|
Berke Negri posted:The H.H. Holmes case is definitely a good cautionary tale against using airbnb though. The total absence of reviews would be pretty suspicious anyway. Unless he forgot to line his soundproof vault with lead ★★ Convenient transportation to and from the fair, owner personable, friendly, and dapper in his bowler hat. But the lack of furniture, amenities, and oxygen in my room mean I can't rate above 2 stars VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Apr 14, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Even the Bathory and de Rais "cases" are only recorded because the perpetrators were noble and the scale of their crimes was astonishing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
A serial killer kills usually one person at a time, usually with months or years in between killings. They kill, try to get away with it, and eventually want to kill again. It's always been something someone could do, and it was probably easier to pull off a long time ago, before modern forensics. A spree killer kills a bunch of people with no cool-down period in between. They kill usually with no plans for getting away with it or even living through it, it's a one-time thing. It would have been harder to pull off before repeating firearms; not many people have been successful at it with knives. The two are not the same thing, and the conversation seems to have switched from one to the other with no acknowledgement of the difference. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
If you wanted to spree kill in the old days, you had to get a bunch of guys together and make a party out of it. Kids these days just want to be antisocial and do it alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:If you wanted to spree kill in the old days, you had to get a bunch of guys together and make a party out of it. Yeah, back in the good old days you had to get organized and kill all the protestants on St-Bartholomew's day!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
A few pages back, but this never got answered.Sucrose posted:Related, what year did the boll weevil hit and how big of an effect did it have? The Boll Weevil didn't make it to the states until 1892, and only reached the major cotton producing states ten years later. Tangentially related, but I find the history of my hometown, Beaufort SC, kind of intriguing in this regard. In the fifty years after the ACW it went from being one of the wealthiest cities in the country (and one of the centers of the secessionist movement) to the poorest in the state by 1910, caused mainly by a hurricane wiping out the phosphate mining industry(!) that had popped up to replace all the cotton plantations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Humans going on spree killings is as old as humans. The difference is that it's hard for a single lunatic to wipe out 30 people with a knife. Also, wasn't the original meaning of the phrase "running amok" basically describing a culture-specific phenomenon of random spree killing? I think so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:The difference is that it's hard for a single lunatic to wipe out 30 people with a knife. It's not that hard. A kid with two knives managed to stab or slash 22 people less than a week ago, and while there were no fatalities, many of the wounds inflicted were life-threatening by the standards of modern medicine and would certainly have been fatal a hundred years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
Miltank posted:What was the earliest American spree killing? Is spree killing a modern phenomenon or have there always just random dudes that lose their poo poo and start killing? Probably something unrecorded due to occurring pre-writing. Either that or Columbus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
You guys do know there were laws and courts and lawyers and trials and everything even in like the 900's in Europe, right? A few of you seem to have an outdated "Dark Ages" view.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
People view history through the lens of what happened and the present through the lens of what is supposed to happen. The powerful people in society are just as sheltered from reprisal as they were in the yool 900.
Miltank fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:You guys do know there were laws and courts and lawyers and trials and everything even in like the 900's in Europe, right? A few of you seem to have an outdated "Dark Ages" view. But there weren't police forces in the modern sense. So you had to pretty much catch the person red-handed or blame everything on a witch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:You guys do know there were laws and courts and lawyers and trials and everything even in like the 900's in Europe, right? A few of you seem to have an outdated "Dark Ages" view. Those courts weren't any way comparable to our modern conception of the legal process. More importantly, the more pertinent difference isn't really courts but law enforcement and that is a 19th century development. At most you would have some type of Night Watch or local militia conduct policing duties. Anyway, as I said , it is documented that the amount of death from violence was far far greater from the Middle Ages into the Early Modern period. Wars devastating the civilian population the expectation (look at the 30 Years War). In the US, we don't have mercenary bands knocking over some random village and killing half its residents...well not yet (he-he). It was obviously just a very period of history where violence was common, law enforcement scant if not non-existent and news for the most part remained local. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
You could think of it as the difference between policing (physical bodies standing around in case someone tried to stab someone or steal chickens) which existed at the time, and detective work which would be practically non-existant (maybe thief catchers would qualify? But then youre pretty much describing bounty hunting).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:You guys do know there were laws and courts and lawyers and trials and everything even in like the 900's in Europe, right? A few of you seem to have an outdated "Dark Ages" view. Sure, but the standard for extrajudicial killing was wildly different. In some places you could kill a person and pay their family a settlement. This makes any comparison of 'murder' meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:You could think of it as the difference between policing (physical bodies standing around in case someone tried to stab someone or steal chickens) which existed at the time, and detective work which would be practically non-existant (maybe thief catchers would qualify? But then youre pretty much describing bounty hunting). It is also the type of regimentation and professionalism (such as was in the 19th century) of modern police versus a milita/watchman who was most likely just some local. Basically, there wasn't anyone really asking questions. Also bounty hunters/thief catchers would go after someone who pissed off someone with money and/or power, no one is going to send a bounty hunter after the 15th missing peasant girl. That said, I am talking mostly about serial style killing. Killing sprees just pretty much happened whenever and as other said, it was usually a group activity. Technology has separated us from team spirit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
And if it was to a black person in the south, at most you'd get a token admission that yep, that was a lynching. Or barring that, that the person(s) met their fate "at the hands of unknown parties." Vigilantism was considerably much more accepted and even encouraged, especially in the south if it had to do with protecting the "purity" of southern women. Even then, some women questioned if it was as bad as it was built up to be. No one thought much wrong of a crowd who forced a sheriff to give up his keys or knocked down the jail or even set it on fire. RC and Moon Pie fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
RC and Moon Pie posted:And if it was to a black person in the south, at most you'd get a token admission that yep, that was a lynching. Or barring that, that the person(s) met their fate "at the hands of unknown parties." Hell, there would even be identifications of the murderers, arraignment for the crime, and trial. Then you'd have the various courses of misconduct (or just a jury being a jury) culminating in an acquittal, a la Emmett Till. Things haven't changed much, sure the DoJ can investigate for civil rights violations but you aren't going to be able to fix the racist jury problem or the victim-on-trial problem. Especially if you have laws that lower the "self defense" bar so low as to allow for preemptive self-defense at range from a protected position against a non-evident threat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Miltank posted:People view history through the lens of what happened and the present through the lens of what is supposed to happen. The powerful people in society are just as sheltered from reprisal as they were in the yool 900. Quick aside but why are people saying "year of our lord" (or abbreviated) so much lately? Are you particularly religious, ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
tbp posted:Quick aside but why are people saying "year of our lord" (or abbreviated) so much lately? Are you particularly religious, ? It's the literal translation of AD and it's part of some gimmick where people say "in [the present day] we still have [bad thing]!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
tbp posted:Quick aside but why are people saying "year of our lord" (or abbreviated) so much lately? Are you particularly religious, ? It's exaggerating for effect: "The accounting firm I go to still uses abacuses in TYOOL 2014!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It's exaggerating for effect: "The accounting firm I go to still uses abacuses in TYOOL 2014!" Abbreviating it when you're using it in the first place for emphasis is kind of silly though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread
Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 08:49 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
My dad just said the following claim. "You know why the US took so long to get out of the great depression? ROSEVELT! He's the reason why unemployment was so high, him and his "Government Programs" didn't do much to help that. EUROPE was able to get out of the Great Depression in two years" I have no idea who the hell said this that he's parroting this opinion (I assume Beck or Limbaugh), but can you walk me through how wrong he is on this? I know that "The New Deal" did some tremendous things for the country, and I believe in the US it was Hoover's "Deregulation" policies that ultimately did the US in. I also don't think the "Europe" statement is accurate due to the high inflation Germany was suffering (A women burning Deutsch Marks comes to mind), and I seem to recall England declined as a world power during a similar time. Is there anything more I can see that would prove this is well..crap?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Europe in the 1930's was well known for high amounts of liberalism and no government overreach. edit: I don't even know where I'd begin to explain to him that he's wrong because basically everything he said is wrong. That being said I also get the sense that arguing with him probably won't go anywhere in spite of his complete wrongness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:My dad just said the following claim. If he's a gold bug tell him that countries pretty much exited the Great Depression in the order that they dropped the gold standard. Hoover didn't have any responsibility in causing the GD and before he got booted out of office had dropped some of his dumber ideas and kickstarted some things that FDR expanded/took credit for that were actually helpful. The only reason the FDR worsened the GD myth has any legs is because of the 1937 recession/depression which if you talk to anyone but an Austrian economist, will tell you that it was caused by the WPA getting trimmed back or the federal reserve not expanding the money supply enough. Both the WPA and the fed handing out money are things republicans hate (assuming they even know what the money supply or federal reserve are).
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
FWIW, the nazis exited the depression by implementing new deal-esque programs that had been designed and begun in the Weimar Republic. Strict currency controls, tariffs on foreign consumer goods, enormous public works program (autobahn), and a comprehensive system of military rearmament that fueled massive growth in lots of Germany's industries. They encountered problems, though, when so much of their industrial output was focused on rearmament that their consumer goods couldn't match demand in newly flush citizens, but their tariffs made importing from other countries prohibitively expensive. I don't think you'll find a single major country that exited the depression without some serious intervention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:FWIW, the nazis exited the depression by implementing new deal-esque programs that had been designed and begun in the Weimar Republic. Strict currency controls, tariffs on foreign consumer goods, enormous public works program (autobahn), and a comprehensive system of military rearmament that fueled massive growth in lots of Germany's industries. They encountered problems, though, when so much of their industrial output was focused on rearmament that their consumer goods couldn't match demand in newly flush citizens, but their tariffs made importing from other countries prohibitively expensive. I usually find that when I use that argument, I fall into another trap they seem to set when they say it's proof that the Nazis were really socialists because "government spending".
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I usually find that when I use that argument, I fall into another trap they seem to set when they say it's proof that the Nazis were really socialists because "government spending".
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I usually find that when I use that argument, I fall into another trap they seem to set when they say it's proof that the Nazis were really socialists because "government spending". Constantly shifting rhetorical focus. If they do that, simply ask them to point out a single country that pulled itself out of the depression by "free market methods."
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I usually find that when I use that argument, I fall into another trap they seem to set when they say it's proof that the Nazis were really socialists because "government spending". Well it loving worked. They were out of the depression before we were for christ's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:FWIW, the nazis exited the depression by implementing new deal-esque programs that had been designed and begun in the Weimar Republic. Strict currency controls, tariffs on foreign consumer goods, enormous public works program (autobahn), and a comprehensive system of military rearmament that fueled massive growth in lots of Germany's industries. They encountered problems, though, when so much of their industrial output was focused on rearmament that their consumer goods couldn't match demand in newly flush citizens, but their tariffs made importing from other countries prohibitively expensive. There was also the issue that rearmament effectively cannibalized their economy, and the only reason they didn't crash was due to the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, which allowed the Germans access to their foreign currency reserves. And of course, we all know where that ended up. FuzzySkinner posted:My dad just said the following claim. Well for starters, you can always point to the fact that Roosevelt didn't enter office until 1933, about three and a half years after the Crash, so objectively it's impossible for it to be his fault that we didn't recover within two years. Other than that, though, focusing on the numbers is the wrong way to go about examining Roosevelt's presidency. Roosevelt, unlike many Presidents before him, was charismatic as all hell, endlessly optimistic, and deeply and truly concerned for the poor and downtrodden of the nation. One of Roosevelt's most famous quotes, which he stated during the 1932 campaign, was "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." This attitude, which was put to the test during his famous first hundred days in office when Congress passed dozens of new bills and created a huge number of federal agencies to combat the depression, was quite possibly the single greatest factor that pulled us out of the Depression. To quote Wikipedia quoting Walter Lippman, quote:At the end of February we were a congeries of disorderly panic-stricken mobs and factions. In the hundred days from March to June we became again an organized nation confident of our power to provide for our own security and to control our own destiny. There's a reason why Roosevelt won the 1936 election by a margin unprecedented in US politics and only matched once in 1964-there was a feeling that Roosevelt had saved the country, and by the time the US entered the Second World War it had once again become the foremost industrial power in the world, and Roosevelt's leadership during the war was a huge contributing factor to the overall success of America's contribution against the Axis powers. Roosevelt, for all his failings, was quite possibly the greatest president the United States has seen or will ever see. The attempt by the right to marginalize his accomplishments is (Not surprisingly) exceedingly politicized and entirely inaccurate. If you have the time, try and read one of the many biographies on Roosevelt, he really is one of the most interesting figures in American History, and his legacy deserves to be learned about and defended. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
As an aside, this 1944 election campaign cartoon is amazing. The Republican train...      Still 100% accurate. You could have drawn this today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:As an aside, this 1944 election campaign cartoon is amazing. That? Hell, if I was in the DNC I'd put this speech to pictures and run it constantly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3RHnKYNvx8 Some things really never change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:That? Hell, if I was in the DNC I'd put this speech to pictures and run it constantly. Whoops, so busy clipping trainpics I forgot to link the actual video of that cartoon! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NLDih_5jAI There's more train jokes within.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
And now we know why they hate high speed rail projects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Roosevelt, for all his failings, was quite possibly the greatest president the United States has seen or will ever see. The attempt by the right to marginalize his accomplishments is (Not surprisingly) exceedingly politicized and entirely inaccurate. If you have the time, try and read one of the many biographies on Roosevelt, he really is one of the most interesting figures in American History, and his legacy deserves to be learned about and defended. I do certainly need to do that! I am a tad bit familiar with the man's work (along with his 5th cousin, who I am a big fan of), but I really grew to appreciate the legacy of his presidency upon taking American History II in college. Even if you are opposed to the Keynesian economics model used, how can you be opposed to something like the FDIC? or the Fair Labor Standards Act?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I do certainly need to do that! People tend to get a little upset about rounding up innocent people and putting them in concentration camps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
RonMexicosPitbull posted:People tend to get a little upset about rounding up innocent people and putting them in concentration camps. That's never what Republicans complain about. Hell Michelle Malkin only has a career because she makes excuses for why interment wasn't bad (and why we should do it to Muslims).
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
KomradeX posted:That's never what Republicans complain about. Hell Michelle Malkin only has a career because she makes excuses for why interment wasn't bad (and why we should do it to Muslims). And yet there's that lingering fear: FEMA death camps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 14:57
|
|