|
Dapper_Swindler posted:you know i am going to use a term people hear hate. but it fits assholes like walsh and starnes to a tee. which is funny because its used by shitheads like him all the time. Totally ok with this. People have been throwing "Someone got triggered back at Alt-Right types so...why not?
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
The correct term is "making up something that never happened in order to make a point" and it's pretty old as a practice. I've never seen anyone I could clearly identify as a man wearing a dress just out in my daily life, so I doubt this sheltered suburban gently caress ever has. Where does he even live, the south?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jafkVM-jnbE lol girls can't handle shotguns amirite guys? joe biden is so dumb and hates women
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:I just realized something. How come Robert E Lee is the guy Confederate Otakus talk about all the time and not Jefferson Davis? I would think the guy who actually ran the country would get a lot more cheerleaders. everyone agrees davis was kind of a shitbird, whereas lee has enough positive spin surrounding him that it's easier to forget he was a slave owner. in reality both men were hesitant secessionists but eventually took up with the confederacy, where they kind of muddled through for a doomed rebellion tho on the balance lee was a better general than davis was a politician. basically davis wasn't notable and did a mediocre to poor job holding the confederacy together which was an almost impossible task given that the whole point of the confederacy was to throw the finger towards federal government
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:I just realized something. How come Robert E Lee is the guy Confederate Otakus talk about all the time and not Jefferson Davis? I would think the guy who actually ran the country would get a lot more cheerleaders. confederate otaku
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:Robert E. Lee has been positioned by certain historians as a noble, skilled, principled warrior, who while ambivalent about secession, remained loyal to his state and countrymen. A big part of the South's romanticized vision of the Civil War is about fighting the good fight, and the common southerner's tragic sacrifice as the underdog fighting for land and loyalty, going toe to toe against a foe with vastly superior resources. Davis is just some politician, who is at best irrelevant to the struggle, or at worst someone undermined the good work of the boys in grey. Also, IIRC Davis was kind of a drunken gently caress-up in his personal life as well, which doesn't lend itself to hero worship very well. Then again neither does supporting slavery so what do I know? icantfindaname posted:confederate otaku Slave-picked cotton suit?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
InequalityGodzilla posted:Also, IIRC Davis was kind of a drunken gently caress-up in his personal life as well, which doesn't lend itself to hero worship very well. nah he just sucked as a president. it's hard to say how much of the confederacy's failure was because the confederacy was doomed from day one versus how much davis just made bad decisions constantly, but both factors are important
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
InequalityGodzilla posted:Also, IIRC Davis was kind of a drunken gently caress-up in his personal life as well, which doesn't lend itself to hero worship very well. Lee was also famously ambivalent about the Confederate cause himself - he'd actually been offered the job of leading the Union's army, but when his home state of Virginia seceded he chose loyalty to his state over loyalty to the federal government which wasn't an uncommon view at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
InequalityGodzilla posted:So normal otakus have their Hanzo steel, what would confederate otakus have? I'm gonna go with sword canes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
People talk about Lee more than Davis for the same reason a lot of people prefer TOS to TNG. Nobody cares about a bunch of old people yammering away at a table over drinks
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Lee was also famously ambivalent about the Confederate cause himself - he'd actually been offered the job of leading the Union's army, but when his home state of Virginia seceded he chose loyalty to his state over loyalty to the federal government which wasn't an uncommon view at the time. davis was also ambivalent - he was in theory pro-secession but in the runup to the war advocated for patience, being against secession on the grounds that maybe it would be necessary at some point but that at the present moment a political compromise was best. unfortunately for everyone who decided that he should be the president, he was kind of a dictator which was a serious problem given that the confederacy was unpopular even in the south dont get me wrong, he was a slave owning planter who did choose of his own free will to join the rebellion. but if even the president of your breakaway nation is like "eh yeah sure i'll be the head of state, why not i guess" then you're not doing well
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:People talk about Lee more than Davis for the same reason a lot of people prefer TOS to TNG. Nobody cares about a bunch of old people yammering away at a table over drinks They talk about him because he was the only decent general besides Forest, and possibly Stonewall the CSA had. Stonewall of course was inconsistent and a autistic fucker. While Forest is actually reminds them about why the war was actually fought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:They talk about him because he was the only decent general besides Forest, and possibly Stonewall the CSA had. Stonewall of course was inconsistent and a autistic fucker. While Forest is actually reminds them about why the war was actually fought. Lee was also a dignified, aristocratic guy in the vein of the more pretentious Southern ideal of masculinity: an officer and a gentleman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Just remembered that Davis was one of the recruits who got totally shitfaced at the West Point eggnog riot. So he's got that going for him. Which is nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:davis was also ambivalent - he was in theory pro-secession but in the runup to the war advocated for patience, being against secession on the grounds that maybe it would be necessary at some point but that at the present moment a political compromise was best. unfortunately for everyone who decided that he should be the president, he was kind of a dictator which was a serious problem given that the confederacy was unpopular even in the south Pretty sure that a lot of people in the South realized that it was a doomed venture right from the get go. But, as usual, the wealthy and powerful hammered it through and said "gently caress all y'all we're doing this. Get the gently caress on board or get out." The reasoning was that Lincoln would take the slaves away but Lincoln himself said that preservation of the Union was his top priority. He'd have likely left slavery legal for at least a while if the South wouldn't have seceded. Granted slavery was a dying institution anyway. Of course by that point the South also had a history of making terrible decisions. They were ravaging their land with cotton monoculture, their treatment of slaves was terrible and led them to become unruly, and the increased hostility toward slavery was putting them at odds with pretty much the entirety of the rest of the modern world. By that point most (all, I think?) of Europe had abolished slavery and serfdom entirely. The South clinging tenaciously to slavery and racism was looked at as backwards and awful by increasingly more of the world every year. The CSA winning the Civil War was a mathematical impossibility. It likely would have ended much more quickly if the North didn't have such awful generals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Pretty sure that a lot of people in the South realized that it was a doomed venture right from the get go. But, as usual, the wealthy and powerful hammered it through and said "gently caress all y'all we're doing this. Get the gently caress on board or get out." The reasoning was that Lincoln would take the slaves away but Lincoln himself said that preservation of the Union was his top priority. He'd have likely left slavery legal for at least a while if the South wouldn't have seceded. Granted slavery was a dying institution anyway. At one point the South was on the verge of making a major trade deal with England for cotton that would've pull their rear end out of the fire and given them much needed capital to fight, then Lincoln officially made the war about ending slavery and suddenly the UK walked away from trade negotiations as fast as they could. The Confederacy was toxic as gently caress to the world community and literally no other nation even paid them lip service diplomacy
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
pentyne posted:At one point the South was on the verge of making a major trade deal with England for cotton that would've pull their rear end out of the fire and given them much needed capital to fight, then Lincoln officially made the war about ending slavery and suddenly the UK walked away from trade negotiations as fast as they could. The Confederacy was toxic as gently caress to the world community and literally no other nation even paid them lip service diplomacy I don't think this is true; I'm pretty sure the UK was always abhorred by the institution of slavery, they just stayed neutral in things and kept out of the war. That (plus US wheat imports) was why even the Trent Affair wasn't enough to make a deal with the Confederacy, and after their utter failure at the Battle of Antietam they never even considered the possibility of recognizing the South as a nation and just waited for them to collapse like they thought was inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:you know i am going to use a term people hear hate. but it fits assholes like walsh and starnes to a tee. which is funny because its used by shitheads like him all the time. Something I have noticed is that a lot of "virtue signalling" arguements are, by themselves, simply a different form of virtue signalling. I can understand when people get a bit peeved at whiney white kids posting about stuff, but often it's more sincere than the attempt to blame them later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
pentyne posted:At one point the South was on the verge of making a major trade deal with England for cotton that would've pull their rear end out of the fire and given them much needed capital to fight, then Lincoln officially made the war about ending slavery and suddenly the UK walked away from trade negotiations as fast as they could. The Confederacy was toxic as gently caress to the world community and literally no other nation even paid them lip service diplomacy Frankly even with England on their side the logistics of Britain fighting with the CSA would have been problematic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:everyone agrees davis was kind of a shitbird, whereas lee has enough positive spin surrounding him that it's easier to forget he was a slave owner. Lee was actually decidedly not-poo poo for a slave-owner, although I personally think the evidence leans towards his wife being the not-poo poo one and him going "ehh, whatever". He's also personally and directly responsible for the Civil War dragging on longer than it needed to, so that's not great, but he (probably, again, at his wife's insistence) did make an effort to treat his slaves almost like actual human beings and set them up for freedperson life. Edit: also, minor point from a dude above, but I do believe Russia still had serfdom. The Russian Empire was, admittedly, pretty danged unpleasant. 
Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Serfdom was abolished in 1861, so it's easy to remember. Slavery in Britain had been a pretty toxic for a while. Trent affair aside, Britain wasn't going to ally with a slave state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
pentyne posted:At one point the South was on the verge of making a major trade deal with England for cotton that would've pull their rear end out of the fire and given them much needed capital to fight, then Lincoln officially made the war about ending slavery and suddenly the UK walked away from trade negotiations as fast as they could. The Confederacy was toxic as gently caress to the world community and literally no other nation even paid them lip service diplomacy Hey, now that's not true - the Confederacy did have de facto diplomatic recognition from the German Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:The correct term is "making up something that never happened in order to make a point" and it's pretty old as a practice. You're still giving him too much credit. I bet Caitlyn Jenner or Chaz Bono or someone showed up briefly on TV, and they used that opportunity to try to instill hate in their daughter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
Napoleon III and his buddies also had some Confederate sympathies (France needed Southern cotton more than Britain), but even he was talked out of supporting another doomed cause in America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Something I have noticed is that a lot of "virtue signalling" arguements are, by themselves, simply a different form of virtue signalling. i think there are people on both sides who do it a decent amount for varring reasons. but then again most people have done it intetionaly or not. GreyjoyBastard posted:Lee was actually decidedly not-poo poo for a slave-owner, although I personally think the evidence leans towards his wife being the not-poo poo one and him going "ehh, whatever". yeah lee was a mixed bag, he was alot like Washington in that he was more good at stratigic retreats and spliting his army so it looked bigger then an outright good general. it didnt help that alot of the early union generals sucks. personally out i always liked Longstreet because he was a decent general and the lost causers hate him because he embraced the union after the war heavily and lead and African american militia against against paramiltary dickheads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
All this history talk makes it more obvious that the bizarre glorification we have for the Condederacy in the South is just another result of mostly white southerners masking bigotry, entitlement, and willful ignorance as sources of ego-saving pride. They love it and its symbols solely because it represents the temper tantrum they want to throw whenever they are asked to be less backwards or think about anything beyond their backyards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:All this history talk makes it more obvious that the bizarre glorification we have for the Condederacy in the South is just another result of mostly white southerners masking bigotry, entitlement, and willful ignorance as sources of ego-saving pride. They love it and its symbols solely because it represents the temper tantrum they want to throw whenever they are asked to be less backwards or think about anything beyond their backyards. its somewhat more complex then that. but pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:All this history talk makes it more obvious that the bizarre glorification we have for the Condederacy in the South is just another result of mostly white southerners masking bigotry, entitlement, and willful ignorance as sources of ego-saving pride. They love it and its symbols solely because it represents the temper tantrum they want to throw whenever they are asked to be less backwards or think about anything beyond their backyards. Its fun to think about violence against your political opponents. Civil war wankdom lets them politically pose like that i suppose. Slavery isnt even something you need to do mental gymnastics for, southerners are just straight up not sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Generally they cool it with the Confederacy talk if you ask, "okay, a state's right to do what exactly?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:It is to me. The current line doesn't count "you should be assaulted/tortured/killed" as a verbal threat. I think it should. That jackass's "you should be raped" sign was a threat. The people calling Nevada chairwoman's personal phone saying people like her should be hung is a threat. Explicit calls to violence should not be protected speech. And they currently are. Which - as has been pointed out - is a lot more worrisome to groups who have historically been the targets of politically motivated violence than it is to groups who have been the instigators of politically motivated violence. I am aware that such laws would mean we'd lose out on cherished "jokes" about killing people we don't like too. I'm ok with that. Again, to be completely specific, all I'm talking about is taking existing definitions of what constitutes a threat and not allowing substituting "I will" with "somebody should" get you off the hook. There is nothing that would make calling someone a bigot suddenly forbidden speech or limit discussion of concepts ... Unless that concept is how certain people should be put in concentration camps for demographic or religious reasons. I'm cool with that too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Generally they cool it with the Confederacy talk if you ask, "okay, a state's right to do what exactly?" It doesn't matter what, EHF... it's the PRINCIPLE OF THE THING!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:
In a town a little bit away, there was a guy who walked around in women's dresses all of the time. The story was that he came back from Vietnam and started to dress like that. He wondered the streets all of the time until the small town movie theater hired him as a janitor and let him live upstairs. He became a small town celebrity but the stories always followed that he would do something to "children" if he was not watched closely. In 8th grade, my class went to that town and while waiting in line at a fast food restaurant, he came in and stood behind us. Our Catholic school teacher ripped us for making fun of him after he left because "clothing does not make a person better or worse than you". It always stuck with me. He died about 10 years ago when he had a heart attack while walking the streets. He had become accepted by the majority of people in the area but there were still people who hated him simple because of how he dressed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Samll towns accepting their own is a nice feel good story, and I heard a similar story on NPR, but if the people in the SMALL TOWN REAL AMERICA can't transfer that onto faceless others and keep voting for shitheels, it becomes a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Again, to be completely specific, all I'm talking about is taking existing definitions of what constitutes a threat and not allowing substituting "I will" with "somebody should" get you off the hook. There is nothing that would make calling someone a bigot suddenly forbidden speech or limit discussion of concepts ... Unless that concept is how certain people should be put in concentration camps for demographic or religious reasons. I'm a lot more willing to entertain this sort of argument; there genuinely are very few legitimate uses for that kind of language when it comes to political expression. That said, current legal precedent isn't very favorable to even that kind of restriction. If you can think of a way to phrase legislation that limits threats of violence without skewering legitimate expressions of dissatisfaction, I would encourage that it be submitted for broader review, especially if you know anyone who can assess it in the context of constitutional theory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:It doesn't matter what, EHF... it's the PRINCIPLE OF THE THING! This, really. Like so many other conservative talking points, they have no idea what they'd do if they finally caught the car. The chase alone was the fun part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
How does one eliminate the effectiveness of right wing media in light of the fact that there is a compelling state interest to do so? Not via the power of the state because repression only encourages the solidification of misinformation. If you wonder what I mean by compelling state interest, imagine for a moment if you will that half of all local elected positions are filled with Ayn Rand objectivists, Anarchocapitalists, people who hate all public goods like parks and actively seek policy implementations to these ends. They are literally in the role of administering these policies and programs effectively and only because of there being counter forces trying to actively sabotage their efforts do the programs accomplish anything at all. Yes, I'm talking about real people and somehow it comes out in a public meeting about zoning that they support Trump too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I'm a lot more willing to entertain this sort of argument; there genuinely are very few legitimate uses for that kind of language when it comes to political expression. That said, current legal precedent isn't very favorable to even that kind of restriction. There are no legitimate uses for that kind of speech. The very act of advocating violence toward a group is itself an attempt to suppress their freedom of speech through intimidation so it enters directly into "why aren't you tolerating my intolerance" territory. You don't get to use your freedom of speech to advocate violence towards other people if they exercise theirs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
In a similar vein to my previous question at one point must civility and tolerance end and Twitter has to admit that giving a narcissist like trump unfettered publishing access is a threat to the stability of the republic? ISIS? That's easy! War crimes? I dunno both sides might have a point. Free speech doesn't play into this, the government doesn't run Twitter. 50 years ago a news paper wouldn't have given him such unfettered and unedited ink every single day. At what point after the missiles launch and the bombs fall during the Trumpenrich does someone say, "perhaps we as private entities, acted irresponsibly to enable this?" RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
News organizations are 100% responsible for Trump's rise because their favorite thing is to report on outrageous things that famous people say and do, especially if they can spin some kind of soft philosophical question or dumb debate out of it. Guaranteed viewership and low cost, especially if all they need is screenshots of twitter. gently caress reporters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
Anyone have that comic handy where a liberal keeps insisting he defends their right to have an opinion while the fash build a camp and walls around him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 21:09
|
|
