|
Locke Dunnegan posted:What point do you think I'm making? I keep asking honest questions and I'm getting hilarious one-liners in response. The majority of the last 250 years of American history has been under a strong central national government, so Jim Crow, Japanese-American internment during WWII, fuckery of Native Americans, the drug war, the Great Depression, and others. Yes there have been leaps and bounds in personal freedoms (some more than others), but there's still seemingly systemic problems that hold us back as a nation, and I figured I had a good point for discussion. Or at least I could educate myself about related topics through getting schooled with knowledge instead of GoOn IrOnY. Look man I'm going to go easy on you: you're getting a lot of poo poo because your opening post and subsequent responses read a lot like that which we get periodically from internet libertarians who think they've finally found the one poser question that will blow all our statist minds, but instead turn out to be hilariously ignorant of 1) recorded history, and 2) observable reality. But, again, I'm playing nice for the moment so I'll put on my history professor hat and lay some of it out. America only really starts to have a dominant central federal government following the Civil War, and even then it's not until well into the 20th century (WWII being the point most choose, those the New Deal qualifies for some) that the feds have a greater impact on the lives of the average American than their state and local governments. This in particular why deep south state governments* were able to buck the reconstruction amendments with Jim Crow and the like until the Civil Rights era, at the climax of which the federal government decided to actually assert the power it had previously not much used since, oh, 1877 or so, and tell them to knock that poo poo off. Honestly, the rest of your points, minus Indian removal, all fall at or after WWI, so you're hardly talking "the majority of the last 250 years," you're just talking about the last seventy or so. Also, when you first posit that maybe a confederacy would be a better solution, someone else points out we tried that already and it was a colossal shitshow (which man, you have no idea how right that is), and you just sorta blow it off by saying you didn't know about that but it probably doesn't matter because America's different now, it makes it seem like you're either not posting in good faith, or are just a flaky idiot. Not that you necessarily are a flaky idiot, but your posting so far inclines some to believe that's the case. We (kinda, sorta, when we're not loving around) have some standards a thread needs to reach before we take it seriously, and, not to be a jerk about this, you're not really reaching it. *Not that other regions didn't pull all sorts of poo poo like sundowner towns, as well.
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Captain Maclane can confirm this but I'm pretty sure Vermont looks down on every state While as The Best StateTM we might be otherwise inclined so to do, our vast enlightenment yields only a sense of benign amusement at the antics of other states. Except New Hampshire. gently caress those upside-down weak maple-syrup-havers. Locke Dunnegan posted:Also, I am not libertarian or Republican or right-wing at all. Being that I didn't bring up any popular talking points (that I know of) aside from reducing the power of central government somewhat, especially considering the increase in central power in the last fifteen years or so, I don't understand how someone can argue that I seem to be a member of those parties. Come to the libertarian thread, we have such wonders to show you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:DONT LISTEN TO HIM, YOU HAVE SO MUCH TO LIVE FOR We have an eternity to know your first principles. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That sounds hard, instead just going to toke up and think of ways to totally disrupt Obama's police state maaaaaan Look I know we bag on this poo poo all the time but maybe this once we should give the goober half a chance? He did back down on a number of things after I laid it out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 03:49
|
|
Whoah, like what if there were like no governments, whoah
|
SedanChair posted:What bitch-rear end country were you thinking of that can even be mentioned in the same sentence as America's majesty? Lets talk about real nations now, who eat at the big-boy table and play for high stakes, nations who gently caress with their pants around their ankles. Scandinavian midget kingdom experiments don't count. You're sounding disturbingly MIGFesque, SedanChair. Did you eat any deep dish within the last 24 hours? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Typo posted:Look you seem like someone who is genuinely interested in a good discussion, but I think D&D is really the wrong place for this type of debate. I think the problem is more that his OP unintentionally came off smelling strongly of being another libertarian playing the "just asking questions" game, which is a dance we've danced a few too many times for many to remain politely skeptical. That he appears not to actually be one of those jerks is why I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and actually engage a bit, but it's rather hard to debate when his premises are quite broad and argument poorly defined, as well as significantly lacking historical underpinnings in some areas. Locke, I think you might be better suited to actually nailing down something more discreet and debatable from your larger "America's got me bummed out and I've concerns about federalism and the size of national government in general." Like, if you want to talk about military budget bloat and how that might be address, something specific like the politics of procurement or America's sacralization/fetishization of military service and gun wankery might get you something better. Also, though you didn't deserve all of the snark directed at you, we do toss insults around while arguing about things here, and getting offended at it just makes you come off as thin-skinned.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Is that seen as a good start by a lot of people? There didn't seem to be anyone else supporting his choice in literature so it came across as a random dude pimping an old textbook and then sitting there tapping his foot until I did what he wanted. When the level is discourse is as lovely as it has been anyone not in the in crowd knows who to trust to not be an elaborate troll. Trolling is useless and fucks things up for people on all sides of debate which is why I'm not excited about continuing discussion. Just trying to get my view across as best I can. Look man, I've been as generous as I can but the reason Obdicut and others have suggested you should read up is, based on the few posts you've made that weren't just tone whining, you've displayed a remarkable deficiency of knowledge about some pretty drat basic aspects of American history and government operation. Yeah, admittedly this isn't a college-level seminar or anything, but if you want to, you know, actually debate and not get (exclusively) made fun of, you sort of have to at least demonstrate an adequate basis of knowledge for the subject to hand. It really seems as if you want to discuss something that you lack precisely that basis discuss, and that you've complained that the rest of us haven't made huge effortposts to fill in the gaps in your knowledge for you, well, comes off as more than a little lazy and/or disingenuous. Furthermore, I'll repeat what I said before that you've chosen a really broad and poorly-defined subject to try to start a conversation about even excepting these problems, and would really benefit from narrowing down what it is, exactly, you want to talk about.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:It's actually annoying that people are actually calling some of the assholes out in this thread because I don't want to just pick up stakes and go when at least some of my issues with the discourse here is shared. This thread isn't about my OP anymore but maybe this new topic is worthy of discussion itself. It's not. Tone argument threads never go anywhere good.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well, down with slavery seems to be consistent and isn't spouting conspiracy theory esque political-economic junk so that's good. And yep, jettisoning the south, though kind of an rear end in a top hat move would make the rest of the country more progressive. Hard to deny that. In case you were wondering, down with slavery, this poster concurring with you is a more damning criticism of your lunatic ideas than anything anyone else could make.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 00:40
|
|