Umpah umpah
Good song. Saving this.
Umpah umpah
Good song. Saving this.
IMO only racists and smoothbrains say that the Confederacy was about state rights or whatever. The VP of the Confederacy had an entire speech about slavery: https://iowaculture.gov/history/educ...eech-alexander
"[I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
also how can you say that black people are inferior when you permanently look like you died 5 days ago lmao
I started reading this thread but felt like going through 15 pages of a debate on categorization would give me cancer so I skipped here.
To throw some thought provoking bullshit out there I think the truth on the civil war is a bit of a middle ground. In any war the winner always frames their fight with a bunch of post hoc stuff to make them out to be the morally justified champions who conquered evil regardless of the motivations or evils they committed. I pretty much believe this to be a consistent regardless of context that has a parallel to the civil war.
So I am going to take an unpopular position of pointing out how the civil war was not about human rights but please take a moment to understand what I am saying before screaming I am a racist. Keep in mind that the ideas of human rights and slavery have to be separated to have an intelligent conversation on the subject.
To preface- 100% the civil war was about slavery. But it was an economic weapon that is now framed as some kind of moral selfless fight. To anyone who would like to argue that it was about human rights I would point out a few questions-
1- Why did the emancipation proclamation postdate the end of the war? If it was about providing humane treatment to slaves why not give them equal rights when creating a war over it (if it was about human rights)
2- Corollary to 1- Even if slaves were not given equal human rights why were they not given freedom in areas that were taken by the north from the south? They were given a chance to fight for the north to earn their freedom but freedom was not treated as something inherent to their human condition. They had to serve for it and were often treated as cannon fodder serving in the most brutal of conditions to insulate the non-slave fighters from casualties.
3- Confiscation. We understand it now as a drug dealer who gets his car snatched up by cops because it was part of his drug business and it then gets sold by the cops or used as an undercover vehicle to support anti-drug operations. But it was also used on slaves. The north 'confiscated' slaves from the south who would not serve for their freedom and put them to work on railroads until the emancipation proclamation re-classed them as the 'freed men.' Theres journals of that time from railroad foremen detailing how they had business formulas to pay the freed men just enough to get by but avoid paying them enough that they could afford returning to the east coast to reconnect with their familys and they even worked to create an infrastructure for them to send money back with the idea that they would keep working to help their family if they specifically saw it as their only option. Sure that is post civil war but kinda pointing to the mindset.
There is quite a few other points I could make but I am lazy : )
Sure those questions are something of note but consider the nature of power. Over the last what.. 20 years or something we have had those struggles with North Korea, Syria, and many others but without declaring war we have pressured them to do whatever. This is the preface to any war. War is viewed as some huge change but really its just another way to exert power. Prior to any war there is usually a long struggle that centers around economic pressure.
In context to the civil war there was an evolution of the economy in the industrial revolution. The south was an agrarian society while the north became industrialized. A power struggle evolved as the country developed centered around taxation and spending of taxed funds. (Back then they didnt run up the national debt like a 16 year old with daddys credit card, they actually had to fund the things they wanted to do.) The south got pissy about being taxed with their tax money being spent to develop the Norths infrastructure and raised prices and thus an economic war was created. The north needed the souths raw goods to feed their industrial machine while the south saw the north as an overbearing government on par with England which they had fought to separate from.
Yes slavery was a key factor in the war but it came with the timing of uncle toms cabin as the most viable justification. I believe that human rights is just the moral post hoc stance taken on the war and that its the pretty bow put on an ugly war.
In our day now we argue about the left or the right or CNN vs FOX but its all the same. Its just another power struggle where the rich take whatever socially acceptable platitude to push for a greater share of power. I think the fact this thread is titled "Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism" is a bit telling of that nature.
To push it a bit further I have a belief that this draws on human nature in more ways than one. I think we have a lot of trouble separating morality from power structures but whatever. Tell me I am wrong if you want but this was more of a power struggle than it was a fight for human rights.
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
Ah yes, the "you guys are cancerous, but let me drop what I think" post. Thanks Helz.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Totally fair. Its hypocritical of me.
I just have a terrible habit of reading a debate and thinking that the debate has the wrong focus. In this specific one I read 2 pages and kind of invalidated the argument in my mind as semantic categorization that held little real meaning.
I guess its a character flaw of mine and I should be more considerate.
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
"The truth on the civil war is a bit of a middle ground" no it isn't and you agreed with me on it in your post. The truth on the civil war was that the Confederacy was fighting for the right to keep slaves. Were the Union's motives less than noble? Probably. Were the Confederacy's motives about economics? Partially, though once again I'd like to refer you to the speech by the Confederacy's VP where he mentions that the nation was founded around the idea that black people are inherently inferior in case you think economics is the entire reason.
On both topics, I can't say I particularly care. One side was fighting for the right to keep slaves, the other was fighting to free slaves. I don't really give a shit if they had ulterior motives, so your post is an answer to a question that didn't really even come up.
Honestly the reasons I initially made this thread were:
a) I suspect there are two different types of right wingers
b) I feel neither are particularly well seen by the mainstream media.
Its a bit bizarre you’d mention the title of the thread because I actually meant to contrast them to show that they weren’t the same thing, and didn’t say one was better than the other. I feel they shouldn’t be lumped together because they’re different.
Bizarrely enough not all studies I’ve read make this distinction. So maybe it’s a contentious issue.
Still it’s interesting to think that political leanings can be predicted on the basis of temperament.
I do think politics is a dumb topic but one should give the devil his due.
Thread title has literally no connection to the discussion anyway we all just went off on a tangent
Theres a few things that I feel are contrived in this. Why does the fact that the confederacy treated slaves as "inherently inferior" equate to the union not also treating them as such? Is this not a false dichotomy?
Why does the confederate rhetoric of slaves being "inherently inferior" translate to "black people being inherently inferior" in your mind? (are the Indian or Mexican slaves and debtors to be ignored?)
Why do you believe the union was fighting to free slaves when they very specifically did not free slaves as they retook areas? This draws back to my first point that if it was about human rights the emancipation proclamation should have come with the start of the civil war.
I feel like you are not separating the ideas of racism and slavery.
I feel like you are not separating the ideas of slavery and human rights.
I get that this is a touchy subject and you disagree with me but separating these concepts has value. The same bias exists to as much of an extreme level when trying to separate a religion from its power structure. Just try to get a Catholic to accept the evils of the Vatican and differentiate that with the Catholic religion. They are two very separate things but its hell to get someone who is indoctrinated with that belief system to stop seeing them as the same. So giving to God = Giving to the Pope and the Pope = God.
Slavery is terrible but there will never be an intelligent conversation on any subject that touches it so long as it is treated as some hot button conversation ending absolute. Can a conversation exist without each side accepting a potential for changing their mind? Without that potential we are just waiting our turn to push our viewpoint on the other individual and its no longer a conversation but rather a debate.
That said, I am open to you changing my mind. Tell me why I am wrong and I am totally willing to listen. Tell me that I am wrong and I just have to shrug.
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
There are plenty of types of political views in general; It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum you're on. I'm progressive on some issues and conservative on others. A few of us just showed our results from a political survey that shows this.
Not sure what you mean by temperament.
(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶
How can you separate racism from slavery after reading the statements from the southern states in regards to their secession? They are deeply connected.
I think Ganelon is saying something like, people with compassionate tendencies tend to lean left.
I'll address your points one by one.
1) The union probably did treat slaves (and black people in general) as inherently inferior at least implicitly. However, I don't think that's relevant because gradual social progress can't be criticized because they didn't immediately solve all the problems at once. The Confederacy seceded over the issue of slavery, and while Lincoln and the Union didn't necessarily fight to abolish slavery, but rather to maintain the Union, that doesn't say anything about the Confederacy because their motives are entirely separate.
2) The Confederate rhetoric wasn't that slaves are inferior. Read the speech I posted, it was very specifically said that black people are inferior:
"[I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition."
3) I don't think the Union was fighting to free slaves. I don't think I actually ever said that, though one of the end results was that the Union ended up ending slavery. But I do think the Confederacy is a slave state and was inherently found as a white supremacist nation. That's what I'm attacking.
4) The probable reason that the Union didn't immediately free slaves was because it's a complicated endeavour due to economics and public sentiment, but honestly I don't know. Perhaps the Civil War momentarily changed priorities?
I'm not really sure what this conversation is trying to achieve, I'll be honest. I think bringing in the context of the Union's intentions and actions is muddying the conversation of the Confederacy being a nation founded solely because they wanted to maintain slavery. The Union wasn't a perfect model of a nation, but it wasn't founded on the pretext of owning slaves, while the Confederacy was. I don't know what alternative point you're proposing here, or what it has to do with my other arguments regarding statues and honouring traitors and whatnot.
Well yeah. And even those foundations are used to polarize political positions more, especially by the media. For example, does having more empathy make you a better person? Does wanting to protect your country's interests first make you a bad person?
As far as two types of conservative, I'm sure there are a lot more.
(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶
No. I am not very empathetic myself, but I do share many of the classical psychological markers they associate with the left - I am VERY disorderly, and (I believe) relatively high in openness to experience. That’s kinda why this dichotomy is important to me. It made me understand by own beliefs much better.
For example I am definitely pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, and pro-guns (my position on social issues is, if doesn’t constitute a security risk or an infringement upon someone else’s freedom, why not?), but I also believe that religion and culture are nice and important. I believe American laws are, at least in part, based on fundamental religious values. I also think the ideas that are at the core of our society (individualism foremost among them) are extremely important, and that we shouldn’t abandon them. Does that make me a conservative?
Awesome man, this is very respectable (I think I said this in my first post?). I can be friendly with/engage in friendly banter/debate with someone on economic issues and not really have a problem with them.
But people who are anti gay marriage for example can go jump in a ditch. Fuck those people.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I agree with almost everything you said-actually nothing you said I disagree with. Tucker Carlson is pretty cool, I listened to him back on Bubba the Love Sponge radio show. Any time you hear about stats relating politics to IQ, i.e. the right is dumber stats wise, you have to remember bias. Who exactly is administering these tests? Are the majority of them liberals due to higher education being linked to leftist views? And what is intelligence anyways? The Wright Brothers invented flight but there was no evidence they were 200 IQ geniuses. And Oppenheimer was responsible, in part, for the nuclear bomb, but was he smart enough not to make it? He gave it to the military for peace, lol? The subjectivity and hate divides, but at the end of the day we haven't had a real left or right president in a long time. They all tend to fall left center or right center, even Bush and Obama.
TL;Dr: If you want to make yourself upset, argue politics or religion.
Tucker Carlon's a pretty cool dude, especially since he's not expected to report facts you know, just spew his diatribe that's protected by the 1st amendment. Facts don't matter.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9573436.html
They all fall right of center. Obama was a conservative.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Lincoln said: If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it.." It may have initiated the war, but slavery was not the focal point until post hoc. I think it was more about the individual freedom for white men to choose their own fate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4qQElJUYnM I love this video. If only Tucker Carlson was on staff; we'd have a great time.
Last edited by Drizzt; June 24th, 2020 at 11:28 AM.
There are plenty of journalists on both sides that say stupid shit. Rachel Maddow had a 10 million dollar lawsuit against herself 2 months before the one you posted was filed. Not to mention, that article outlining Tucker's lawsuit took a quote from Fox's lawyer out of context. The suit, like many others will just get thrown out.
(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶
Yes I did watch it, most of it anyway, skipped maybe the last minute because I didn't find the video all that interesting. Even if the guy being interviewed was legit (the whole thing looked staged) I don't understand why this would be news to me. So some guys are protesting Trump, and maybe some people are paid to protest Trump, it doesn't really matter to me, because I can find legitimate reasons to protest against this president. How would you get this person working for money onto an interview anyway? The guy says something like, "I wouldn't be interviewed on national television anyway, because I would definitely be vetted." So I have no reason to take the interview seriously. Additionally, Fox News and Tucker Carlson routinely spread misinformation.
I can't tell why you are talking about checking your sources. Not sure what that was about. There's a Vox video on Tucker Carlson, wanna see?
Well, the whole video was about the failure of reporter on checking their sources. And the fake activist was put on legitimate news organizations due to a failure of fact checking. I'm not sure if you're trolling or you truly don't see the dots here. I don't believe it was staged insomuchas the activist didn't know Tucker Carlson knew the whole thing was a sham. Just trying to bring a little sunshine to the conversation.
Oh and god, if you're looking to fox news for actual news and not entertainment, you're gonna be dissapointed.
Last edited by Drizzt; June 25th, 2020 at 09:53 PM.
I'm getting something wrong here. And I'm still not sure what I got wrong. So you like Tucker Carlson because he's entertaining, and you know he doesn't report facts. But you've been following him for a while.. to be entertained? I really don't know your stance on him. At this point it seems like you were telling a joke and the punchline flew over my head. If so, sorry about that, I don't get jokes often.
Everything isn't black or white with me. Yes, Tucker Carlson is entertaining. No, I do not follow him and haven't really heard him in years. As for not reporting facts, I think you would need citations to back that statement up. I'm sure he's gotten plenty wrong, nobody is perfect.
I'm not a conservative or a liberal. Someone mentioned Tucker Carlson, so I linked a humorous video. The video just so happens to highlight the importance of checking sources- my confusion was that you didn't understand that subject. Perhaps I, or you, misinterpreted one another.
Does this clear things up?
Cheers,
Brock
I dont feel like its fair to suggest its erroneous to talk about the unions motives while arguing the morality of the confederacy motives. Yes it will 'muddy the water' but my point is that the pretty moral justification we put on the civil war is garbage. I do not see why its such an offensive thing to hold the union accountable for the massive loss of life in the name of profit. Both sides were wrong and neither side cared for human rights in their actions. They acted out of self interest in a fight for power from what I see.
I strongly believe that actions speak louder than words and those actions speak to intentions. Its as true in Mafia as it is in social interactions and even international politics. With that in mind the actions of the union do not support the narrative of "Fighting for morality and human rights" thats accepted as the driving factor of the civil war. We should be critical of the confederacy racism but why can we not also be critical of the union pointing to the confederacy's racism to avoid their own as well as the loss of life resulting from their greed? Should one evil be ignored because another existed?
I kinda feel that this is a loaded question. Of course you can't separate them in context to what your asking. Take a step back from the context and you absolutely can. What I said earlier was to point out that there were slaves of many races. Slavery as a function is not a race issue. We just view it as such because our most pronounced recent historical incident with it predominantly was. The human rights side was totally racial post-slavery but that is a separate issue.
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
There was a good portion of this thread discussing Tucker Carlson. It was wrong for me to presume you had read it. Feel free to look back and read the thread or you could watch the video I linked. Here, I'll link it again:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNineSEoxjQ I'm sure Tucker reports fact fairly often, but he also reports facts that are irrelevant, that aren't facts, or misleading. It's good to check sources for accuracy, but it's also good to evaluate information for relevance, recency, and usefulness.
Someone could classify me as conservative or liberal, but I like to think that I'm doing a good job staying politically neutral. I was confused as to why you thought the video was humorous in the context of the rest of the thread. Was it funny because it's so cringe, or perhaps because you liked Carlson and he nailed someone, or perhaps because Carlson was wasting his time on someone obviously doing something stupid. See, it was hard to tell if you had posted a video with the intent of it being satire.
Chest-o
I’ll play the devils advocate here. Most of the slaves in the South were black - along with a few native Americans slaves. Many discussions at the time about slavery directly referenced Black Americans. Don’t you think that implies it IS at least to some extent primarily about blacks?
That being said, while I do think many southerners were racist, not all of them marched against the Union in support of slavery. Many joined the confederacy to protect their homes and their lands. It’s not fair to describe it as being purely about slavery, IMO.
And i maintain that the cultural gap between the north and the south (which manifested itself at all levels of society - from the economic aspect to the social aspect), was a big part of the reason why the war happened. The south had once been the richest region in the country; due to the industrial revolution, it very swiftly started losing ground to the north. Slavery was also economically motivated. Southerners were afraid of losing their political influence.
The second part of this post has nothing to do with slavery or with the Civil war. It’s about the confederate flag. You can see the confederate flag as being equivalent to the flag of New England - a region which doesn’t have the same national consciousness (I think) as the South, probably because they were swiftly integrated into the Union. The south doesn’t really have any other recognizable symbol for use as a flag. I can totally understand why they’d use it; I can also understand why some people may have qualms about it, although it definitely isn’t merely a symbol of white nationalism.
I guess the only thing you could really do is get the South to adopt another flag. Commission an artist and make him design a new flag for the south. (That’s not gonna happen but, lol).
Also, unrelated but Maryland, Texas and California have the dopest state flags in the union
The most terrible flags are the flag of Massachusetts (kinda sad cuz that’s my favourite state), North Carolina, and New Mexico
I don't understand your point at all. I said the Confederacy was founded on racism and slavery as a founding principle, so to its core, it is irredeemably bad. Every traitor that fought for the Confederacy was fighting to maintain racism and slavery. The Union did bad things, yes, but the Confederacy was founded upon the idea of slavery as a cornerstone. I literally don't care what the Union did because I'm not defending them, I'm attacking the Confederacy.
Your point about the Union, though it is absolutely correct, is muddying the waters because it's entirely irrelevant to any point I was making. You are trying to both-sides an argument that wasn't even pinning one side against another. You are spinning whataboutism about the Union into a pseudo-defence of the morality of the Confederacy, which is not only a fallacy but quite a disingenuous way of framing what I was saying in the first place.
The best flag in the world are the following flags:
The flag of Normandy
The flag of Northumbria
The old Prinsenvlag of the Netherlands
The old flag of RSA
The old flag of Prussia
The flag of Occitania
The flag of Lombardy
The flag of my city, it’s fucking DOPE
IMO I'm just going to ignore anyone continuing to post about the Confederacy in this thread until they explicitly acknowledge the Cornerstone Speech. Until you do that, you are being wilfully ignorant or arguing in bad faith.
Are you talking about the speech where the VP said the confederacy was founded on the principles of slavery? Tbh there’s no way getting around that, it’s pretty fucked. It shows an attitude which was probably common in the south at the time. Was the confederacy bad? Yes, but slavery wasn’t the only reason why war erupted. The north would probably have had bad relations with the south regardless of slavery. The south was poorer and getting poorer than the north. I don’t know if it would’ve led to war per se, but it would definitely have led to rocky relations, even in the absence of slavery.
Plantations were well entrenched in the South; they weren’t going anywhere. What the South did was in part a reaction to a growing economic gap between themselves and the north.