reference to the KKK (disputed)
Interesting. Before the war:
QuoteHe had relatively enlightened ideas about slavery, describing it in 1856 as a "moral and political evil" even as he criticized abolitionists for trying to hurry along God's plan.
But also:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2004/winter/a-different-kind-of-hero
QuoteThe severest of the criticism of Forrest — subjects studiously avoided by today's neo-Confederate activists — centers on three indisputable facts:
Forrest was a Memphis slave trader who acquired fabulous wealth before the war;
He commanded the troops who carried out an 1864 massacre of mostly black prisoners; and
He led violent resistance to Reconstruction as the first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
As Hurst points out, friendly Forrest biographers have attempted to describe him as a kindly slave trader, a man who cared for his charges and always avoided separating families.
But a Civil War newspaper account described whippings in which four slaves held the victim stretched out in the air while Forrest personally administered the bullwhip. Women were allegedly stripped naked and whipped with a leather thong dipped in salt water.
Might just be media bias: Papers were even more notorious then than now.
But (from the same link):
QuoteSuch accounts were later backed up by former slaves who described terrifying brutality and the break-up of their families.
Forrest despised blacks who fought for the Union, and was accused by one Union general of personally shooting a captured free mulatto who was a servant of a Federal officer. A Confederate cavalryman once recounted how Forrest "cussed [him] out" for failing to execute a captured black Union soldier.
But it was the slaughter of Union forces at Fort Pillow, Tenn., that was the most damning episode of all.
After surrounding the fort, Forrest demanded surrender from the 580 men within or, he said, "I cannot be responsible for the fate of your command."
While this demand was being negotiated under the white flag, Forrest illegally improved his position, according to later Union allegations. In any event, the Union commander refused to surrender, and soon Forrest's men were pouring over the ramparts.
"The slaughter was awful," a Confederate sergeant later wrote his family. "I with several others tried to stop the butchery and at one time partially succeeded, but Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs, and the carnage continued."
More on terrorism:
QuoteAlthough he repeatedly denied membership — even lying to Congress — Forrest in fact led the Klan through one of its most violent and successful periods, when robed terrorists succeeded in rolling back Reconstruction. He even told one newspaper reporter that while he was no member, he "intend[ed]" to kill radical Republicans. He added that he could raise 40,000 men in four days.
Forrest sympathizers have long claimed that he disbanded the Klan when it became violent. In fact, it had been extremely violent for years under Forrest, and was only disbanded when its work was essentially done — blacks and Republicans had been terrified into not voting — and when it came under intense criticism.
In fact, he only "disbanded" the Klan when asked to by a sympathetic politician by the name of Bedlow, who wanted to let the heat die down a bit.
More upon request.
Anyone who thinks Nathan Bedford Forrest was anything but an asshole and a terrorist has some serious learning problems.
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 12:52:34 AM
Anyone who thinks Nathan Bedford Forrest was anything but an asshole and a terrorist has some serious learning problems.
Or simply never read about him. It HAS been 150 years, just about.
But the facts are:
1. The KKK was NOT a "social organization", it was a terrorist organization that did some charity work for Quality People on the side (confederate widows, etc), and
2. The KKK was terrorist from the word go, and
3. The KKK was a direct result of the war and the occupation. Ignoring it is to basically not talk about the post-war period.
4. It's not "knee-jerking" if it's the truth.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 10, 2012, 12:34:36 AM
I've been trying for a couple days to come up with something to add to this thread. I really don't have much except that my experience in Nashville, Atlanta, Kentucky, and the Carolinas can't be characterized with a single meme. Nashville is where I've been most recently. I've never run into a bad crowd in Nashville, though most of my excursions have been to museums, Centennial Park, and universities and other such places. People seemed genuinely friendly and open regardless of race or perceived otherness. My stay in Atlanta was brief, but similar. I can't really comment on being a kid in North Carolina, because my father was a Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, and I was also 4. Living this close to Kentucky, however, I've noticed that regardless of race, most people are "Others". In certain places, distrust is palpable.
Nashville has a bigass music industry. And yeah, it's a closed-minded music industry in a lot of ways, but it's still a music industry and that tends to help for some reason.
And Tennessee has Graceland. Shrine to a guy who started as an R&B singer for white girls. Tennessee can't afford to be as blatantly fucked as parts of Kentucky.
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on July 10, 2012, 12:47:59 AM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 10, 2012, 12:34:36 AM
I've been trying for a couple days to come up with something to add to this thread. I really don't have much except that my experience in Nashville, Atlanta, Kentucky, and the Carolinas can't be characterized with a single meme. Nashville is where I've been most recently. I've never run into a bad crowd in Nashville, though most of my excursions have been to museums, Centennial Park, and universities and other such places. People seemed genuinely friendly and open regardless of race or perceived otherness. My stay in Atlanta was brief, but similar. I can't really comment on being a kid in North Carolina, because my father was a Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, and I was also 4. Living this close to Kentucky, however, I've noticed that regardless of race, most people are "Others". In certain places, distrust is palpable.
I know people don't like the simple "racism is everywhere" statement, but, well racism IS everywhere and seems to be an engrained trait of humanity. And it morphs and takes on other flavors, bigotry, religious intolerance.
Basically, one set of people who think another set of people's reality grids aren't just wrong, they are EVIL wrong.
Oh, yeah, RWHN, I wasn't saying that. I was saying that It's not like I went south and immediately I was in a den of racists and bigots. I also noted that in most places. I wasn't really in a position to see the everyday sorts of racism that certainly occur. In regards to Kentucky, I didn't really finish that thought. Some people, for instance, are regarded as more "suspicious" than others. Unaccompanied women or women in groups, for instance. I can't say if this might not also be the case with Black people, but I suspect sometimes it is. I also note that there is definite fascination with the Confederate flag in southern Illinois and in Kentucky, noticeably more than I saw in the Carolina or Georgia, but... then again, I see a lot more of the people here than I did there as well.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 12:55:15 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 12:52:34 AM
Anyone who thinks Nathan Bedford Forrest was anything but an asshole and a terrorist has some serious learning problems.
Or simply never read about him. It HAS been 150 years, just about.
But the facts are:
1. The KKK was NOT a "social organization", it was a terrorist organization that did some charity work for Quality People on the side (confederate widows, etc), and
2. The KKK was terrorist from the word go, and
3. The KKK was a direct result of the war and the occupation. Ignoring it is to basically not talk about the post-war period.
4. It's not "knee-jerking" if it's the truth.
This.
It's not like NBF was an aberration.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 01:01:59 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 12:55:15 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 12:52:34 AM
Anyone who thinks Nathan Bedford Forrest was anything but an asshole and a terrorist has some serious learning problems.
Or simply never read about him. It HAS been 150 years, just about.
But the facts are:
1. The KKK was NOT a "social organization", it was a terrorist organization that did some charity work for Quality People on the side (confederate widows, etc), and
2. The KKK was terrorist from the word go, and
3. The KKK was a direct result of the war and the occupation. Ignoring it is to basically not talk about the post-war period.
4. It's not "knee-jerking" if it's the truth.
This.
It's not like NBF was an aberration.
GA will be along to tell us what horrible Americans we are in 3...2...1...
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 01:03:39 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 01:01:59 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 12:55:15 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 12:52:34 AM
Anyone who thinks Nathan Bedford Forrest was anything but an asshole and a terrorist has some serious learning problems.
Or simply never read about him. It HAS been 150 years, just about.
But the facts are:
1. The KKK was NOT a "social organization", it was a terrorist organization that did some charity work for Quality People on the side (confederate widows, etc), and
2. The KKK was terrorist from the word go, and
3. The KKK was a direct result of the war and the occupation. Ignoring it is to basically not talk about the post-war period.
4. It's not "knee-jerking" if it's the truth.
This.
It's not like NBF was an aberration.
GA will be along to tell us what horrible Americans we are in 3...2...1...
Yeah. And how the Klan is rilly, rilly like the Shriners. :x
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 01:07:19 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 01:03:39 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 01:01:59 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 12:55:15 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 12:52:34 AM
Anyone who thinks Nathan Bedford Forrest was anything but an asshole and a terrorist has some serious learning problems.
Or simply never read about him. It HAS been 150 years, just about.
But the facts are:
1. The KKK was NOT a "social organization", it was a terrorist organization that did some charity work for Quality People on the side (confederate widows, etc), and
2. The KKK was terrorist from the word go, and
3. The KKK was a direct result of the war and the occupation. Ignoring it is to basically not talk about the post-war period.
4. It's not "knee-jerking" if it's the truth.
This.
It's not like NBF was an aberration.
GA will be along to tell us what horrible Americans we are in 3...2...1...
Yeah. And how the Klan is rilly, rilly like the Shriners. :x
You're just saying that because you haet teh due process & all-White juries. :argh!: :lulz:
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on July 10, 2012, 12:47:59 AM
I know people don't like the simple "racism is everywhere" statement, but, well racism IS everywhere and seems to be an engrained trait of humanity. And it morphs and takes on other flavors, bigotry, religious intolerance.
Basically, one set of people who think another set of people's reality grids aren't just wrong, they are EVIL wrong.
Obama's drone strike policy, the belief that it's okay to stone women to death for premarital sex, and finding no moral qualms with systemic bank fraud are quite "evil wrong" reality grids.
Rejecting such reality grids is in no way comparable to racism and an utterly retarded line of thinking.
Quote from: Net on July 10, 2012, 01:09:54 AM
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on July 10, 2012, 12:47:59 AM
I know people don't like the simple "racism is everywhere" statement, but, well racism IS everywhere and seems to be an engrained trait of humanity. And it morphs and takes on other flavors, bigotry, religious intolerance.
Basically, one set of people who think another set of people's reality grids aren't just wrong, they are EVIL wrong.
Obama's drone strike policy, the belief that it's okay to stone women to death for premarital sex, and finding no moral qualms with systemic bank fraud are quite "evil wrong" reality grids.
Rejecting such reality grids is in no way comparable to racism and an utterly retarded line of thinking.
This.
Sometimes there IS plain-out right & wrong. Some issues are relative, some are not.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 01:08:02 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 01:07:19 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 01:03:39 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 01:01:59 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 12:55:15 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 12:52:34 AM
Anyone who thinks Nathan Bedford Forrest was anything but an asshole and a terrorist has some serious learning problems.
Or simply never read about him. It HAS been 150 years, just about.
But the facts are:
1. The KKK was NOT a "social organization", it was a terrorist organization that did some charity work for Quality People on the side (confederate widows, etc), and
2. The KKK was terrorist from the word go, and
3. The KKK was a direct result of the war and the occupation. Ignoring it is to basically not talk about the post-war period.
4. It's not "knee-jerking" if it's the truth.
This.
It's not like NBF was an aberration.
GA will be along to tell us what horrible Americans we are in 3...2...1...
Yeah. And how the Klan is rilly, rilly like the Shriners. :x
You're just saying that because you haet teh due process & all-White juries. :argh!: :lulz:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Net on July 10, 2012, 01:09:54 AM
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on July 10, 2012, 12:47:59 AM
I know people don't like the simple "racism is everywhere" statement, but, well racism IS everywhere and seems to be an engrained trait of humanity. And it morphs and takes on other flavors, bigotry, religious intolerance.
Basically, one set of people who think another set of people's reality grids aren't just wrong, they are EVIL wrong.
Obama's drone strike policy, the belief that it's okay to stone women to death for premarital sex, and finding no moral qualms with systemic bank fraud are quite "evil wrong" reality grids.
Rejecting such reality grids is in no way comparable to racism and an utterly retarded line of thinking.
Since when is Obama a "set of people"?
And I'm talking about cultures, not policy.
So you're just trolling again, I see.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on July 10, 2012, 01:30:58 AM
Quote from: Net on July 10, 2012, 01:09:54 AM
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on July 10, 2012, 12:47:59 AM
I know people don't like the simple "racism is everywhere" statement, but, well racism IS everywhere and seems to be an engrained trait of humanity. And it morphs and takes on other flavors, bigotry, religious intolerance.
Basically, one set of people who think another set of people's reality grids aren't just wrong, they are EVIL wrong.
Obama's drone strike policy, the belief that it's okay to stone women to death for premarital sex, and finding no moral qualms with systemic bank fraud are quite "evil wrong" reality grids.
Rejecting such reality grids is in no way comparable to racism and an utterly retarded line of thinking.
Since when is Obama a "set of people"?
And I'm talking about cultures, not policy.
Describe the difference.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 10, 2012, 01:39:12 AM
So you're just trolling attention whoring again, I see.
Another possible fix
Well there really is no comparison to a policy of an individual. Being against Obama's military policy isn't even remotely comparable to hating on someone because of the color of their skin, or who they date, or who they pray too. I would figure it is pretty obvious that is NOT what I'm talking about when I talk about reality grids.
I'm talking about reality grids how the PD talked about them and made specific references to cultures and how cultures descriminated against other cultures because their grids didn't line up.
I would argue that stoning women is a similar thing, though admittedtly there is an element of culture that informs that belief. But I don't think being against that policy is evil or wrong and I think it is a stupid-ass stretch to even assume they would be in the same ballpark.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on July 10, 2012, 02:05:00 AM
Well there really is no comparison to a policy of an individual.
Obama, in his capacity as CINC and president, isn't an individual. He is the elected choice of ~ 51% of the nation. If you don't like his policies, go vote for the other liar. Until then, he's the "face" of the country, when it comes to the important business of blowing villages up.
Uh, okay, but what the hell does that have to do with the topic being discussed?
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on July 10, 2012, 02:11:44 AM
Uh, okay, but what the hell does that have to do with the topic being discussed?
Okay, whatever.
Exactly, it has fuck-all to do with racism. I don't know why the connection was even made. Being against policy is a lot different than being against a people or a culture.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on July 10, 2012, 02:21:08 AM
Exactly, it has fuck-all to do with racism. I don't know why the connection was even made. Being against policy is a lot different than being against a people or a culture.
WELL, WE'VE CERTAINLY TURNED THIS DEBATE AROUND 360 DEGREES.
The RWHN method:
Argue a point.
Lose.
Claim that you're off topic.
Reassert the failed point as if the discussion never took place.
Fuckwad.
You got the first two wrong. Someone argued a stupid point that my point somehow means that people can't be against policy without being "evil". I never suggested anything remotely close to that. It's just nutso!
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on July 10, 2012, 02:05:00 AM
Well there really is no comparison to a policy of an individual. Being against Obama's military policy isn't even remotely comparable to hating on someone because of the color of their skin, or who they date, or who they pray too. I would figure it is pretty obvious that is NOT what I'm talking about when I talk about reality grids.
I'm talking about reality grids how the PD talked about them and made specific references to cultures and how cultures descriminated against other cultures because their grids didn't line up.
I would argue that stoning women is a similar thing, though admittedtly there is an element of culture that informs that belief. But I don't think being against that policy is evil or wrong and I think it is a stupid-ass stretch to even assume they would be in the same ballpark.
What was being given to you were examples of belief that are evil and bad. Obama's stance on drone strikes, a culture that stones women for premarital sex, andfinding no moral wrongdoing with a banking system of one country raping rge entire world's economy.
Evil bad
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on July 10, 2012, 02:26:19 AM
You got the first two wrong. Someone argued a stupid point that my point somehow means that people can't be against policy without being "evil". I never suggested anything remotely close to that. It's just nutso!
Whatever.
Leaving this thread to your genius until Nigel comes back to argue with me about Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Enjoy.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 10, 2012, 02:26:55 AM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on July 10, 2012, 02:05:00 AM
Well there really is no comparison to a policy of an individual. Being against Obama's military policy isn't even remotely comparable to hating on someone because of the color of their skin, or who they date, or who they pray too. I would figure it is pretty obvious that is NOT what I'm talking about when I talk about reality grids.
I'm talking about reality grids how the PD talked about them and made specific references to cultures and how cultures descriminated against other cultures because their grids didn't line up.
I would argue that stoning women is a similar thing, though admittedtly there is an element of culture that informs that belief. But I don't think being against that policy is evil or wrong and I think it is a stupid-ass stretch to even assume they would be in the same ballpark.
What was being given to you were examples of belief that are evil and bad. Obama's stance on drone strikes, a culture that stones women for premarital sex, andfinding no moral wrongdoing with a banking system of one country raping rge entire world's economy.
Evil bad
Yes, and I agree that they are evil bad. So?
So your assertion that you can't have an evil bad stand is retarded, and
EITHER
so are you for not understanding,
OR
you're trolling, in which case arguing with you being pointless should be acknlowledged.
I made no such assertion because I don't hold that being against policies of death and stoning is the same thing as thinking Muslims are evil bad merely for existing.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 02:39:57 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 02:00:40 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 10, 2012, 01:39:12 AM
So you're just trolling attention whoring again, I see.
Another possible fix
ABSOLUTE FIX
Thread is not about RWHN. Carry on.
Good luck with that. Once Captain Fallacy has his mitts on something, you can't pry him off with a crowbar. I'll just wait til he logs off.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 02:41:02 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 02:39:57 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 02:00:40 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 10, 2012, 01:39:12 AM
So you're just trolling attention whoring again, I see.
Another possible fix
ABSOLUTE FIX
Thread is not about RWHN. Carry on.
Good luck with that. Once Captain Fallacy has his mitts on something, you can't pry him off with a crowbar. I'll just wait til he logs off.
I tend to just skip his shit. But yeah.
Quote
I know people don't like the simple "racism is everywhere" statement, but, well racism IS everywhere and seems to be an engrained trait of humanity. And it morphs and takes on other flavors, bigotry, religious intolerance.
Basically, one set of people who think another set of people's reality grids aren't just wrong, they are EVIL wrong.
Right there, you liar, RWHN.
Yes Sherlock, but what you can't seem to get through your head is that I'm talking about cultures, not policy.
:potd:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
OK,
i never said that you said (like that?) people from the south are subhuman. i did say that "most immediate reaction" denoted thusly. i totally remember you phoning me while you were in texas with all this surprise about the back-assedness of it all, and all i could do was laugh, because i thought, "what the hell did you expect?"
HOWEVER,
roger, calling someone "billygoon" isn't necessarily not calling them sub-human :lulz:
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 03:21:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
OK,
i never said that you said (like that?) people from the south are subhuman. i did say that "most immediate reaction" denoted thusly. i totally remember you phoning me while you were in texas with all this surprise about the back-assedness of it all, and all i could do was laugh, because i thought, "what the hell did you expect?"
HOWEVER,
roger, calling someone "billygoon" isn't necessarily not calling them sub-human :lulz:
Come to Texas. "Billygoon" is perfectly appropriate. YOU'LL SEE.
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 03:21:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
OK,
i never said that you said (like that?) people from the south are subhuman. i did say that "most immediate reaction" denoted thusly. i totally remember you phoning me while you were in texas with all this surprise about the back-assedness of it all, and all i could do was laugh, because i thought, "what the hell did you expect?"
HOWEVER,
roger, calling someone "billygoon" isn't necessarily not calling them sub-human :lulz:
Okay, whatever. Since you're going to put words in my mouth, there's no need for me to be in the conversation.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
:?
cain generalized a group of people and called them idiots. his insistence on bringing this discussion into some military tactics format is simply missing the point entirely, aside from that, i think the "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism" makes no sense to me. how is wanting to broaden others perspectives bad? what's this about "revisionist history"?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:54:03 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
The Southeastern Meme:
1. "America is for 'real Americans'". The definition of "real Americans" varies to a degree, but it typically means American born people with conservative Christian & jingoistic views. Blacks and Hispanics may be excluded regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
2. "Nuke the bastards." The identity of the bastards may change from time to time, and "nuke" may be substituted with "invade", "bomb", or "starve 'em out". Just because.
3. "Women are only good for fucking and fucking up." This is a fairly rare component of the meme, usually found in the Appalachias and Texas. In other areas, it may simply be "women have their place; they should stay in it".
4. "Support the Troops." Nobody knows what the fuck this means. It seems to have something to do with supporting wars regardless of motive and regardless of cost in cash or human lives.
5. "Education < a punch in the face." If you feel intimidated intellectually, beat the fucker up.
6. "NASCAR = Patriotism". No shit.
7. "The South shall rise again." (Lost Cause) IE, we were right to fight, and one day we'll do it again.
8. "There's a difference between Black people and niggers". Nuff said.
9. "Any White woman who sleeps with or even associates with non-Whites is 'tainted'." This is pretty much EVERYWHERE.
10. "This is a Christian nation, so faggots should die."
There's probably some that I've forgotten, but those are the major points.
With the exception of the "South shall rise again" bit, that's the exact same as everywhere else in America. I am, however, enjoying the irony of watching people turn southerners into "Other" for the crime of, uhh, turning other people into "Other".
As I said, keeping the South was a mistake, as the bastards contaminated the rest of the country.
And as far as I'm concerned, all humans are "Other". That's why I hang out with freaks.
ROGER,
so we are to understand that all people from the south are bastards which contaminated the rest of the country? that's not bigoted. saying you hang out with "freaks" is not a get out of jail free card when you are insisting an entire culture of people are a contaminant. sure, that is also all people, but that's not what you are saying. what about blacks who live in the south?
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 03:45:10 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:54:03 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
The Southeastern Meme:
1. "America is for 'real Americans'". The definition of "real Americans" varies to a degree, but it typically means American born people with conservative Christian & jingoistic views. Blacks and Hispanics may be excluded regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
2. "Nuke the bastards." The identity of the bastards may change from time to time, and "nuke" may be substituted with "invade", "bomb", or "starve 'em out". Just because.
3. "Women are only good for fucking and fucking up." This is a fairly rare component of the meme, usually found in the Appalachias and Texas. In other areas, it may simply be "women have their place; they should stay in it".
4. "Support the Troops." Nobody knows what the fuck this means. It seems to have something to do with supporting wars regardless of motive and regardless of cost in cash or human lives.
5. "Education < a punch in the face." If you feel intimidated intellectually, beat the fucker up.
6. "NASCAR = Patriotism". No shit.
7. "The South shall rise again." (Lost Cause) IE, we were right to fight, and one day we'll do it again.
8. "There's a difference between Black people and niggers". Nuff said.
9. "Any White woman who sleeps with or even associates with non-Whites is 'tainted'." This is pretty much EVERYWHERE.
10. "This is a Christian nation, so faggots should die."
There's probably some that I've forgotten, but those are the major points.
With the exception of the "South shall rise again" bit, that's the exact same as everywhere else in America. I am, however, enjoying the irony of watching people turn southerners into "Other" for the crime of, uhh, turning other people into "Other".
As I said, keeping the South was a mistake, as the bastards contaminated the rest of the country.
And as far as I'm concerned, all humans are "Other". That's why I hang out with freaks.
ROGER,
so we are to understand that all people from the south are bastards which contaminated the rest of the country? that's not bigoted. saying you hang out with "freaks" is not a get out of jail free card when you are insisting an entire culture of people are a contaminant. sure, that is also all people, but that's not what you are saying. what about blacks who live in the south?
I think I said about 30 times that this is NOT universal.
I am not about to spend all fucking day speaking e-prime.
Go shit in your hat.
I think this thread has reached the point where we are now picking apart semantics so we can have an argument for the sake of having an argument.
Everyone agrees that racism is bad and generalizations are bad. Except GA who apparently has jumped the proverbial shark. I'm pretty sure everyone also agrees that history is more complex and nuanced than the Union's flat-out "we won and they're evil" oversimplification of events. If not then I guess there's still something worth arguing about.
But if it's just "you didn't phrase X just right and even though I'm capable of seeing past the wording, I'm going to nitpick because I want to," then... I don't know. Meh.
You know, there's a certain type of person who likes to take cheap shots when they know someone's having a bad day.
I have long made it a practice to put up with that. Changing that now.
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 03:54:56 AM
I think this thread has reached the point where we are now picking apart semantics so we can have an argument for the sake of having an argument.
I think this thread has reached the point where we are now arse biscuits taunting arse biscuits because we're too fucking OOK OOK to do anything else.
Which is a damn shame, because I spent a while digging up some links for Nigel, but thanks to Captain Fallacy and Boy Strawman, I'm just not prepared to continue.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:26:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
Odd, since the implied stance of everyone ITT engaging in anti-southern bigotry seems to be "defending the south in any way implies racism".
THANK YOU!
i have to state again, that vex is achieving the unthinkable in bringing this topic to the table and providing completely supported and rational conversation, which is being met with some equally disappointing response. consider at the fact that i can hardly keep up with this thread cuz it's so explosive!
IT IS TOTALLY O.K.
to not agree with one another, i am personally all about that, but can we discuss this without all the gutter opinion?
MAN,
if i said that all africans were stupid, because clearly they're not winning any major military achievements, even if they tried, would you be ok with that? or if i said blacks were slaves because they're stupid, that'd be alright?
HELL NO!
why are only ech, nigel, vex and g. applesauce able to approach this topic in a reasonable manner? and freaky?
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 04:01:06 AM
why are only ech, nigel, vex and g. applesauce able to approach this topic in a reasonable manner? and freaky?
Because the rest of us are stupid, obviously.
I am now putting EOT in the same box as RWHN. Here to nitpick and troll, and just generally be a shitmonkey.
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 04:01:06 AM
to not agree with one another, i am personally all about that, but can we discuss this without all the gutter opinion?
Not anymore. Asswipe.
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 04:01:06 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:26:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
Odd, since the implied stance of everyone ITT engaging in anti-southern bigotry seems to be "defending the south in any way implies racism".
THANK YOU!
i have to state again, that vex is achieving the unthinkable in bringing this topic to the table and providing completely supported and rational conversation, which is being met with some equally disappointing response. consider at the fact that i can hardly keep up with this thread cuz it's so explosive!
IT IS TOTALLY O.K.
to not agree with one another, i am personally all about that, but can we discuss this without all the gutter opinion?
MAN,
if i said that all africans were stupid, because clearly they're not winning any major military achievements, even if they tried, would you be ok with that? or if i said blacks were slaves because they're stupid, that'd be alright?
HELL NO!
why are only ech, nigel, vex and g. applesauce able to approach this topic in a reasonable manner? and freaky?
Why are you ignoring the part where they are having two different conversations? It's where the original conflict came into being and was later cleared up, and you must have read up to that part to know that I was trying to be reasonable.
I can't even wrap my head around this. You're starting shit, but for what reason?
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 10, 2012, 04:11:21 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 04:01:06 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:26:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
Odd, since the implied stance of everyone ITT engaging in anti-southern bigotry seems to be "defending the south in any way implies racism".
THANK YOU!
i have to state again, that vex is achieving the unthinkable in bringing this topic to the table and providing completely supported and rational conversation, which is being met with some equally disappointing response. consider at the fact that i can hardly keep up with this thread cuz it's so explosive!
IT IS TOTALLY O.K.
to not agree with one another, i am personally all about that, but can we discuss this without all the gutter opinion?
MAN,
if i said that all africans were stupid, because clearly they're not winning any major military achievements, even if they tried, would you be ok with that? or if i said blacks were slaves because they're stupid, that'd be alright?
HELL NO!
why are only ech, nigel, vex and g. applesauce able to approach this topic in a reasonable manner? and freaky?
Why are you ignoring the part where they are having two different conversations? It's where the original conflict came into being, and you must have read up to that part to know that I was trying to be reasonable.
I can't even wrap my head around this. You're starting shit, but for what reason?
Who needs a fucking reason? It's PD. We are pathologically incapable of having an intelligent discussion, because of e-prime requirements and general shit-tick behavior.
Why do we even fucking bother having serious discussions?
Seriously. In some ways, this shit hole is worse than Capitol Grilling.
EOT:Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
FFS. LOCKERS&SCHOOLS&BIGOTS&BIGOTS&BIGOTS
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 04:17:37 AM
EOT:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
FFS. LOCKERS&SCHOOLS&BIGOTS&BIGOTS&BIGOTS
Pointing out what I actually said isn't going to help. He knew what I said, and he knew precisely what he was doing when he posted.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 04:18:44 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 04:17:37 AM
EOT:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
FFS. LOCKERS&SCHOOLS&BIGOTS&BIGOTS&BIGOTS
Pointing out what I actually said isn't going to help. He knew what I said, and he knew precisely what he was doing when he posted.
Yeah. Not sure why I bothered.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 04:20:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 04:18:44 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 04:17:37 AM
EOT:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
FFS. LOCKERS&SCHOOLS&BIGOTS&BIGOTS&BIGOTS
Pointing out what I actually said isn't going to help. He knew what I said, and he knew precisely what he was doing when he posted.
Yeah. Not sure why I bothered.
Well, out of respect for Nigel, I'm not going to turn this particular thing into a shitfest, but I'm pretty sure I haven't got much use for EOT now or in at least the near future.
Just. This whole shennigans.
I don't even.
conversation over. maybe try again in a couple years.
I guess so. :/
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 07:53:33 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
And GA may have her head firmly up her poop chute, but that doesn't mean she wasn't right about alot of what she said. Which is kind of the point, that the discussion here needs to move beyond emotional knee-jerk shit if any sort of real understanding is to be had.
If the Klan is indeed only a social club, and a lack of Klan convictions by all-White juries from 1900-1975 is proof that the Klan is only a social club, then I suppose you are correct concerning her motivations.
WHAT
was the time frame of the civil war? and when was the first(original kkk) began and ended?
WHICH IS
the actual content relating to this thread and not the klan in 2012...
:kingmeh:
I swear to Christ you taint-mongers could turn a conversation about the weather into drama. :lulz:
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on July 10, 2012, 02:53:39 AM
Yes Sherlock, but what you can't seem to get through your head is that I'm talking about cultures, not policy.
you cannot separate a culture from the policies it's government creates. LIke transvaginal ultrasounds, and that Democrat lady not being able to say vagina in a debate about abortion rights. Doesn't that policy spring from a culture of misogyny and religious fundamentalism?
Separating the two as concepts is absurd.
But that isn't the same thing as a culture of religion, a culture of race, a culture of a group of people who share some kind of ethnic or background trait that is animportant descriptor of their being.
Being against a bunch of dumb ass whites for having and supporting an evil policy is different than thinking a bunch of dumb ass whites are evil simply by virtue of being white.
It may in some cases become a fuzzy distinction but it is a very important one.
I mean, I sure as fuck don't want to be held responsible for some of the shit my Governor is. So should I be seen as evil simply because I'm a Mainer with an evil Governor? I sure as shit didn't vote for the guy and take every opportunity I get to work against his dumb ass policies.
It sounds like you're presenting a larger version of Nigel's concept, "attack the idea, not the person."
As in, you can (should) attack Obama's policies of drone strikes as evil, et al, but you can't (shouldn't) call Obama evil because he's a Black Christian from Chicago.
Something like that?
I'm not particularly interested in ain't-it-awfulling about the prevalence of racism. At this point, I don't think we have any members who think racism is a good idea, so what's the point of condemning it? Yeah, you're right, but it doesn't advance any semblance of a conversation.
The much more compelling question to me is the structure of the worldview that allows for this romantic view of the South before, during, and immediately after the Civil War, and continuing sympathy for the Confederate cause, however that "cause" is remembered. How do otherwise intelligent people end up carrying around that much bigotry and revisionist history in their heads? Responding with "they're stupid / human / manipulated by their leaders for political gain" just short-circuits a discussion that could otherwise have had new ideas to chew on.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 10, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
I'm not particularly interested in ain't-it-awfulling about the prevalence of racism. At this point, I don't think we have any members who think racism is a good idea, so what's the point of condemning it? Yeah, you're right, but it doesn't advance any semblance of a conversation.
The much more compelling question to me is the structure of the worldview that allows for this romantic view of the South before, during, and immediately after the Civil War, and continuing sympathy for the Confederate cause, however that "cause" is remembered. How do otherwise intelligent people end up carrying around that much bigotry and revisionist history in their heads? Responding with "they're stupid / human / manipulated by their leaders for political gain" just short-circuits a discussion that could otherwise have had new ideas to chew on.
Translation:
1. We've proven that the Klan isn't a "social club", and GA is butthurt about it.
2. We are to have a conversation without discussing any of the actual events that occurred during and after the war, because it makes GA mad when people diss her Glorious South.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 10, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
I'm not particularly interested in ain't-it-awfulling about the prevalence of racism. At this point, I don't think we have any members who think racism is a good idea, so what's the point of condemning it? Yeah, you're right, but it doesn't advance any semblance of a conversation.
The much more compelling question to me is the structure of the worldview that allows for this romantic view of the South before, during, and immediately after the Civil War, and continuing sympathy for the Confederate cause, however that "cause" is remembered. How do otherwise intelligent people end up carrying around that much bigotry and revisionist history in their heads? Responding with "they're stupid / human / manipulated by their leaders for political gain" just short-circuits a discussion that could otherwise have had new ideas to chew on.
Perhaps not surprisingly, that's a much less interesting topic.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ju/rationalization/
They start from a conclusion, "I am not a bad person", and then they gather evidence around them to support that, and ignore/dismiss/find work-arounds for all the contrary evidence.
There are quite large fields of research discussing this behavior. Much less discussed are the finer points that Roger, v3x, ECH, and others (quite a few others, I don't mean to leave anyone out, so don't be mad if I didn't mention you, apologies) are bringing up.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 10, 2012, 02:15:09 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 10, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
I'm not particularly interested in ain't-it-awfulling about the prevalence of racism. At this point, I don't think we have any members who think racism is a good idea, so what's the point of condemning it? Yeah, you're right, but it doesn't advance any semblance of a conversation.
The much more compelling question to me is the structure of the worldview that allows for this romantic view of the South before, during, and immediately after the Civil War, and continuing sympathy for the Confederate cause, however that "cause" is remembered. How do otherwise intelligent people end up carrying around that much bigotry and revisionist history in their heads? Responding with "they're stupid / human / manipulated by their leaders for political gain" just short-circuits a discussion that could otherwise have had new ideas to chew on.
Perhaps not surprisingly, that's a much less interesting topic.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ju/rationalization/
They start from a conclusion, "I am not a bad person", and then they gather evidence around them to support that, and ignore/dismiss/find work-arounds for all the contrary evidence.
There are quite large fields of research discussing this behavior. Much less discussed are the finer points that Roger, v3x, ECH, and others (quite a few others, I don't mean to leave anyone out, so don't be mad if I didn't mention you, apologies) are bringing up.
This is true. Tyrants don't show up all bloody-handed one day, just because.
They show up when people grow weary of the burden of self-determination and
demand them.
And if you're not willing to discuss all of the ramifications of a given conflict or event, then you aren't discussing the event at all.
Dismissing the entire Confederate cause with something a starkly simple as racism and slavery is a mistake. Nit because the Confederates deserve any sympathy for their tactics or their justifications which were, mostly, bad; but because the rights they fought for were nevertheless rights we should have. That they grounded them in such moral depravity is tragic, because it is easy now for people to assume anyone who wants the Government to fuck off, or who thinks a town or a county or a state might know how to handle itself without any help from 2000 miles away, is backward and evil.
Civil Rights are a legacy of the Civil Rights movement, not of the war. All the war left us with is a permanently schizophrenic political culture and a complete disconnect between the two hemispheres of the addled American brain. Half if us want to do the right thing in the wrong way, and the other half of us want to do the wring thing in the wrong way. There is no right way, of course. We killed that with guns and stupid, and we sit outside by its grave all night long making sure it doesn't get resurrected.
If America teaches the world one thing by the time it finally dwindles away and dies, it'll be that no matter the adversity they face, the Bastards will always find a way to kill something beautiful.
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 03:47:14 PM
Dismissing the entire Confederate cause with something a starkly simple as racism and slavery is a mistake. Nit because the Confederates deserve any sympathy for their tactics or their justifications which were, mostly, bad; but because the rights they fought for were nevertheless rights we should have. That they grounded them in such moral depravity is tragic, because it is easy now for people to assume anyone who wants the Government to fuck off, or who thinks a town or a county or a state might know how to handle itself without any help from 2000 miles away, is backward and evil.
I agree with you. So does Lysander Spooner. And this, I think, was part & parcel with what I was trying to say. After the civil war, the previously (somewhat) isolated North & South became more integrated with each other, to the detriment of both.
I am about ten pages behind and have no intention of catching up, but I'm super irritated with this thread because petty nitpicking over shit like whether the original KKK was founded with the intention of being assholes, whether it was stupid of the South to attempt secession, monkeylike mindless demonizing of the enemy, accusing people of supporting racism, and other such bullshit has completely derailed the thread from the topic which I found interesting and relevant, which is, from a sociological perspective, whether (and why) the Union winning the Civil war ultimately made things worse for race relations in the South, the reasons white people in the South are attached to the Confederate identity, and whether attachment to that identity automatically means supporting racism and slavery. I would argue that it does not, any more than being a Democrat does, despite its historic connection. I could talk about why that identity is psychologically important for white people in the South, and why the rest of the US does everyone a disservice by insisting that all Confederate leaders were monsters by default, and the Confederate flag HAS TO EQUAL RACISM. It's a fallacy intended to shame the vanquished into abandoning their cultural identity; a form of cultural conquest.
I thought it might be a valuable discussion of a topic that is essentially taboo in our society.
But I am completely fucking done with this conversation, because there is nothing useful to be had or learned here. It continues to revolve around BUT THE SOUTH WAS BAD AND THE NORTH WAS GOOD, which is complete and utter simplistic black and white bullshit that absolutely disregards the realities of all wars everywhere ever. It's monkeys, all the way down.
I'm reasonably certain that I spelled out the fact that the North was bad as well, and that the mixture of the two was worse than the sum of their parts.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 10, 2012, 01:07:54 PM
It sounds like you're presenting a larger version of Nigel's concept, "attack the idea, not the person."
As in, you can (should) attack Obama's policies of drone strikes as evil, et al, but you can't (shouldn't) call Obama evil because he's a Black Christian from Chicago.
Something like that?
Precisely.
I'd like to propose "The PD Effect": The more hostile, vile, and unenjoyable a thread becomes, the more likely that everyone will look at that thread to the exclusion of all others.
It's like a car wreck. Everyone HAS to rubberneck.
And there's not much point to doing anything else, because everyone else is doing the same thing, and traffic's not moving anyway.
OOK!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 05:23:37 PM
I'd like to propose "The PD Effect": The more hostile, vile, and unenjoyable a thread becomes, the more likely that everyone will look at that thread to the exclusion of all others.
It's like a car wreck. Everyone HAS to rubberneck.
And there's not much point to doing anything else, because everyone else is doing the same thing, and traffic's not moving anyway.
OOK!
Yeah. "Show unread posts since last visit". "Re: A curiosity about the South, for people who live here *new*"
Shit.
Blather.
Voice of reason.
Voice of reason misconstrued into blather by someone else.
More shit.
Repeat.
Repeat.
100 pages. Fuck.
Repeat.
The problem isn't the topic, of course.
It's that we can't behave.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 03:51:55 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 03:47:14 PM
Dismissing the entire Confederate cause with something a starkly simple as racism and slavery is a mistake. Nit because the Confederates deserve any sympathy for their tactics or their justifications which were, mostly, bad; but because the rights they fought for were nevertheless rights we should have. That they grounded them in such moral depravity is tragic, because it is easy now for people to assume anyone who wants the Government to fuck off, or who thinks a town or a county or a state might know how to handle itself without any help from 2000 miles away, is backward and evil.
I agree with you. So does Lysander Spooner. And this, I think, was part & parcel with what I was trying to say. After the civil war, the previously (somewhat) isolated North & South became more integrated with each other, to the detriment of both.
Wait... so... when I see an attempt to legislate a better society through laws that offend my sense of individuality, my reaction may be just as incorrect as someone else's instinctive dry-heaving at every sight of the Confederate flag? Fuck.
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 06:02:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 03:51:55 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 03:47:14 PM
Dismissing the entire Confederate cause with something a starkly simple as racism and slavery is a mistake. Nit because the Confederates deserve any sympathy for their tactics or their justifications which were, mostly, bad; but because the rights they fought for were nevertheless rights we should have. That they grounded them in such moral depravity is tragic, because it is easy now for people to assume anyone who wants the Government to fuck off, or who thinks a town or a county or a state might know how to handle itself without any help from 2000 miles away, is backward and evil.
I agree with you. So does Lysander Spooner. And this, I think, was part & parcel with what I was trying to say. After the civil war, the previously (somewhat) isolated North & South became more integrated with each other, to the detriment of both.
Wait... so... when I see an attempt to legislate a better society through laws that offend my sense of individuality, my reaction may be just as incorrect as someone else's instinctive dry-heaving at every sight of the Confederate flag? Fuck.
What?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 06:03:36 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 06:02:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 03:51:55 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 03:47:14 PM
Dismissing the entire Confederate cause with something a starkly simple as racism and slavery is a mistake. Nit because the Confederates deserve any sympathy for their tactics or their justifications which were, mostly, bad; but because the rights they fought for were nevertheless rights we should have. That they grounded them in such moral depravity is tragic, because it is easy now for people to assume anyone who wants the Government to fuck off, or who thinks a town or a county or a state might know how to handle itself without any help from 2000 miles away, is backward and evil.
I agree with you. So does Lysander Spooner. And this, I think, was part & parcel with what I was trying to say. After the civil war, the previously (somewhat) isolated North & South became more integrated with each other, to the detriment of both.
Wait... so... when I see an attempt to legislate a better society through laws that offend my sense of individuality, my reaction may be just as incorrect as someone else's instinctive dry-heaving at every sight of the Confederate flag? Fuck.
What?
The North overran the South.
And the South infected the North. Until your comment, my understanding was a one-sided interpretation of history, namely that the North has demonized the South for 150 years. Conversely, the South has demonized the North, and part of my own filter is tinted by that -- which I had not detected until now.
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 06:05:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 06:03:36 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 06:02:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 03:51:55 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 03:47:14 PM
Dismissing the entire Confederate cause with something a starkly simple as racism and slavery is a mistake. Nit because the Confederates deserve any sympathy for their tactics or their justifications which were, mostly, bad; but because the rights they fought for were nevertheless rights we should have. That they grounded them in such moral depravity is tragic, because it is easy now for people to assume anyone who wants the Government to fuck off, or who thinks a town or a county or a state might know how to handle itself without any help from 2000 miles away, is backward and evil.
I agree with you. So does Lysander Spooner. And this, I think, was part & parcel with what I was trying to say. After the civil war, the previously (somewhat) isolated North & South became more integrated with each other, to the detriment of both.
Wait... so... when I see an attempt to legislate a better society through laws that offend my sense of individuality, my reaction may be just as incorrect as someone else's instinctive dry-heaving at every sight of the Confederate flag? Fuck.
What?
The North overran the South. And the South infected the North. Until your comment, my understanding was a one-sided interpretation of history, namely that the North has demonized the South for 150 years. Conversely, the South has demonized the North, and part of my own filter is tinted by that -- which I had not detected until now.
Well, that's been my whole point. You can't invade or be invaded without being influenced by the opposite side. Action/reaction. What else could you possibly expect?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 06:07:50 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 06:05:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 06:03:36 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 06:02:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 03:51:55 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 03:47:14 PM
Dismissing the entire Confederate cause with something a starkly simple as racism and slavery is a mistake. Nit because the Confederates deserve any sympathy for their tactics or their justifications which were, mostly, bad; but because the rights they fought for were nevertheless rights we should have. That they grounded them in such moral depravity is tragic, because it is easy now for people to assume anyone who wants the Government to fuck off, or who thinks a town or a county or a state might know how to handle itself without any help from 2000 miles away, is backward and evil.
I agree with you. So does Lysander Spooner. And this, I think, was part & parcel with what I was trying to say. After the civil war, the previously (somewhat) isolated North & South became more integrated with each other, to the detriment of both.
Wait... so... when I see an attempt to legislate a better society through laws that offend my sense of individuality, my reaction may be just as incorrect as someone else's instinctive dry-heaving at every sight of the Confederate flag? Fuck.
What?
The North overran the South. And the South infected the North. Until your comment, my understanding was a one-sided interpretation of history, namely that the North has demonized the South for 150 years. Conversely, the South has demonized the North, and part of my own filter is tinted by that -- which I had not detected until now.
Well, that's been my whole point. You can't invade or be invaded without being influenced by the opposite side. Action/reaction. What else could you possibly expect?
I EXPECT PONIES.
nm
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 06:05:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 06:03:36 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 06:02:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 03:51:55 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 03:47:14 PM
Dismissing the entire Confederate cause with something a starkly simple as racism and slavery is a mistake. Nit because the Confederates deserve any sympathy for their tactics or their justifications which were, mostly, bad; but because the rights they fought for were nevertheless rights we should have. That they grounded them in such moral depravity is tragic, because it is easy now for people to assume anyone who wants the Government to fuck off, or who thinks a town or a county or a state might know how to handle itself without any help from 2000 miles away, is backward and evil.
I agree with you. So does Lysander Spooner. And this, I think, was part & parcel with what I was trying to say. After the civil war, the previously (somewhat) isolated North & South became more integrated with each other, to the detriment of both.
Wait... so... when I see an attempt to legislate a better society through laws that offend my sense of individuality, my reaction may be just as incorrect as someone else's instinctive dry-heaving at every sight of the Confederate flag? Fuck.
What?
The North overran the South. And the South infected the North. Until your comment, my understanding was a one-sided interpretation of history, namely that the North has demonized the South for 150 years. Conversely, the South has demonized the North, and part of my own filter is tinted by that -- which I had not detected until now.
Exactly. The Civil War was a bigger clusterfuck than most people are capable of dealing with rationally.
A lot of people who trace their ancestors find family members fighting on BOTH sides. And it was right here, not off across the ocean somewhere. How do you walk out of that thinking straight?
This thread is great (for the most part).
If your not just going to decimate your enemies, then you damn well better defend against their long term forays into your culture. If a lot of nasty ideas came from the south it's only the north's fault for not fighting harder against that.
In a lot of ways it also speaks to the wisdom of hiding in plain sight and slowly working your machinery into the gears, instead of throwing a wrench in there.
Well, I just learned something, which I guess is great.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 06:16:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 06:14:31 PM
Well, I just learned something, which I guess is great.
???
I learned, at the bottom of the last page, that it's fucking hopeless. Ancient feuds never die, there's no actual communication, and the only response you'll get to finally managing to articulate your position will be some shit about ponies.
I know a hopeless case when I see one. There is nothing further to be gained in this conversation. I am beginning to doubt that there is anything further to be gained at all.
The Civil War was one of the few things in American History that rose to the definition of a true Culture-maker. Aside from that, we have the Revolutionary War (or the "War for Independence," as they say to distinguish us from the Godless Commies), and we have Elvis. Even World War 2 was mostly a spectator sport for the general population. Vietnam was just the first sitcom with a terrible ending. The Civil Rights Movement was half struggle for recognition and equality, and half science experiment. Nothing has defined the spirit of America quite like the Civil War, even if most of us don't realize it anymore. And in a way that's what makes it Real Culture. The fact that it's been driven so deep inside our collective psyche that it doesn't matter who you are or what you think you know -- it's there, breeding contempt for somebody.
Every American alive today is a reincarnated Union or Confederate soldier, fighting for what they're fairly sure was a decent argument somebody made about something that must have been important. Willing to kill for it, and willing to say they're willing to die for it. And every day in America is Gettysburg. Bodies strewn all over a battlefield, as an endless line of fresh meet marches toward ground zero, where they'll be vaporized. A moment later, the dead man will be reborn as another sucker 500 miles away, who'll grow up and be taught that the highest thing he can aspire to is to march down to some terrible valley with a gun, and take down as many of the awful bastards as he can before he is stung by one of their bullets.
Nobody knows, really, what the fuck they're fighting for. But that's a fleeting detail. Even if they knew, even if they could be persuaded against their beliefs, they'd keep fighting out of sheer historical momentum. It isn't what you fight for that's important, it's that you fight. That's the American legacy, and it is our gift to the world.
:hosrie:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 06:34:48 PM
:hosrie:
Forgive me for posting something dumb instead of holding my breath until I had something more substantive to type out.
Quote from: v3x on July 10, 2012, 06:39:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 06:34:48 PM
:hosrie:
Forgive me for posting something dumb instead of holding my breath until I had something more substantive to type out.
S'okay.
It's what I'm here for. Was here for. There's nothing here to be here for. Like the man said, gonna get a boat and sail away, ain't anyone gonna miss me anyway, 6 pack of beer and sail all day.
That's bull and you know it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 06:17:56 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 06:16:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 06:14:31 PM
Well, I just learned something, which I guess is great.
???
I learned, at the bottom of the last page, that it's fucking hopeless. Ancient feuds never die, there's no actual communication, and the only response you'll get to finally managing to articulate your position will be some shit about ponies.
I know a hopeless case when I see one. There is nothing further to be gained in this conversation. I am beginning to doubt that there is anything further to be gained at all.
Kind of like a nation of Granny Clampetts who never got word that it's over???
Now I want a drink. :x
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 10, 2012, 06:44:41 PM
That's bull and you know it.
But it's not, Freeky. Nigel and I discussed NBF last night, and she asked me to post links. Today, she tells me she could have done that herself, and she doesn't want to talk about him. V3x showed me where I stand. ECH and EOT told me what I am. RWHN, well, he's just RWHN. I have been told that I am a bigot. I have been told that I knee jerk. I have been told that I am not intelligent enough to have a conversation. I have been told, by damn near everyone, just what exactly I am. Even LMNO isn't talking to me. Cain's already left in disgust, for very similar reasons.
There's nothing left at PD, at least for me, other than the traditional and ever-present CG-esque sniping for "points", and venting of ancient & rancid butthurt, with additional helpings of fresh, new butthurt.
What the hell am I doing here? There is no good answer.
:(
I got nothing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 06:50:36 PM
What the hell am I doing here? There is no good answer.
You're doing the same thing the rest of us are doing here. Waiting for the Apocalypse to happen. And since we're all gonna go down in a flaming blast anyway, we might as well get warmed up by spitting fire at each other.
Whoa, whoa whoa. I post when I can. I even wrote a little something for the "land of the not quite dead" thread.
I just don't have much to contribute to this discussion.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 10, 2012, 07:28:17 PM
Whoa, whoa whoa. I post when I can. I even wrote a little something for the "land of the not quite dead" thread.
I just don't have much to contribute to this discussion.
No, you're right. I apologize.
Same to anyone else I misrepresented with that post. I'm having one of those months.
It's not the brain flukes, is it?
Personally, today has been quite the shit show.
I would, however, like to know exactly what the fuck we ARE talking about in this thread.
Because half the time anyone answers, they're told they're off topic or talking about shit nobody cares about.
The impression I had is that this thread is about the civil war, pre-, -post, etc. Am I right in this?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 10, 2012, 08:20:57 PM
It's not the brain flukes, is it?
Personally, today has been quite the shit show.
I don't think so. Just overwork, underslept, and PILLZ HERE & coffee to make up the difference.
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 02, 2012, 09:59:52 PM
Have you ever had someone argue with you that the North crashed down and the South won?
Someone who argued that moderation is actually in fact, BAD for you?
That WW2 didn't only involve Jewish people and Normandy wasn't the only battle?
This was the OP ^. I think the entire thread was off to a bad start, if you ask me.
There were some valient attempts to say something of value, but since there wasn't really a main topic to begin with, there was no common theme to hang on to.
And other prepositions with.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 10, 2012, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 02, 2012, 09:59:52 PM
Have you ever had someone argue with you that the North crashed down and the South won?
Someone who argued that moderation is actually in fact, BAD for you?
That WW2 didn't only involve Jewish people and Normandy wasn't the only battle?
This was the OP ^. I think the entire thread was off to a bad start, if you ask me.
There were some valient attempts to say something of value, but since there wasn't really a main topic to begin with, there was no common theme to hang on to.
And other prepositions with.
I think the conversation actually began with V3x's comment (reply #9).
Right now, I just want to know what the fuck we're supposed to be talking about.
I been mostly spectating. Interesting foreign cultural shit that I don't really know much about, interspersed with trolling and sniping but (for me) it was all worth it for something I never before thought about - the idea of the victors of a battle being influenced/infected by the culture they were fighting to eradicate. Makes perfect sense but it's something that had never before occurred to me so, yeah, thanks for that guys. Sincerely!
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 10, 2012, 10:09:47 PM
I been mostly spectating. Interesting foreign cultural shit that I don't really know much about, interspersed with trolling and sniping but (for me) it was all worth it for something I never before thought about - the idea of the victors of a battle being influenced/infected by the culture they were fighting to eradicate. Makes perfect sense but it's something that had never before occurred to me so, yeah, thanks for that guys. Sincerely!
It happened over there, too, in both Scotland and Wales...And most especially in the Norman invasion.
Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artis intulit agresti Latio.
- Horace
This phenomenon is known and noted, to be sure. Even so, I can understand where Pent is coming from. It's fairly easy to overlook that occupation is a two way street. I mean, you are initially going to think that an occupation force is going to impose its own culture on the people it has conquered, and that it is going to somehow overwrite the previous culture completely, but of course, that neither makes sense, nor does anything in history show that. Cultural exchange between China, Japan, Korea, and the Mongols, the Romans and the Greeks, Egyptians, and Persians, the complexity of post-Roman Europe, etc.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 10, 2012, 11:44:58 PM
Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artis intulit agresti Latio.
- Horace
This phenomenon is known and noted, to be sure. Even so, I can understand where Pent is coming from. It's fairly easy to overlook that occupation is a two way street. I mean, you are initially going to think that an occupation force is going to impose its own culture on the people it has conquered, and that it is going to somehow overwrite the previous culture completely, but of course, that neither makes sense, nor does anything in history show that. Cultural exchange between China, Japan, Korea, and the Mongols, the Romans and the Greeks, Egyptians, and Persians, the complexity of post-Roman Europe, etc.
Half of the reason England is and has been so violent is that they used to get invaded 3 times a century. This eventually had a very strong influence on the French, the Vikings, and everyone else who didn't hang around. The ones that DID hang around became British or went mad.
The other half of the reason for their violence, of course, is that they're English. Even the Scots and the Welsh, though they'll never admit it.
By the way, apologies to just about everyone I ranted about, the bottom of the last page.
Too many benzos, not enough sleep.
Whoops. Already said that.
I suppose it can't hurt to say it twice.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 10, 2012, 11:44:58 PM
Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artis intulit agresti Latio.
- Horace
This phenomenon is known and noted, to be sure. Even so, I can understand where Pent is coming from. It's fairly easy to overlook that occupation is a two way street. I mean, you are initially going to think that an occupation force is going to impose its own culture on the people it has conquered, and that it is going to somehow overwrite the previous culture completely, but of course, that neither makes sense, nor does anything in history show that. Cultural exchange between China, Japan, Korea, and the Mongols, the Romans and the Greeks, Egyptians, and Persians, the complexity of post-Roman Europe, etc.
I can see it for everything mentioned so far, but I don't really see the US being much influenced by the Native Americans. OK, the US representative republic was a direct rip from the Six Nations, but other than that I just don't see much. But maybe that's just the way this country has of turning everything it touches into shit. High-yield corn that tastes like crap? Robert Bly mens' weekends? :x Or maybe it's different with genocide...don't know.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 12:51:24 AM
I can see it for everything mentioned so far, but I don't really see the US being much influenced by the Native Americans. OK, the US representative republic was a direct rip from the Six Nations, but other than that I just don't see much.
You mean besides the fact that everyone in the damn country insists that they're descended from an Indian princess or some shit? :lulz:
Also, our military was VERY heavily influenced by the various tribes and nations; some of the doctrine developed then is still in place today.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 12:53:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 12:51:24 AM
I can see it for everything mentioned so far, but I don't really see the US being much influenced by the Native Americans. OK, the US representative republic was a direct rip from the Six Nations, but other than that I just don't see much.
You mean besides the fact that everyone in the damn country insists that they're descended from an Indian princess or some shit? :lulz:
Also, our military was VERY heavily influenced by the various tribes and nations; some of the doctrine developed then is still in place today.
I knew they cribbed a lot of strategic stuff after pwnage at battles like the Fetterman fight, but I'd like to know about the doctrine. :)
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 01:02:11 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 12:53:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 12:51:24 AM
I can see it for everything mentioned so far, but I don't really see the US being much influenced by the Native Americans. OK, the US representative republic was a direct rip from the Six Nations, but other than that I just don't see much.
You mean besides the fact that everyone in the damn country insists that they're descended from an Indian princess or some shit? :lulz:
Also, our military was VERY heavily influenced by the various tribes and nations; some of the doctrine developed then is still in place today.
I knew they cribbed a lot of strategic stuff after pwnage at battles like the Fetterman fight, but I'd like to know about the doctrine. :)
The way squads move in a double vee pattern, for example.
Also worth considering: Half of our place names are the original (or close to) words used by the Native Americans.
Hell, our paratroopers shout Geronimo's name when they jump, to give them courage (I think the old guy would have gotten a kick out of that).
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 01:04:13 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 01:02:11 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 12:53:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 12:51:24 AM
I can see it for everything mentioned so far, but I don't really see the US being much influenced by the Native Americans. OK, the US representative republic was a direct rip from the Six Nations, but other than that I just don't see much.
You mean besides the fact that everyone in the damn country insists that they're descended from an Indian princess or some shit? :lulz:
Also, our military was VERY heavily influenced by the various tribes and nations; some of the doctrine developed then is still in place today.
I knew they cribbed a lot of strategic stuff after pwnage at battles like the Fetterman fight, but I'd like to know about the doctrine. :)
The way squads move in a double vee pattern, for example.
Also worth considering: Half of our place names are the original (or close to) words used by the Native Americans.
Hell, our paratroopers shout Geronimo's name when they jump, to give them courage (I think the old guy would have gotten a kick out of that).
More than likely. :lol: And yes, a LOT of place names. Even animal names - I've heard that "raccoon" comes from an Algonquian word. I'll be damned. :)
You can usually tell when the white people named things out west. The names tend to contain "death", "dead", "hell" or "devil". :lulz:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 01:19:38 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 01:04:13 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 01:02:11 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 12:53:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 12:51:24 AM
I can see it for everything mentioned so far, but I don't really see the US being much influenced by the Native Americans. OK, the US representative republic was a direct rip from the Six Nations, but other than that I just don't see much.
You mean besides the fact that everyone in the damn country insists that they're descended from an Indian princess or some shit? :lulz:
Also, our military was VERY heavily influenced by the various tribes and nations; some of the doctrine developed then is still in place today.
I knew they cribbed a lot of strategic stuff after pwnage at battles like the Fetterman fight, but I'd like to know about the doctrine. :)
The way squads move in a double vee pattern, for example.
Also worth considering: Half of our place names are the original (or close to) words used by the Native Americans.
Hell, our paratroopers shout Geronimo's name when they jump, to give them courage (I think the old guy would have gotten a kick out of that).
More than likely. :lol: And yes, a LOT of place names. Even animal names - I've heard that "raccoon" comes from an Algonquian word. I'll be damned. :)
You can usually tell when the white people named things out west. The names tend to contain "death", "dead", "hell" or "devil". :lulz:
That's because there's no air.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 01:21:24 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 01:19:38 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 01:04:13 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 01:02:11 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 12:53:26 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 12:51:24 AM
I can see it for everything mentioned so far, but I don't really see the US being much influenced by the Native Americans. OK, the US representative republic was a direct rip from the Six Nations, but other than that I just don't see much.
You mean besides the fact that everyone in the damn country insists that they're descended from an Indian princess or some shit? :lulz:
Also, our military was VERY heavily influenced by the various tribes and nations; some of the doctrine developed then is still in place today.
I knew they cribbed a lot of strategic stuff after pwnage at battles like the Fetterman fight, but I'd like to know about the doctrine. :)
The way squads move in a double vee pattern, for example.
Also worth considering: Half of our place names are the original (or close to) words used by the Native Americans.
Hell, our paratroopers shout Geronimo's name when they jump, to give them courage (I think the old guy would have gotten a kick out of that).
More than likely. :lol: And yes, a LOT of place names. Even animal names - I've heard that "raccoon" comes from an Algonquian word. I'll be damned. :)
You can usually tell when the white people named things out west. The names tend to contain "death", "dead", "hell" or "devil". :lulz:
That's because there's no air.
Or shade.
Or water.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 03:29:28 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 03:21:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
OK,
i never said that you said (like that?) people from the south are subhuman. i did say that "most immediate reaction" denoted thusly. i totally remember you phoning me while you were in texas with all this surprise about the back-assedness of it all, and all i could do was laugh, because i thought, "what the hell did you expect?"
HOWEVER,
roger, calling someone "billygoon" isn't necessarily not calling them sub-human :lulz:
Okay, whatever. Since you're going to put words in my mouth, there's no need for me to be in the conversation.
GOOD REVEREND ROGER,
you said billygoon. i'm not putting words in your mouth. why is that becoming a theme in this thread?
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 10, 2012, 02:34:41 AM
So your assertion that you can't have an evil bad stand is retarded, and
EITHER
so are you for not understanding,
OR
you're trolling, in which case arguing with you being pointless should be acknlowledged.
FREAKY
!! (love the flashback!!)
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 03:27:51 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 03:21:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 06, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 06, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2012, 07:48:48 PM
Of course the south won. They were fighting for freedom, which is always the right thing to do - it was a moral victory.
Raw and stinking bullshit. They were fighting for a static aristocracy.
They were fighting for the freedom to determine how to run their own economy and government. You can't really say that someone has the God-given right to pursue happiness, and then turn around and say "Well, but only if your method of pursuing happiness doesn't include human trafficking." These were honest, Christian farmers being faced with the possibility of being unable to leave their workforce to their children. Similarly, being forced allow illiterate non-citizens with no stake in the country to cast votes defeats the entire purpose of democracy - it's not self-determination if an outside power is manipulating the voting population to its own ends.
It's not Freedom if you can't abuse it.
I'm leaving this thread now, out of sheer depression brought on by watching two supposed bipeds defend/support this sort of shit.
WHICH IS EXACTLY
why you need to stay and this thread needs to happen. vex and ga are doing an outstanding job, imo, in bringing a voice of reason to this issue. the very fact that most immediate reaction to any of this underlines the idea that people from the south are not people, but some kind of sub human, demands this thread to exist. nigel brought it out in point, the issues connected to the south and the confederacy are cloaked in so much womp that even incredibly intelligent folks have only frothing response to all of it. this is important dialogue.
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
OK,
i never said that you said (like that?) people from the south are subhuman. i did say that "most immediate reaction" denoted thusly. i totally remember you phoning me while you were in texas with all this surprise about the back-assedness of it all, and all i could do was laugh, because i thought, "what the hell did you expect?"
HOWEVER,
roger, calling someone "billygoon" isn't necessarily not calling them sub-human :lulz:
Come to Texas. "Billygoon" is perfectly appropriate. YOU'LL SEE.
HA HA
i don't really know what that means, but i think it's hilarious
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 03:45:10 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:54:03 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
The Southeastern Meme:
1. "America is for 'real Americans'". The definition of "real Americans" varies to a degree, but it typically means American born people with conservative Christian & jingoistic views. Blacks and Hispanics may be excluded regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
2. "Nuke the bastards." The identity of the bastards may change from time to time, and "nuke" may be substituted with "invade", "bomb", or "starve 'em out". Just because.
3. "Women are only good for fucking and fucking up." This is a fairly rare component of the meme, usually found in the Appalachias and Texas. In other areas, it may simply be "women have their place; they should stay in it".
4. "Support the Troops." Nobody knows what the fuck this means. It seems to have something to do with supporting wars regardless of motive and regardless of cost in cash or human lives.
5. "Education < a punch in the face." If you feel intimidated intellectually, beat the fucker up.
6. "NASCAR = Patriotism". No shit.
7. "The South shall rise again." (Lost Cause) IE, we were right to fight, and one day we'll do it again.
8. "There's a difference between Black people and niggers". Nuff said.
9. "Any White woman who sleeps with or even associates with non-Whites is 'tainted'." This is pretty much EVERYWHERE.
10. "This is a Christian nation, so faggots should die."
There's probably some that I've forgotten, but those are the major points.
With the exception of the "South shall rise again" bit, that's the exact same as everywhere else in America. I am, however, enjoying the irony of watching people turn southerners into "Other" for the crime of, uhh, turning other people into "Other".
As I said, keeping the South was a mistake, as the bastards contaminated the rest of the country.
And as far as I'm concerned, all humans are "Other". That's why I hang out with freaks.
ROGER,
so we are to understand that all people from the south are bastards which contaminated the rest of the country? that's not bigoted. saying you hang out with "freaks" is not a get out of jail free card when you are insisting an entire culture of people are a contaminant. sure, that is also all people, but that's not what you are saying. what about blacks who live in the south?
I think I said about 30 times that this is NOT universal.
I am not about to spend all fucking day speaking e-prime.
Go shit in your hat.
I DO SHIT IN MY HAT,
now quit making generalized statements which can very easily be misunderstood in a conversation
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 10, 2012, 04:11:21 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 04:01:06 AM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:26:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
Odd, since the implied stance of everyone ITT engaging in anti-southern bigotry seems to be "defending the south in any way implies racism".
THANK YOU!
i have to state again, that vex is achieving the unthinkable in bringing this topic to the table and providing completely supported and rational conversation, which is being met with some equally disappointing response. consider at the fact that i can hardly keep up with this thread cuz it's so explosive!
IT IS TOTALLY O.K.
to not agree with one another, i am personally all about that, but can we discuss this without all the gutter opinion?
MAN,
if i said that all africans were stupid, because clearly they're not winning any major military achievements, even if they tried, would you be ok with that? or if i said blacks were slaves because they're stupid, that'd be alright?
HELL NO!
why are only ech, nigel, vex and g. applesauce able to approach this topic in a reasonable manner? and freaky?
Why are you ignoring the part where they are having two different conversations? It's where the original conflict came into being and was later cleared up, and you must have read up to that part to know that I was trying to be reasonable.
I can't even wrap my head around this. You're starting shit, but for what reason?
FREAKY,
i'm not certain who "they" are but i do feel that there are two different conversations taking place; the original op which is about the civil war era and people addressing civil rights in the 1960's, a hundred years later/ contemporary culture.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 04:02:49 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 04:01:06 AM
why are only ech, nigel, vex and g. applesauce able to approach this topic in a reasonable manner? and freaky?
Because the rest of us are stupid, obviously.
CURIOUSLY,
"stupid" is not, not, not a term which i have applied in this conversation. care to support that accusation, roger?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 10, 2012, 03:45:10 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:54:03 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
The Southeastern Meme:
1. "America is for 'real Americans'". The definition of "real Americans" varies to a degree, but it typically means American born people with conservative Christian & jingoistic views. Blacks and Hispanics may be excluded regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
2. "Nuke the bastards." The identity of the bastards may change from time to time, and "nuke" may be substituted with "invade", "bomb", or "starve 'em out". Just because.
3. "Women are only good for fucking and fucking up." This is a fairly rare component of the meme, usually found in the Appalachias and Texas. In other areas, it may simply be "women have their place; they should stay in it".
4. "Support the Troops." Nobody knows what the fuck this means. It seems to have something to do with supporting wars regardless of motive and regardless of cost in cash or human lives.
5. "Education < a punch in the face." If you feel intimidated intellectually, beat the fucker up.
6. "NASCAR = Patriotism". No shit.
7. "The South shall rise again." (Lost Cause) IE, we were right to fight, and one day we'll do it again.
8. "There's a difference between Black people and niggers". Nuff said.
9. "Any White woman who sleeps with or even associates with non-Whites is 'tainted'." This is pretty much EVERYWHERE.
10. "This is a Christian nation, so faggots should die."
There's probably some that I've forgotten, but those are the major points.
With the exception of the "South shall rise again" bit, that's the exact same as everywhere else in America. I am, however, enjoying the irony of watching people turn southerners into "Other" for the crime of, uhh, turning other people into "Other".
As I said, keeping the South was a mistake, as the bastards contaminated the rest of the country.
And as far as I'm concerned, all humans are "Other". That's why I hang out with freaks.
ROGER,
so we are to understand that all people from the south are bastards which contaminated the rest of the country? that's not bigoted. saying you hang out with "freaks" is not a get out of jail free card when you are insisting an entire culture of people are a contaminant. sure, that is also all people, but that's not what you are saying. what about blacks who live in the south?
I think I said about 30 times that this is NOT universal.
I am not about to spend all fucking day speaking e-prime.
Go shit in your hat.
JUST FOR SHITS AND GIGGLES,
can you point me to these thirty points?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 04:17:37 AM
EOT:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
FFS. LOCKERS&SCHOOLS&BIGOTS&BIGOTS&BIGOTS
i don't know what this means. please explain.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 04:18:44 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 10, 2012, 04:17:37 AM
EOT:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:01:54 PM
I never said people from the South are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience in the South has been universally shitty, with 90% of everyone I've met being at least partially billygoon.
FFS. LOCKERS&SCHOOLS&BIGOTS&BIGOTS&BIGOTS
Pointing out what I actually said isn't going to help. He knew what I said, and he knew precisely what he was doing when he posted.
THAT IS RIDICULOUS
i have no idea what you mean if you don't make yourself clear.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 04:32:12 PM
I'm reasonably certain that I spelled out the fact that the North was bad as well, and that the mixture of the two was worse than the sum of their parts.
"reasonably certain"?
can you provide support for this?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 02:10:10 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 10, 2012, 02:04:44 PM
I'm not particularly interested in ain't-it-awfulling about the prevalence of racism. At this point, I don't think we have any members who think racism is a good idea, so what's the point of condemning it? Yeah, you're right, but it doesn't advance any semblance of a conversation.
The much more compelling question to me is the structure of the worldview that allows for this romantic view of the South before, during, and immediately after the Civil War, and continuing sympathy for the Confederate cause, however that "cause" is remembered. How do otherwise intelligent people end up carrying around that much bigotry and revisionist history in their heads? Responding with "they're stupid / human / manipulated by their leaders for political gain" just short-circuits a discussion that could otherwise have had new ideas to chew on.
Translation:
1. We've proven that the Klan isn't a "social club", and GA is butthurt about it.
2. We are to have a conversation without discussing any of the actual events that occurred during and after the war, because it makes GA mad when people diss her Glorious South.
WHERE?
was this proven?
AND
WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S OK TO BE CONDESCENDING TO GA?
DID YOU
really have to make eleven separate posts
JUST
to keep this shitshow dragging even further through the dirt?
EOT
Go back and read a bit.
LMNO
My pance are straining with compassion for short people. Ima let this go.
Also, I have to say that it's incorrect to think that I just hate the billygoons, or look down on them. I do, of course, but they're not the ONLY ones. In fact, if you're designed to walk on two legs, I hate you. Which means I hate all humans (because, yes, billygoons are not only human, but are the DEFAULT human), and have a vague dislike for moutain apes, bears, and specially trained dogs.
I never said black people are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience with blacks has been universally shitty, with 90% of every black I've met being at least partially billygoon.
Am I an asshole? 100% yes. But I am also goddamn sick as fuck of people attacking others because of their own prejudices which they absolutely refuse to look at.
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 06:35:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:23:01 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 06:18:26 PM
But nobody said the Klan wasn't bad. And nobody said slavery was good. And nobody said blacks were anything like respected or equal in the South. And nobody said the justice system wasn't horribly corrupt to the point of practically enouraging murder (except GA maybe, depending on whether he's trolling or not, which I can't seem to tell). All that's been said here boils down to the following few statements:
- Despite the morally ruinous foundations of the Confederacy, the South should have had every legal right to secede, and the Civil War really was a "War of Northern Aggression," in that the justification on the North's side had nothing to do with slavery or equality and everything to do with power and greed, as usual.
- The Civil War exacerbated the race problem in the South. Whereas blacks were considered subhuman before the war, after the war they were considered both subhuman and representative of a mortal wound to the South. As a result the cultural changes that have opened the South and dissolved (some of the) racism there have been harder to fight than they otherwise would have been.
Nobody here is condoning slavery or racism. So let's leave out the knee-jerk reactions and the "you disagree with Commonly Held Conception X; therefore you are by definition a proponent of the opposite of Commonly Held Conception X." In reality the common perception of the South is a caricature, grounded in and propagated by the same kind of ignorance and Us vs. Them bullshit that allows racism to thrive.
I wasn't talking about the discussion here. I was referring to the recurring meme that I have seen every time I have been to the Southeast.
I've only been once that I can recall with any clarity. My dad's aunt and uncle lived there, and that old lady spent an entire 2 days cooking and baking for us ahead of our arrival. When we arrived, there was more food than I've ever seen in a single kitchen, and it was all very very good. Fried chicken, apple pie, peach cobbler, dumplings. Etc. Etc. Etc. I remember that food, and I remember my great-uncle's hands being hardly more than knots of arthritis caused by handling radioactive material at one of the Manhattan Project's secret bases in Tennessee in the 30s and 40s.
Everyone I met in the South was nice. But then, my family is white, and I can admit I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about when it comes to Southern racism -- nor can I, except to say I know it's there and I deplore it. As for whether they're stupid or not... who isn't?
The entire black/indian side of my family is from the South.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
The Southeastern Meme:
1. "America is for 'real Americans'". The definition of "real Americans" varies to a degree, but it typically means American born people with conservative Christian & jingoistic views. Blacks and Hispanics may be excluded regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
2. "Nuke the bastards." The identity of the bastards may change from time to time, and "nuke" may be substituted with "invade", "bomb", or "starve 'em out". Just because.
3. "Women are only good for fucking and fucking up." This is a fairly rare component of the meme, usually found in the Appalachias and Texas. In other areas, it may simply be "women have their place; they should stay in it".
4. "Support the Troops." Nobody knows what the fuck this means. It seems to have something to do with supporting wars regardless of motive and regardless of cost in cash or human lives.
5. "Education < a punch in the face." If you feel intimidated intellectually, beat the fucker up.
6. "NASCAR = Patriotism". No shit.
7. "The South shall rise again." (Lost Cause) IE, we were right to fight, and one day we'll do it again.
8. "There's a difference between Black people and niggers". Nuff said.
9. "Any White woman who sleeps with or even associates with non-Whites is 'tainted'." This is pretty much EVERYWHERE.
10. "This is a Christian nation, so faggots should die."
There's probably some that I've forgotten, but those are the major points.
With the exception of the "South shall rise again" bit, that's the exact same as everywhere else in America. I am, however, enjoying the irony of watching people turn southerners into "Other" for the crime of, uhh, turning other people into "Other".
Yeah.
I should have stayed out of this thread, because I am so disappointed in most of the people in it. I had a higher esteem of the people on this forum, but apparently it was misplaced.
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 07:01:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
That discussion was dropped when Cain clarified he was talking about the leaders and not the populace.
This. AGAIN. which has been said, what, five times now? But apparently we need red herrings and strawmen for the purposes of demonizing anyone who opposes the wholesale dehumanization of a certain out-group.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 07:26:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
I do find it interesting that Cain's description of the South's military strategy makes him a bigot of some kind. So now we've reached "revisionist history is canon: to argue implies racism".
Odd, since the implied stance of everyone ITT engaging in anti-southern bigotry seems to be "defending the south in any way implies racism".
It's hypocrisy all the way down.
Quote from: v3x on July 09, 2012, 08:22:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:16:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 09, 2012, 08:13:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:08:53 PM
I was right and EOT was wrong. I need to stay out of this conversation.
It is going that way, isn't it?
GA states that the Klan is just a social group, and the fact that all-White juries never convicted them (after 1975, convictions have in fact occurred) proves both the fact that is only a social club, and that anyone who disagrees hates due process.
This is apparenly reasonable, and right on the mark.
I state that "based on my experience", my opinion is that a great number of people in the South walk around with a meme strapped to their forehead.
This "implies" that I am a bigot.
In fact, anyone taking the side I have taken is "implied" to be a bigot, no matter what. That being the case, there is precisely zero reason to talk about the subject, as absolutely nothing positive can occur.
Your response is perfectly reasonable. If GA is not trolling, I'm going to switch sides in this argument.
Really?
Why the fuck would you "switch sides" just because one person said something as stupid as positing that a lack of convictions in cases of the KKK being accused of murders is proof that they didn't commit those murders?
NOTE, PLEASE, that that is a separate matter from that of whether the KKK was originally founded as an innocuous social organization,
as irrelevant as that may be to the topic at hand. Hopefully someone here is still capable of maintaining some kind of logical separation of concepts.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 10:27:46 PM
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 09, 2012, 09:44:07 PM
I'm much more interested in the political and cultural implications of secession and/or conquest & occupation of a failed secessionist state by the state it attempted to secede from than I am in making sure we all agree that the KKK were dicks.
I was talking about the effects felt by the occupying state. Nobody invades anyone without being somehow influenced by the occupied state. The response I received was a "poisoned well" argument...IE, that the implied argument was bigoted, therefore the argument as stated is invalid, regardless of what was stated and how.
I fail to see how this is different from the normal forms of political correctness. If we are to have a discussion, then all points of view must be considered in broad daylight. If, on the other hand, GA gets to make strawman cracks about my supposed disgust for due process, but legitimate observations are "automatically" bigoted, then there is no discussion. It is instead preaching...Get in the choirbox or get out of the church, so to speak.
Totally, just like since 9/11 Western society has been poisoned by the influence of the Muslim societies it has striven to dominate.
Right?
At least have the intellectual honesty to call a spade a spade.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 06:50:36 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 10, 2012, 06:44:41 PM
That's bull and you know it.
But it's not, Freeky. Nigel and I discussed NBF last night, and she asked me to post links. Today, she tells me she could have done that herself, and she doesn't want to talk about him. V3x showed me where I stand. ECH and EOT told me what I am. RWHN, well, he's just RWHN. I have been told that I am a bigot. I have been told that I knee jerk. I have been told that I am not intelligent enough to have a conversation. I have been told, by damn near everyone, just what exactly I am. Even LMNO isn't talking to me. Cain's already left in disgust, for very similar reasons.
There's nothing left at PD, at least for me, other than the traditional and ever-present CG-esque sniping for "points", and venting of ancient & rancid butthurt, with additional helpings of fresh, new butthurt.
What the hell am I doing here? There is no good answer.
I told you that the links you posted were nothing more than I had found myself, and that I am not that interested in generals or battles, but in populations and cultures. If you're going to paraphrase me, at least do it with integrity.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 12:23:54 AM
By the way, apologies to just about everyone I ranted about, the bottom of the last page.
Too many benzos, not enough sleep.
Apology accepted, assuming I am included in it.
I am fucking pissed and disappointed as hell right now and should have continued to ignore the thread, despite the fact that it ruined my evening last night without even reading it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 11, 2012, 01:16:56 PM
DID YOU
really have to make eleven separate posts
JUST
to keep this shitshow dragging even further through the dirt?
Really?
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 11, 2012, 03:15:32 PM
I never said black people are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience with blacks has been universally shitty, with 90% of every black I've met being at least partially billygoon.
Difference is, I'm talking about a culture, not a race.
And now, apparently, replying to posts as you read them, because you aren't some middle class white collar who sits in front of a computer at work fucking off all day staying immediately up to date on every post on a forum, is "keeping this shitshow dragging even further through the dirt".
Yeah, sorry, some of us aren't so shiny.
-Nigel (waiting for someone to come along and tell me that I'm just stirring up shit and all of this was resolved yesterday, when I wasn't here)
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 11, 2012, 04:01:13 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 12:23:54 AM
By the way, apologies to just about everyone I ranted about, the bottom of the last page.
Too many benzos, not enough sleep.
Apology accepted, assuming I am included in it.
I am fucking pissed and disappointed as hell right now and should have continued to ignore the thread, despite the fact that it ruined my evening last night without even reading it.
Of course it includes you, Nigel.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 11, 2012, 03:15:32 PM
I never said black people are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience with blacks has been universally shitty, with 90% of every black I've met being at least partially billygoon.
Difference is, I'm talking about a culture, not a race.
Do not even go there. Wow. Just wow.
Define culture. Define race.
Explain to me how being bigoted against a culture is better than being bigoted against a race.
I cannot believe I am even having this conversation.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 11, 2012, 04:09:05 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 11, 2012, 03:15:32 PM
I never said black people are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience with blacks has been universally shitty, with 90% of every black I've met being at least partially billygoon.
Difference is, I'm talking about a culture, not a race.
Do not even go there. Wow. Just wow.
Okay, I won't.
I think I'll take the day off.
Or a week.
Or whenever.
(http://s14.postimage.org/htzn25tjl/stf.gif)(http://s14.postimage.org/htzn25tjl/stf.gif)(http://s14.postimage.org/htzn25tjl/stf.gif)(http://s14.postimage.org/htzn25tjl/stf.gif)(http://s14.postimage.org/htzn25tjl/stf.gif)(http://s14.postimage.org/htzn25tjl/stf.gif)
You know what? Fuck that.
I have been repeatedly called a racist in this thread for stating the following things:
1. That the invasion of the South by the North affected the cultures of BOTH sides.
2. That rednecks exist, and I that I personally have met more than a few. I DID say that that's not universally true of the South in general, but that has been repeatedly ignored.
So unless anyone here is willing to state that rednecks do not exist, and is willing to prove that assertion, then FUCK YOU. The whole fucking pack of you. Especially when stating that a subculture of America is somehow the same as saying "BLACK" or "WHITE" or whatever.
I never thought I'd see the fucking day when Discordians won arguments by erroneously hollering "racism" and wallowed around in politically correct BULLSHIT as a means to hide the fact that THEY'RE NOT EVEN READING EACH OTHER'S POSTS.
Fuck all of you. Right in the fucking ear. For acting like a bunch of DUMBASSES.
Christ, I fucking hate people.
Yours Truly,
Adolf Eichmann.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 11, 2012, 03:15:32 PM
I never said black people are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience with blacks has been universally shitty, with 90% of every black I've met being at least partially billygoon.
Difference is, I'm talking about a culture, not a race.
Which is, of course, the EXACT same thing that most people say when they talk about what's wrong with black people.
I DON'T HATE THEM FOR THEIR SKIN COLOR, IT'S THEIR NEGRO WAYS THAT BOTHER ME!
\
:mullet:
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 11, 2012, 04:47:45 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 11, 2012, 03:15:32 PM
I never said black people are subhuman. They are all too human, and many of them carry an all-too infectious meme. My personal (anecdotal, but that's all I have to work with) experience with blacks has been universally shitty, with 90% of every black I've met being at least partially billygoon.
Difference is, I'm talking about a culture, not a race.
Which is, of course, the EXACT same thing that most people say when they talk about what's wrong with black people.
I DON'T HATE THEM FOR THEIR SKIN COLOR, IT'S THEIR NEGRO WAYS THAT BOTHER ME!
\
:mullet:
I'd point out the irony in the above post/emote combo, but I can't be arsed to do it.
You are suggesting that America has no redneck subculture? Let's just be fucking clear about that, shall we?
Also, see my post directly above yours.
And for fuck's sake, put on your big girl panties and pull your head out of your delicate princess ass. Nobody called you a racist, what people did was point out the similarities between the typical racist dialogue and your attitude toward southerners and your subsequent justifications for that attitude. If you don't like the comparison, guess what? Change your fucking dialogue. But don't bring a metric fuck-ton of butthurt to the thread just because you spouted some bullshit and got called on it.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 11, 2012, 04:50:41 PM
And for fuck's sake, put on your big girl panties and pull your head out of your delicate princess ass. Nobody called you a racist, what people did was point out the similarities between the typical racist dialogue and your attitude toward southerners and your subsequent justifications for that attitude. If you don't like the comparison, guess what? Change your fucking dialogue. But don't bring a metric fuck-ton of butthurt to the thread just because you spouted some bullshit and got called on it.
Let's just be clear here: Rednecks are just a product of my horribly racist imagination?
You're weaseling. The existence of rednecks does not in any way legitimize your incredibly generalized previous indictment of southerners. Especially since rednecks exist EVERYWHERE in America, so I don't see why you keep trotting them out in a conversation that's specific to the south.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 11, 2012, 04:53:49 PM
You're weaseling. The existence of rednecks does not in any way legitimize your incredibly generalized previous indictment of southerners. Especially since rednecks exist EVERYWHERE in America, so I don't see why you keep trotting them out in a conversation that's specific to the south.
Yeah, pretty sure that I said:
1. That this wasn't universally true about the South, and that
2. I was speaking only from my personal experiences in the South.
So I'm a racist weasel, because people read what they WISH I'd said, to meet their previously formed arguments. If you guys honestly think I'm some sort of virulent fucking racist because it's Goddamn easier than reading WHAT THE FUCK I'M ACTUALLY SAYING, please say so now, and save me some time.
BECAUSE
I want to know: [/EOT]
My usual way of zapping whatever prejudice society at large has attempted to grind into me is to look at my life rationally, i.e.: How many Black people have actually done anything violent to me as compared to whites? How many Mexicans have actually stolen anything from me, as compared to whites? etc. in addition to reading up on the subject.
My experience with southern whites: while I know MANY who are not willfully ignorant, racist, teabaggers, etc. and I don't automatically assume anybody is just because they're Southern, or Appalachian, or Texan, or whatever, I consider these people precious as fucking gold because MOST OF SOUTHERN WHITES IN MY EXPERIENCE willfully ignorant, etc. I can't sit in a public place and say something obvious like "Rush Limbaugh is a moron" without getting the stinkeye from surrounding people.
I've never had a Black person freeze me out because I was "seen in a car full of honkeys". I've never been banned from a bar or restaurant for inviting a WHITE person to sit at my table, but the reverse has happened in both cases.
I've never gone to pay a ticket and seen the courtroom crowded with WHITE people, with non-whites being a rare exception.
And while I lived in Mass for 13 years and encountered a degree of racism, it wasn't as bad as the above stated.
I've had a FRONT ROW SEAT at the Theater of the Southern Cracker for most of my life. I'm not coming from a place of prejudice, I'm coming from experience.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 11, 2012, 04:07:51 PM
And now, apparently, replying to posts as you read them, because you aren't some middle class white collar who sits in front of a computer at work fucking off all day staying immediately up to date on every post on a forum, is "keeping this shitshow dragging even further through the dirt".
Yeah, sorry, some of us aren't so shiny.
-Nigel (waiting for someone to come along and tell me that I'm just stirring up shit and all of this was resolved yesterday, when I wasn't here)
No, it wasn't resolved. But it seemed that we were comfortable (or at least we had stopped bringing it up) with the non-resolution, and were ready to move on.
But yeah, taking time to read through an entire thread before hitting "reply" is definitely something a middle-class prick would do.
Fuck it, it's one of those days. I'm out.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 11, 2012, 05:09:33 PM
Fuck it, it's one of those days. I'm out.
Fuck yeah it is. I just found out what my friends think of me.
I think I'll get good & drunk tonight, and reevaluate a few things.
On the other hand, rate the following organizations by how racist they probably are:
National Association for the Advancement of White People
Congressional White Caucus
White American Association
etc.
I have no inclination to argue that the above fictional organizations should exist, but the fact that the actual organizations exist with moral and social impunity speaks volumes. Why do we believe that the best way to resolve deeply ingrained double standards in our culture is to institute new double standards? Why not just eliminate double standards? Why are "Black Pride" and "Hispanic Pride" something to celebrate, and "White Pride" is something to disdain? I understand the history and I'm NOT ADVOCATING WHITE PRIDE. I'm saying if we really want to move past race, we should probably move past all races, even the ones with unfortunate histories.
Quote from: v3x on July 11, 2012, 05:19:13 PM
On the other hand, rate the following organizations by how racist they probably are:
National Association for the Advancement of White People
Congressional White Caucus
White American Association
etc.
I have no inclination to argue that the above fictional organizations should exist, but the fact that the actual organizations exist with moral and social impunity speaks volumes. Why do we believe that the best way to resolve deeply ingrained double standards in our culture is to institute new double standards? Why not just eliminate double standards? Why are "Black Pride" and "Hispanic Pride" something to celebrate, and "White Pride" is something to disdain? I understand the history and I'm NOT ADVOCATING WHITE PRIDE. I'm saying if we really want to move past race, we should probably move past all races, even the ones with unfortunate histories.
A lot of US holidays are "White Pride" day. Look at Columbus Day and Thanksgiving from a Native American point of view. "President's Day" - we just NOW got a Black president, the other 43 were white. Fourth of July - Let freedom ring! Yeah, Black people came here for the "freedom".
If there was no institutionalized racism, there wouldn't be a need for the NAACP, etc. I wouldn't constantly have to advise people around here to call LULAC when their boss calls them a "wetback" or they get an eviction notice because their new boyfriend doesn't speak english. These organizations don't exist as a special privilege for non-whites, they exist because people get fucked EVERY SINGLE DAY down here.
Holy shit.
Fuck this noise, ech, Nigel, eot, and vex.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 11, 2012, 06:05:22 PM
Holy shit.
Fuck this noise, ech, Nigel, eot, and vex.
Um, let's not let this spread any further. I appreciate the support, but this isn't some grand conspiracy against Rogerism or anything; it seems to be how they genuinely feel.
It would be better, I think, for this shit to die down. As for me, I have to think about a few things before I continue.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 06:09:01 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 11, 2012, 06:05:22 PM
Holy shit.
Fuck this noise, ech, Nigel, eot, and vex.
Um, let's not let this spread any further. I appreciate the support, but this isn't some grand conspiracy against Rogerism or anything; it seems to be how they genuinely feel.
It would be better, I think, for this shit to die down. As for me, I have to think about a few things before I continue.
Agreed.
I meant it though.
Having had time to think about it, I sort of hate myself for posting in this thread. I mean, I'm not entirely stupid, and I KNEW where this was heading, but at some point the monkey part of my brain said "WHY NOT? Let's just shove our head up our arse!"
I'm not going to carry on any sort of animosity toward anyone for anything they've said on this thread, and I'm going to ignore any animosity aimed at me. I am also going to avoid any thread that looks like it's going to become "controversial" (code for "drama-infested").
It occurred to me that I couldn't give two shits for any of the opinions voiced on this thread, because A) nobody's actually talking TO each other, we're all talking PAST each other, and B) Opinions are politics, and politics is the stupidest fucking thing over which we as a species have ever jacked off.
TDRR,
Building a Better Brain. Get your filthy paws off me, you damn dirty apes.
That's the conundrum with Discordianism, especially when we are all on this side of it. Discordianism wants to push buttons to get peoples' attention and to think about things differently.
It seems to get a bit heated when we use those tactics on each other, in the name of discussion and debate.
I think if we all (I include myself) could try to check ouselves and take "time outs" whenthe wagon feels like it is getting a little wobbly, perhaps these hot-topic discussions could have a little more forward motion and less hurt feelings.
Just my thoughts.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on July 11, 2012, 08:12:28 PM
That's the conundrum with Discordianism, especially when we are all on this side of it. Discordianism wants to push buttons to get peoples' attention and to think about things differently.
It seems to get a bit heated when we use those tactics on each other, in the name of discussion and debate.
I think if we all (I include myself) could try to check ouselves and take "time outs" whenthe wagon feels like it is getting a little wobbly, perhaps these hot-topic discussions could have a little more forward motion and less hurt feelings.
Just my thoughts.
Troof! Sometimes we have different opinions about shit. Regardless of how dumb I might think ECH's take on one issue* of Roger's take on another* might be, doesn't mean they're retards. So I have a stab at bringing them round to my way of thinking and they reciprocate. At some point an opinion either changes or it's stalemate. Fuck it, they got one dumb idea - doesn't mean they're retarded - I know better than that. I let it slide. The alternative is we keep going until all that's left are a small group who agree on everything. Discordia becomes orderly, right-thinking and a belief-system. The minute that occurs I'l be trolling the shit out of the lot of you constantly.
** - before anyone jumps down my throat I plucked both those names out my ass in the name of hypothetical - swap them for any two regular posters who I have more respect for than 99.9% of the monkeys I rub shoulders with IRL
My dumb idea, my shame, was attempting to regionalize the rank stupidity and bad behavior of humans.
I was wrong to do so. All humans are equally vile, all over the world. End of story.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 08:47:02 PM
My dumb idea, my shame, was attempting to regionalize the rank stupidity and bad behavior of humans.
I was wrong to do so. All humans are equally vile, all over the world. End of story.
I wouldn't go so far as to say all but I wouldn't stop so short that it'd make much difference.
It's not all but it's enough and they come in every flavor under the sun.
Except at the grocery store. I'm fully convinced everyone in the grocery store is an unmitigated disaster.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 11, 2012, 08:52:33 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 08:47:02 PM
My dumb idea, my shame, was attempting to regionalize the rank stupidity and bad behavior of humans.
I was wrong to do so. All humans are equally vile, all over the world. End of story.
I wouldn't go so far as to say all but I wouldn't stop so short that it'd make much difference.
I have recovered my wits, and have returned to my position that there are humans and there are mutants. The purpose of a human is to make more humans, from what I can gather. The purpose of a mutant is to gnaw on the skulls of the humans with their very own teeth.
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on July 11, 2012, 08:54:56 PM
It's not all but it's enough and they come in every flavor under the sun.
Except at the grocery store. I'm fully convinced everyone in the grocery store is an unmitigated disaster.
Which is to say, damn near everyone. The only exception being P3nt, who hunts and kills all of his food.
Wait. Scratch all that shit.
All the humans need to come to Tucson, so I can say hi.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 08:47:02 PM
My dumb idea, my shame, was attempting to regionalize the rank stupidity and bad behavior of humans.
I was wrong to do so. All humans are equally vile, all over the world. End of story.
It could be.
Maybe I need to find some way to go soak up some other flavor of vileness. European, maybe. Until I'm eighty or so.
I've had enough southern vileness to last fifty lifetimes.
All humans are damn dirty apes. A minority accept this as a fact and aspire to become more than that. Regardless of what degree of success they manage to accomplish, as long as they are fixed on this goal, I view them as more than human. I view them as worthwhile and would go out of my way to stop them from dying, as opposed to throwing them razor blades and laughing my fucking head off.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 11, 2012, 09:06:47 PM
All humans are damn dirty apes. A minority accept this as a fact and aspire to become more than that. Regardless of what degree of success they manage to accomplish, as long as they are fixed on this goal, I view them as more than human. I view them as worthwhile and would go out of my way to stop them from dying, as opposed to throwing them razor blades and laughing my fucking head off.
Yeah, what I said. Mutants.
:notnice:
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 09:13:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 11, 2012, 09:06:47 PM
All humans are damn dirty apes. A minority accept this as a fact and aspire to become more than that. Regardless of what degree of success they manage to accomplish, as long as they are fixed on this goal, I view them as more than human. I view them as worthwhile and would go out of my way to stop them from dying, as opposed to throwing them razor blades and laughing my fucking head off.
Yeah, what I said. Mutants.
Good term - "Mutants" made me wonder - what causes them to mutate. Maybe, in some cases, it's genetic - they're born that way? Can't help thinking, in my case, it wasn't genetic. It was a glitch in the system, shook up my brain and, when the dust had settled, I was different. Maybe they're not all lost causes. Statistically, pragmatically, the safe assumption is they are useless but I always keep an open mind. Maybe the spark will ignite. Guilty until proven innocent but innocence is never completely ruled out.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 11, 2012, 10:17:14 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 09:13:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 11, 2012, 09:06:47 PM
All humans are damn dirty apes. A minority accept this as a fact and aspire to become more than that. Regardless of what degree of success they manage to accomplish, as long as they are fixed on this goal, I view them as more than human. I view them as worthwhile and would go out of my way to stop them from dying, as opposed to throwing them razor blades and laughing my fucking head off.
Yeah, what I said. Mutants.
Good term - "Mutants" made me wonder - what causes them to mutate. Maybe, in some cases, it's genetic - they're born that way? Can't help thinking, in my case, it wasn't genetic. It was a glitch in the system, shook up my brain and, when the dust had settled, I was different. Maybe they're not all lost causes. Statistically, pragmatically, the safe assumption is they are useless but I always keep an open mind. Maybe the spark will ignite. Guilty until proven innocent but innocence is never completely ruled out.
Any number of things could lead to mutation. In my case it was a childhood filled with wonderful stories about impossible places, shattered by the grim reality of the real world, where things are neither wonderful nor impossible. I demand a universe that is decidedly more awe-inspiring than the dump we actually live in.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 11, 2012, 10:17:14 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 09:13:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 11, 2012, 09:06:47 PM
All humans are damn dirty apes. A minority accept this as a fact and aspire to become more than that. Regardless of what degree of success they manage to accomplish, as long as they are fixed on this goal, I view them as more than human. I view them as worthwhile and would go out of my way to stop them from dying, as opposed to throwing them razor blades and laughing my fucking head off.
Yeah, what I said. Mutants.
Good term - "Mutants" made me wonder - what causes them to mutate. Maybe, in some cases, it's genetic - they're born that way? Can't help thinking, in my case, it wasn't genetic. It was a glitch in the system, shook up my brain and, when the dust had settled, I was different. Maybe they're not all lost causes. Statistically, pragmatically, the safe assumption is they are useless but I always keep an open mind. Maybe the spark will ignite. Guilty until proven innocent but innocence is never completely ruled out.
New thread "What makes a mutant"?
Maybe a combination of genetics and circumstances - people can go through the same traumas and some mutate, some just dig their heels in.
Quote from: v3x on July 11, 2012, 10:54:45 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 11, 2012, 10:17:14 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 09:13:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 11, 2012, 09:06:47 PM
All humans are damn dirty apes. A minority accept this as a fact and aspire to become more than that. Regardless of what degree of success they manage to accomplish, as long as they are fixed on this goal, I view them as more than human. I view them as worthwhile and would go out of my way to stop them from dying, as opposed to throwing them razor blades and laughing my fucking head off.
Yeah, what I said. Mutants.
Good term - "Mutants" made me wonder - what causes them to mutate. Maybe, in some cases, it's genetic - they're born that way? Can't help thinking, in my case, it wasn't genetic. It was a glitch in the system, shook up my brain and, when the dust had settled, I was different. Maybe they're not all lost causes. Statistically, pragmatically, the safe assumption is they are useless but I always keep an open mind. Maybe the spark will ignite. Guilty until proven innocent but innocence is never completely ruled out.
Any number of things could lead to mutation. In my case it was a childhood filled with wonderful stories about impossible places, shattered by the grim reality of the real world, where things are neither wonderful nor impossible. I demand a universe that is decidedly more awe-inspiring than the dump we actually live in.
Most people have that in their childhood. Kids books and movies have got to be at least 90% fantasy. See what I mean?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 11, 2012, 10:17:14 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 09:13:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 11, 2012, 09:06:47 PM
All humans are damn dirty apes. A minority accept this as a fact and aspire to become more than that. Regardless of what degree of success they manage to accomplish, as long as they are fixed on this goal, I view them as more than human. I view them as worthwhile and would go out of my way to stop them from dying, as opposed to throwing them razor blades and laughing my fucking head off.
Yeah, what I said. Mutants.
Good term - "Mutants" made me wonder - what causes them to mutate. Maybe, in some cases, it's genetic - they're born that way? Can't help thinking, in my case, it wasn't genetic. It was a glitch in the system, shook up my brain and, when the dust had settled, I was different. Maybe they're not all lost causes. Statistically, pragmatically, the safe assumption is they are useless but I always keep an open mind. Maybe the spark will ignite. Guilty until proven innocent but innocence is never completely ruled out.
I think some times it is nature, sometimes nurture, sometimes a little of both. For me I think it is a little of both. I had a crazy-ass grandmother who championed weirdness and the art of playing games. I think I would probably be a significantly different person if she hadn't been in my life, and also if she didn't leave my life when I was only 13. I think that death made something snap inside and helped wake up an inner resiliency that motivated constant questioning and discovery.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 11, 2012, 11:57:57 PM
New thread "What makes a mutant"?
Easy. The mere fact that you WANT to be one.
Repost from the Nashville thread:
QuoteHere's the thing you should listen to, if you never listen to another thing I say: We're supposed to be BETTER than that. Not because we are inherently superior, but because we KNOW better, we have seen the awful shape that humanity has taken and we know that all it takes to maintain our status as bipeds is to MAKE THE EFFORT.
We're not unique in the ability to do so...We ARE unique in our supposed commitment to do so.
And that's the ass-kicker right there, isn't it? Where has the commitment to be a mutant gone? Where has the drive to remain as an individual gone? SINCE WHEN DO WE, AS DISCORDIANS, BUY INTO THEIR GAME?
Does that imply the "Other"? You're damn right it does. There are two kinds of people in the world, and WE AREN'T EITHER KIND.
So wake the fuck up.
:cluephone:
Phone's ringing.
Incidentally, I hope nobody was too pissed at my behavior earlier. It's one of the 5 stages of Roger Baboonery.
1. Boneheaded assertion.
2. Nigel/LMNO/ECH/whoever proves me wrong.
3. UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
4. Acceptance.
5. Deep embarassment about dropping on all fours and showing my red, baboon ass.
Also, Nigel is too Nigel, and ECH is more H than his name would lead any reasonable person to believe.
Anyway, this isn't an argument or an excuse. It's just this thing I do. So everybody SHUT UP.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 08:47:02 PM
My dumb idea, my shame, was attempting to regionalize the rank stupidity and bad behavior of humans.
I was wrong to do so. All humans are equally vile, all over the world. End of story.
I think that about sums it up. I think it's incredibly important to remember that all groups of human beings are capable of the same kinds of atrocities, and that the only thing that can help us to be different is to be aware of it. Imagine what monsters the history books would make the Union out to be if the Confederates had won... and bear in mind that they would, in a sense, be right.
Something I said to E.O.T. the other night, but can't remember if I posted it here, is that I don't believe that wars are ever fought for moral reasons. Wars are fought for resources, and morality is manipulated to justify them.
The flip side is that all groups of humans are equally capable of love, tenderness, intelligence, and goodness. The question really is, how do we, as societies and individuals within societies, ensure that those are the qualities that are acted on?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 12, 2012, 01:09:47 AM
Incidentally, I hope nobody was too pissed at my behavior earlier. It's one of the 5 stages of Roger Baboonery.
1. Boneheaded assertion.
2. Nigel/LMNO/ECH/whoever proves me wrong.
3. UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
4. Acceptance.
5. Deep embarassment about dropping on all fours and showing my red, baboon ass.
Also, Nigel is too Nigel, and ECH is more H than his name would lead any reasonable person to believe.
Anyway, this isn't an argument or an excuse. It's just this thing I do. So everybody SHUT UP.
We all do it sometimes. You just do it
harder than other people.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 12, 2012, 01:20:21 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 12, 2012, 01:09:47 AM
Incidentally, I hope nobody was too pissed at my behavior earlier. It's one of the 5 stages of Roger Baboonery.
1. Boneheaded assertion.
2. Nigel/LMNO/ECH/whoever proves me wrong.
3. UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
4. Acceptance.
5. Deep embarassment about dropping on all fours and showing my red, baboon ass.
Also, Nigel is too Nigel, and ECH is more H than his name would lead any reasonable person to believe.
Anyway, this isn't an argument or an excuse. It's just this thing I do. So everybody SHUT UP.
We all do it sometimes. You just do it harder than other people.
I have more ass.
Anyway, it plagues my mind that I have to go through all those steps. I mean, for all the yammering about Truth that I do, I should be more able to see my own mistakes.
But instead, I have to bash my head into the wall for a while before I can get anything to sink in.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 11, 2012, 05:09:33 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 11, 2012, 04:07:51 PM
And now, apparently, replying to posts as you read them, because you aren't some middle class white collar who sits in front of a computer at work fucking off all day staying immediately up to date on every post on a forum, is "keeping this shitshow dragging even further through the dirt".
Yeah, sorry, some of us aren't so shiny.
-Nigel (waiting for someone to come along and tell me that I'm just stirring up shit and all of this was resolved yesterday, when I wasn't here)
No, it wasn't resolved. But it seemed that we were comfortable (or at least we had stopped bringing it up) with the non-resolution, and were ready to move on.
But yeah, taking time to read through an entire thread before hitting "reply" is definitely something a middle-class prick would do.
Fuck it, it's one of those days. I'm out.
Those of us who lack the certainty of leisure time might not know whether we are or are not going to make it to the end of the thread before we run out of time/something calls us away. You seem to be implying that if we don't have the time to do so, we should not participate at all.
Quote from: v3x on July 11, 2012, 05:19:13 PM
On the other hand, rate the following organizations by how racist they probably are:
National Association for the Advancement of White People
Congressional White Caucus
White American Association
etc.
I have no inclination to argue that the above fictional organizations should exist, but the fact that the actual organizations exist with moral and social impunity speaks volumes. Why do we believe that the best way to resolve deeply ingrained double standards in our culture is to institute new double standards? Why not just eliminate double standards? Why are "Black Pride" and "Hispanic Pride" something to celebrate, and "White Pride" is something to disdain? I understand the history and I'm NOT ADVOCATING WHITE PRIDE. I'm saying if we really want to move past race, we should probably move past all races, even the ones with unfortunate histories.
This is a whole other, complex topic, upon which my thoughts are not always popular. Unfortunately, I'm dead-dog tired, my tendonitis is killing me, and my belly hurts, so I'm going to save it for now, but I will say that
1. White pride makes no sense. German pride, Polish pride, Irish pride, Italian pride, etc. do. Black pride doesn't make much sense either, unless you're talking specifically about the cultural subgroupings of the American negro.
2. The organizations you named primarily exist because there was a need for them due to our society's problems. I think that the missions and names are primitive, but they are reflective of the times they sprang from.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 12, 2012, 01:22:05 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 12, 2012, 01:20:21 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 12, 2012, 01:09:47 AM
Incidentally, I hope nobody was too pissed at my behavior earlier. It's one of the 5 stages of Roger Baboonery.
1. Boneheaded assertion.
2. Nigel/LMNO/ECH/whoever proves me wrong.
3. UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
4. Acceptance.
5. Deep embarassment about dropping on all fours and showing my red, baboon ass.
Also, Nigel is too Nigel, and ECH is more H than his name would lead any reasonable person to believe.
Anyway, this isn't an argument or an excuse. It's just this thing I do. So everybody SHUT UP.
We all do it sometimes. You just do it harder than other people.
I have more ass.
Anyway, it plagues my mind that I have to go through all those steps. I mean, for all the yammering about Truth that I do, I should be more able to see my own mistakes.
But instead, I have to bash my head into the wall for a while before I can get anything to sink in.
We are ALL more blind to our own mistakes than to those of others.
Being a hairless ape with a big brain is hard.
And I just realized that I am supposed to be somewhere else RIGHT NOW. :(
Have a good evening.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 12, 2012, 01:29:26 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 11, 2012, 05:19:13 PM
On the other hand, rate the following organizations by how racist they probably are:
National Association for the Advancement of White People
Congressional White Caucus
White American Association
etc.
I have no inclination to argue that the above fictional organizations should exist, but the fact that the actual organizations exist with moral and social impunity speaks volumes. Why do we believe that the best way to resolve deeply ingrained double standards in our culture is to institute new double standards? Why not just eliminate double standards? Why are "Black Pride" and "Hispanic Pride" something to celebrate, and "White Pride" is something to disdain? I understand the history and I'm NOT ADVOCATING WHITE PRIDE. I'm saying if we really want to move past race, we should probably move past all races, even the ones with unfortunate histories.
This is a whole other, complex topic, upon which my thoughts are not always popular. Unfortunately, I'm dead-dog tired, my tendonitis is killing me, and my belly hurts, so I'm going to save it for now, but I will say that
1. White pride makes no sense. German pride, Polish pride, Irish pride, Italian pride, etc. do. Black pride doesn't make much sense either, unless you're talking specifically about the cultural subgroupings of the American negro.
This.
Something else, I think the words have picked up associations along the way. If I hear of a church referred to as "Black Baptist" or something of that nature, I don't get any negative connotations. I've been to a few of these for funerals and the like and I was always made welcome and invited to attend regularly.
OTOH, there was that "White Christian" flyer posted the other day and you could tell
right away what that was about. :x
I guess "white" is just one of those words that got ruined.
Because if you don't specify race, white is the assumed default. Explicitly saying white doesn't mean white so much as "not anything else."
White people don't have to care about their own race, either, so one who does is doing it on purpose.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 12, 2012, 01:19:23 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 08:47:02 PM
My dumb idea, my shame, was attempting to regionalize the rank stupidity and bad behavior of humans.
I was wrong to do so. All humans are equally vile, all over the world. End of story.
I think that about sums it up. I think it's incredibly important to remember that all groups of human beings are capable of the same kinds of atrocities, and that the only thing that can help us to be different is to be aware of it. Imagine what monsters the history books would make the Union out to be if the Confederates had won... and bear in mind that they would, in a sense, be right.
Something I said to E.O.T. the other night, but can't remember if I posted it here, is that I don't believe that wars are ever fought for moral reasons. Wars are fought for resources, and morality is manipulated to justify them.
The flip side is that all groups of humans are equally capable of love, tenderness, intelligence, and goodness. The question really is, how do we, as societies and individuals within societies, ensure that those are the qualities that are acted on?
History is written by the victors. This is the real reason that good always triumphs over evil.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 12, 2012, 08:02:20 AM
History is written by the victors. This is the real reason that good always triumphs over evil.
Whoa. I never combined those two concepts. Mind if I steal this?
Knock yourself out.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 12, 2012, 08:02:20 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 12, 2012, 01:19:23 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 11, 2012, 08:47:02 PM
My dumb idea, my shame, was attempting to regionalize the rank stupidity and bad behavior of humans.
I was wrong to do so. All humans are equally vile, all over the world. End of story.
I think that about sums it up. I think it's incredibly important to remember that all groups of human beings are capable of the same kinds of atrocities, and that the only thing that can help us to be different is to be aware of it. Imagine what monsters the history books would make the Union out to be if the Confederates had won... and bear in mind that they would, in a sense, be right.
Something I said to E.O.T. the other night, but can't remember if I posted it here, is that I don't believe that wars are ever fought for moral reasons. Wars are fought for resources, and morality is manipulated to justify them.
The flip side is that all groups of humans are equally capable of love, tenderness, intelligence, and goodness. The question really is, how do we, as societies and individuals within societies, ensure that those are the qualities that are acted on?
History is written by the victors. This is the real reason that good always triumphs over evil.
That is damn fucking astute.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 11, 2012, 06:05:22 PM
Holy shit.
Fuck this noise, ech, Nigel, eot, and vex.
By the way,
clean me.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 12, 2012, 04:35:51 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 11, 2012, 06:05:22 PM
Holy shit.
Fuck this noise, ech, Nigel, eot, and vex.
By the way,
clean me.
:?
Anyway, Those fucks were for various reasons. Yours was because while you were right, you went more than a little too far, and I didn't feel like dealing with this thread anymore. Mostly it was the middle class white collar comment that got to me.
After thinking about it, I take the fucks to the people mentioned back, but I still say fuck this thread.
i'll relieve you of the extraneous fucks.
also, this thread is fantastic! the temptation to weigh in on one of these head pulping competitions is incredible, and yet i've manage to avoid it entirely, and it's much more fulfilling.
...and even besides the "thing" that took place, I was pretty well wowed by the idears I read.
Vex's analysis was just fucking brilliant, especially when combined with what Roger noted about how the Southern Meme has influenced...well...everything since the conquest. Before reading that I kind of looked at the New Deal as being *the* big cultural hullabaloo, but after reading it, it dawns on me how fucking much of everything that went on politically and socially during that time period was tied directly to the Civil War. FFS, there was a Democrat appointed son of a plantation owner sitting on the Supreme Court who absolutely fucking despised FDR and got in the way of every program he could.
This still exists today, and very much so. Reading Nigel's point about the CSA being a conquered nation has made me really have to examine a lot of the ways I deal with modern conservatives (oxymoron). I tend to try to reason, try to argue and eventually just lose my patience and hit them with TROOF...something on the order of "LOOK, You're fucking wrong. Your opinion has no relevance because it's not a fucking opinion--it's a relic of history. 20, 50, 100 years from now history is going to look back at you and wonder how you could hold such horrible beliefs."
Sure, I'm not wrong in that, but what better way to make a person dig in their heels? It's the rhetorical version of the march to the sea. I don't know that there's necessarily a better way to deal with an afflicted person, but if there is, I'm sure it begins with understanding who they are and where they're coming from, moreso than digging in my heels in defense of the obvious.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on July 14, 2012, 06:26:13 AM
...and even besides the "thing" that took place, I was pretty well wowed by the idears I read.
Yup.
I can totally see why everyone's leaving this thread, but at the same time I'm kinda awed at this awesome loony-bin. It's already been pointed out that this conflict-rich culture of discussion is a direct result of Discordian practice. What I'd like to add is that without anyone really noticing, that intensity creates really fascinating discussions, forces everyone out of their comfort zones, and yields interesting new ideas.
It's not the conflict as such that has this effect, I think it's the known and proven potential for threads on PD to urn into a shitfest, and the PDers' tendency to call anyone out, at any time, forcing re-statements, re-evaluations, rebuttals, and reinforcements. Yeah it feels kinda crappy when a really interesting thread turns into a silly fight, BUT EVEN THEN you guys manage to produce intriguing insight.
This thread, like a lot of threads here, is a PROOF OF CONCEPT for Golden Apples, in the most abstract and general sense.
Shaking things up is not pleasant and comfy. If it's pleasant and comfy, it's not shaking things up.
But shaking things up MAKES SHIT HAPPEN.
Just sayin'.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 12, 2012, 08:50:28 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 12, 2012, 04:35:51 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 11, 2012, 06:05:22 PM
Holy shit.
Fuck this noise, ech, Nigel, eot, and vex.
By the way,
clean me.
:?
Anyway, Those fucks were for various reasons. Yours was because while you were right, you went more than a little too far, and I didn't feel like dealing with this thread anymore. Mostly it was the middle class white collar comment that got to me.
I'd appreciate some critical analysis to back up the "went too far" accusation, and I'd like it to be substantive. Can you do that, or is it just that I said things that made you uncomfortable?
I just for some reason re-read the whole thread, and I have to say that it's actually a pretty damn productive thread, IMO. It kind of fell apart around page 17 for about ten pages, but nonetheless, I think that ultimately some good discussion was had here. Thanks guys.
Remember when PD decided to defend the confederacy?
Pepperidge Farms remembers. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 03:05:20 PM
This is true. Tyrants don't show up all bloody-handed one day, just because.
They show up when people grow weary of the burden of self-determination and demand them.
PROPHECY :magick:
Quote from: LMNO on July 10, 2012, 01:07:54 PM
It sounds like you're presenting a larger version of Nigel's concept, "attack the idea, not the person."
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
All I remember about this thread was being told I was bad for insisting the South's overall strategic position was bad, and thus going to war was stupid, by people with no experience in strategic analysis.
Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2020, 06:28:34 PM
All I remember about this thread was being told I was bad for insisting the South's overall strategic position was bad, and thus going to war was stupid, by people with no experience in strategic analysis.
Dunning Krueger? Never heard of him.
Also, we were "othering" confederates. :lulz: Well, yeah. Bad Hamish, no benzos.
Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2020, 06:28:34 PM
All I remember about this thread was being told I was bad for insisting the South's overall strategic position was bad, and thus going to war was stupid, by people with no experience in strategic analysis.
Been reading from the beginning since Doktor dug it up. Just passed the point where you concluded your interactions Cain. That was a pretty succinct summary of your part.
Reading this thread has been an alright way of passing the time being stuck at work with not enough work.
I definitely waffle back and forth between my competing instincts of either attempting a Nigel (Some attempt to step away from the emotional kneejerk to really unpick and understand aspects of an emotionally charged topic to consider arguments from both sides) or saying fk it, it isn't worth the time and effort, bad people are bad people and that is all the analysis needed.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 30, 2020, 04:09:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2012, 03:05:20 PM
This is true. Tyrants don't show up all bloody-handed one day, just because.
They show up when people grow weary of the burden of self-determination and demand them.
PROPHECY :magick:
It's like you fucking read Aristotle or some shit.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 30, 2020, 04:04:34 PM
Remember when PD decided to defend the confederacy?
Pepperidge Farms remembers. :lulz:
Me reading this thread:
At first I was like: :lulz:
Then I was like: :walken:
Then I was seriously like: :trolling:
But really then it was like: :um:
So here I am now: :suu:
WHAT IS THE FUCKING FUCKS OF FUCKERY HAPPENED HERE WHEN I FLOUNCED DURING THE GREAT SERIOUSNESS
TM?
I outwardly admit to falling into the "state's rights" trap when I was young and stupid, and then I, you know, when to school for history. But like, even growing up in the only Confederate state to not have their capital taken by the Union (mostly because who the FUCK wants to fight in Florida?) we didn't learn this whole War of Northern Aggression dumbfuckery, and slavery was always at the forefront of the secession argument. We have primary source evidence that supports this, and yet, now I need a drink at 11am. If I still worked in Boston I'd have LMNO take me out for a lunch pitcher immediately.
Cain had it right the whole time, btw.
Suu, it's just that THIS IS HOW WE DO IT.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 08, 2020, 03:06:15 PM
Suu, it's just that THIS IS HOW WE DO IT.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/03/ea/f8/03eaf82044f6ce97899a210a69edf522.gif)
Quote from: Suu on December 11, 2020, 01:59:30 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 08, 2020, 03:06:15 PM
Suu, it's just that THIS IS HOW WE DO IT.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/03/ea/f8/03eaf82044f6ce97899a210a69edf522.gif)
You're damn right.