Prester Jane posted:

EG, the reason we have a North and a South Dakota was as a compromise with racists to keep the Senate evenly balanced between pro-slavery and anti-slavery votes.

Fulchrum posted:

The greater evil option is plenty loving "legitimized" when it has the power to do whatever it wants. And a choice to not participate is a choice to allow the worst. Again, this is an excercise in trying to salvage your own ego to pretend this has nothing to do with the things that are a clear consequence of your inaction. Its not more moral, you just feel better about it. The fact you think those are the same thing speaks volumes.

Party Plane Jones posted:

The Dakotas entered the Union 24 years after the Civil War ended.

LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:

I mean, you can make this argument, but you're the one still arguing that Clinton was the right choice, so who's trying to salvage their own ego, again?

Imagine investing this much of yourself into someone who isn't bernie, my god.

Prester Jane posted:

You are fixating on a single point in history, and I am not. I am looking at the overall evolution of the structure of our government, and that the overall evolution involves a whole heck of a lot of compromises with racists that intentionally increased the representational power of very rural areas of the country. EG, the reason we have a North and a South Dakota was as a compromise with racists to keep the Senate evenly balanced between pro-slavery and anti-slavery votes.

Party Plane Jones posted:

The Dakotas entered the Union 24 years after the Civil War ended.

Stexils posted:

so why do we have n and s dakota then? there must be a story

Party Plane Jones posted:

The Dakotas entered the Union 24 years after the Civil War ended.

Stexils posted:

so why do we have n and s dakota then? there must be a story

Giggy posted:

It's funny cause the reason (I've been led to believe) we actually have a North and South Dakota is because Republicans wanted to pack the Senate as much as possible to weaken the south.

Skex posted:

And I'm not arguing that compromises weren't made with racists, I mean hell drat near everyone was racist at the time even the ones who wanted to end slavery

Majorian posted:

But it's the Berners who are the cultists. (also the racists)

As someone who used to hold the same views as Fulchrum, it's 100% ego. It's very, very threatening to feel like you may have to admit that every assumption you've based your worldview on was totally wrong.

Prester Jane posted:

Damnit, I knew I shoulda double checked that one. Anyone got a list of the states that were created to keep balance between pro and anti slavery votes in the run up to the Civil War?

RandomBlue posted:

I thought most people went through that on November 9th, 2016.

Party Plane Jones posted:

that's basically it, it was 4 reliable republican senate seats

Party Plane Jones posted:

Majorian posted:

One would hope, but as it turns out...nope.

To be fair, Kerry losing in 2004 should have clued me in when it happened, but eh, I was a dumb college student then.

Lightning Knight posted:

This actually is rather presentist, the social concept of race wasn't really solidified until 1700 and the hierarchies surrounding it weren't entrenched until about 1750, and by the 1800s you saw ideological push back to the entire concept of the dehumanization of black people both from black intellectuals and white allies. This is sort of the issue with "good for his time!" arguments, it's not as if anti-racism is this mystical concept that popped into existence sometime after MLK was born. There were plenty of ideological anti-racists in the 1800s, they just didn't have political power.

This is not a commentary on the rest of your post, I just think it's worth musing about in relation to modern American politics.

quote:

Colonial era

The first laws criminalizing marriage and sex between whites and non whites were enacted in the colonial era in the English colonies of Virginia and Maryland, which depended economically on unpaid labor such as slavery.

At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages—the 1681 marriage of Irish-born Nell Butler to an African slave was an early example of the application of this law. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or condition of servitude.[7] Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery.

A sizable number of the early indentured servants in the British American colonies were brought over from the Indian subcontinent by the British East India Company.[8] Anti-miscegenation laws discouraging interracial marriage between white Americans and non-whites affected South Asian immigrants as early as the 17th century.[citation needed] For example, a Eurasian daughter born to an Indian father and Irish mother in Maryland in 1680 was classified as a "mulatto" and sold into slavery.

FizFashizzle posted:

I just really wished I understood what he was talking about with steam, or what he THOUGHT he was talking about.

Skex posted:

Counter point


The construct of race most certainly was fully formed by the time the U.S Constitution was framed the framework for white supremacy was established and codified into law in the colonies 100 years before the revolution began.

friendbot2000 posted:

LN is still correct albeit his timeline was a bit off. The definitions of race were largely invented as a way to prevent poor whites from realizing they had more in common with slaves than rich whites. The Colonies didn't really have a entrenched power structure that supported the hegemony of the rich so the idea of poors banding with slaves when the upper class was the minority, terrified them. If anyone is looking for a good read on this, look up "The Invention of the White Race". It is an excellent read.

Your Taint posted:

As I've said before, even the absolute worst Dem is better than the absolute best Republican, and we'd all be a lot better off if she had won.

LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:

I mean, you can make this argument, but you're the one still arguing that Clinton was the right choice, so who's trying to salvage their own ego, again?

Imagine investing this much of yourself into someone who isn't bernie, my god.

Kale posted:

Assuming for a second I take most of what gets said in USPOL seriously (and I'm still not sure sometimes) I just don't know man. If I do then I'm officially convinced that USPOL hates a centrist dem or "blue dog" like Clinton at least as much if not more than it hates a full committed Trumpian Republican based on the sheer amount of time posters spend revisiting the idea of Dems and centrists bad. Essentially this would mean that USPOL at large seems to favor the current polarized political climate of the United States that has resulted in congressional gridlock and that sides on the far left or right of the political spectrum need to be emphatically chosen to avoid the dread label of "centrist" aka apparently the worst kind of politician bar none.

A not so serious cursory reading of USPOL on any given day basically lays it all bare though. AOC good+Gritty good+Centrists bad+"Blue Dogs" bad+"The Fash" bad=USPOL posting 101. Occasionally another topic or idea creeps in but those seem to be the central guiding themes and mantras of USPOL that continue to be reinforced with sometimes impressive frequency. Though the less serious read means I'm still not sure how much people actually believe in all of this. Again we don't quite have the same hyper polarized political climate in Canada so it's a bit different reading what American goons have to say versus talking to co-workers friends and family about all of it. Lots of different topics and focuses that come up and memes and mantras rarely coming into play during the in person ones for obvious reasons..

Fulchrum posted:

The argument is about how giving up power to pure evil is a good thing if it means you dont need to make hard decisions.

Skex posted:

Oh I totally agree. White Supremacy exists to control poor whites, my point is simply that racism was a very real and pervasive thing by the time the Constitution was written. This also doesn't mean that there weren't some intellectuals at the time who saw it as bullshit, but they were the exception not the rule.

Kale posted:

Assuming for a second I take most of what gets said in USPOL seriously (and I'm still not sure sometimes) I just don't know man. If I do then I'm officially convinced that USPOL hates a centrist dem or "blue dog" like Clinton at least as much if not more than it hates a full committed Trumpian Republican based on the sheer amount of time posters spend revisiting the idea of Dems and centrists bad. Essentially this would mean that USPOL at large seems to favor the current polarized political climate of the United States that has resulted in congressional gridlock and that sides on the far left or right of the political spectrum need to be emphatically chosen to avoid the dread label of "centrist" aka apparently the worst kind of politician bar none.

A not so serious cursory reading of USPOL on any given day basically lays it all bare though. AOC good+Gritty good+Centrists bad+"Blue Dogs" bad+"The Fash" bad=USPOL posting 101. Occasionally another topic or idea creeps in but those seem to be the central guiding themes and mantras of USPOL that continue to be reinforced with sometimes impressive frequency. Though the less serious read means I'm still not sure how much people actually believe in all of this. Again we don't quite have the same hyper polarized political climate in Canada so it's a bit different reading what American goons have to say versus talking to co-workers friends and family about all of it. Lots of different topics and focuses that come up and memes and mantras rarely coming into play during the in person ones for obvious reasons..

Majorian posted:

This isn't actually something that anyone here believes. The people to your left who criticize you actually want to take power. They just have realized something that you still haven't, ie: you can't take power in this political climate by being a mealy-mouthed, fascism-enabling centrist.

Giggy posted:

100 percent of USPOL posting is about USPOL posting.

Majorian posted:

This isn't actually something that anyone here believes. The people to your left who criticize you actually want to take power. They just have realized something that you still haven't, ie: you can't take power in this political climate by being a mealy-mouthed, fascism-enabling centrist.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

good for you to admit that you dont think fascists=bad

Fulchrum posted:

I didnt mention Hillary once. The argument is about how giving up power to pure evil is a good thing if it means you dont need to make hard decisions. You're the ones who immediately gravitated towards Hillary.

Kale posted:

I think this has been established in this thread about dozens of times already in the last week. Like if everyone that has ever read this thread doesn't fully get it by now then they aren't really paying attention. USPOL HAS made it's point about why it doesn't like centrist politicians.

Kale posted:

Assuming for a second I take most of what gets said in USPOL seriously (and I'm still not sure sometimes) I just don't know man. If I do then I'm officially convinced that USPOL hates a centrist dem or "blue dog" like Clinton at least as much if not more than it hates a full committed Trumpian Republican based on the sheer amount of time posters spend revisiting the idea of Dems and centrists bad. Essentially this would mean that USPOL at large seems to favor the current polarized political climate of the United States that has resulted in congressional gridlock and that sides on the far left or right of the political spectrum need to be emphatically chosen to avoid the dread label of "centrist" aka apparently the worst kind of politician bar none.

A not so serious cursory reading of USPOL on any given day basically lays it all bare though. AOC good+Gritty good+Centrists bad+"Blue Dogs" bad+"The Fash" bad=USPOL posting 101. Occasionally another topic or idea creeps in but those seem to be the central guiding themes and mantras of USPOL that continue to be reinforced with sometimes impressive frequency. Though the less serious read means I'm still not sure how much people actually believe in all of this. Again we don't quite have the same hyper polarized political climate in Canada so it's a bit different reading what American goons have to say versus talking to co-workers friends and family about all of it. Lots of different topics and focuses that come up and memes and mantras rarely coming into play during the in person ones for obvious reasons..

galenanorth posted:

Centrists would not be as bad if they were clear about what their actual beliefs are, but they do clearly list them out like people like Sen. Sanders do. They do not draw a distinction between a political compromise being something they desire out of necessity and a political compromise being something they would advocate, no matter the circumstances. Instead, they use ambiguous language and refrain from discussing issues at all so that they can claim the "right" position later. These people may fall into a few camps. First, there are people who are probably secretly more progressive on an issue than they actually are, but they are playing "Price is Right" with their election chances, like a health policy professor who warned Hillary Clinton against pushing for single-payer healthcare but eventually openly endorsed it in 2017. Second, there are collaborators like Hillary Clinton. Collaboration is a form of compromise in which people argue we should pass legislation which makes things worse because the other side will make things even worse than that if we don't. It is the form of compromise which, taken to the extreme, says "things will we better if I join this organization and try to change it from the inside, and argue for better conditions in immigrant camps", only for the bosses to start negotiations from an even worse position. Third, there are liars who are actually much more conservative, corrupt, or bought by donor money than they appear, and like a Republican, they have to continually trot out excuses.

We do not know which is which, because centrists inherently come with this idea that not only do they have to compromise for the sake of pragmatism, but they have to manage their appearance for optimal electability by actively hiding what they believe. This makes them seem artificial, and it leaves voters feeling deceived that they did not get what they voted for so often that we even have a name for it, the general election pivot. Governor Bredesen's endorsement of Kavanaugh is a prime example of a pivot backfiring. Leftists let people know what they stand for.

Fulchrum posted:

I didnt mention Hillary once. The argument is about how giving up power to pure evil is a good thing if it means you dont need to make hard decisions. You're the ones who immediately gravitated towards Hillary.

You do realise that a cult like devotion to a hatred of her and an absolute obsession with her is still a cult, right? Thats not even getting into immediately giving the game away by admitting to thinking a cult like devotion to inactivity and talk is justified.

Kale posted:

That goes a long way in fleshing out the position of centrists bad. I'll just say this, people like Chuck Schumer inspire absolutely no confidence or particular feelings at all. I have absolutely no idea what that guy particularly stands for other than a Democratic party line vote. He just seems to be there as Senate Minority Leader, and an especially milquetoast minority leader at that. I have no idea what he would even try to do really if he were to have been miraculously granted the Senate Majority leadership either. At the same time while I can understand being frustrated with that sort of leadership in particular, it just seems like there's bigger fish to fry concerning the Senate right now. Like imagine how different congress would look without Mitch McConnell in particular who has arguably done the most direct damage to democratic political institutions of any single man in America this generation.