Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism - Page 9
Register

User Tag List

Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 450 of 803
  1. ISO #401
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Rumox, how is what I’m arguing in bad taste? Literally not one second have I said that Slavery is okay. I’m arguing the South didn’t fight merely for slavery. I was actually about to post the same thing that Helz did - that racism was a justification for slavery.

  2. ISO #402

  3. ISO #403

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    I'd ask you to read about free blacks in the antebellum period and ask yourself - is it really only a justification for slavery? I can agree that racism entwined with slavery was at the heart of the secession (sorry lol).

    I just do not agree with the post that Ganelon made earlier that it "wasn't just about slavery". I find it in very bad taste to frame the topic as he did.
    Fair point. If I said that I thought racism was only a justification for slavery I misspoke. I do believe racism is real and was a big issue in the south.
    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.

  4. ISO #404

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    Helz is my slave in my dungeon of naughty sexi time.
    Why do you have to tell them our secrets master?
    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.

  5. ISO #405

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Rumox, how is what I’m arguing in bad taste? Literally not one second have I said that Slavery is okay. I’m arguing the South didn’t fight merely for slavery. I was actually about to post the same thing that Helz did - that racism was a justification for slavery.
    Bruh I have said numerous times why I thought so. The way you discuss the topic comes across as downplaying the significance of the how racially charged it was. It comes across as:

    confederacy racist? yea sure man dunno maybe BUT STATE RIGHTS ON THE OTHER HAND.

    Nah men. You cannot put the blatant racism on the backburner on this topic. You went straight into whataboutisms which just feeds into arguing in bad taste. I don't see what's so hard with accepting that the Confederacy was at its very core, the pillar of its foundation, a racist state. Read any scripture on why non-slaveholding southerners fought (besides conscription duh) and you will find the general opinion was that it wasn't just the 25% of the population with slaves that wanted to keep the status quo going.

    I'm sorry but it's a racist state, a racist flag and majority of the citizens were racists. I'm not kidding when I said Lost Cause. It sounds like you are arguing straight from the pov of a United Daughters of the Confederacy member which you must understand is contentious in of itself.

    If Southerners really wanted to separate themselves from racism and being pro-slavery they shouldn't use the BATTLE FLAG of an army fighting to ensure its survival. You cannot be more smooth brained than that.

  6. ISO #406
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Fine but do you see how it’s possible for someone to argue in favour of the flag and of its importance to modern Southerners without being racist? Such people see the South and its culture for what it could be, not what it was.

  7. ISO #407
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    I’m totally not arguing in bad faith here, I just strongly disagree with the idea that the flag and the statues shouldn’t be used. Maybe I’ve presented a faulty argument here, but I would blame that on my general airheadedness rather than any racism on my part.

    Im just reacting to the overwhelming negative backlash towards these symbols and my gut tells me something is seriously wrong. I don’t know if the mistake is in assuming the Confederacy is fundamentally racist or somewhere else, but I do deeply mistrust the moves to remove the statues. I just don’t think that is done in good faith. We can argue as to whether it’s a good idea to remove them or not, but I guess what really concerns me is: why the sudden interest? When did confederate statues suddenly become popular? They weren’t nearly as contentions a few years ago, and here we are, people who would otherwise have no business with each other fighting over it.

    I think this is indicative of a political polarization. Which nicely ties in with the original intent of the thread.
    ontent m

  8. ISO #408
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    This is also why photos of the slave states and the states who voted Republican were compared against one another. I’m possibly wrong in assuming the Confederaxy wasn’t primarily about slavery and I can accept that, but IMO it’s completely disingenuous to compare Trump supporters to slavery supporters. It’s literally outlandish lol, I know plenty of people on the right and it’s generally the case that people vote along ideological lines, and many of those who are on the right don’t agree with slavery or with racism lol
    Last edited by ; June 27th, 2020 at 07:29 AM.

  9. ISO #409

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    I can see it being possible to support the flag without being racist or pro-slavery, but I am also not an idiot and understand that flying that specific flag will get you accused of being racist. There is no and will never be any wriggle room around this opinion people have. There is too much negativity connected to the flag. If people truly cared to separate themselves from the racist implications of the flag there would be some evidence of southern priders proposing something else, maybe a flag or some sort of identifier from one of the anti-slavery societies in the south but I literally can't find any reference to this being true. They want to use a battle flag of an army that fought to ensure the survival of slavery. They have only themselves to blame.

  10. ISO #410

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    I wonder if in 100 years people will be flying the Nazi flag and arguing it's for their German heritage, and claiming that the Holocaust wasn't done for racism and rather for economic reasons while completely disregarding anything Hitler or Himmler or any Nazi actually said.

    I wonder how many enlightened centrists would already make that argument today.

  11. ISO #411
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Why has this issue (the statues) become so polarizing lately? Ten years ago it wasn’t in the public eye - not to this extent. What changed?
    I am not talking about the Confederacy because this thread shows nothing good can come from this topic.

    Furthermore, doesn’t anyone else feel lIke politics has become much more polarized in the last 5 years or so? I can’t recall a year that was as polarized as this. I guess in retrospect Bush’s presidency was also controversial, although that is for some understandable reasons.

  12. ISO #412

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I have never even considered this. Is the objective of a landmark to preserve the opinion held at its time of creation or is it more important to preserve current ideology? Is preserving ideology only ok when it corresponds with current ideology? Im not sure which way is best but maybe its some combination that gives value to old monuments in that they were important enough at the time of their creation to be erected while also moral enough to survive the years of changing views.

    I think someone said it earlier but its probably worth noting neither qualifys for the preservation of most southern civil war statues as that the greater number of them were erected long after the civil war as a push against rights movements.
    You're making this much more abstract than is appropriate. I'm not saying that "preserving ideology is only ok when it corresponds with the current ideology". Statues of political figures in public spaces are maintained using taxes from the local citizens and those spaces are used and enjoyed by the local citizens. It's rather unfair if a large swathe of the citizens are paying taxes to put up with a statue of a political figure in a public space who is, by modern moral standards, an asshole. That's very different from believing "preserving ideology is only ok when it corresponds with the current ideology". I'm not suggesting we break into people's houses to destroy whatever statues society currently considers racist.

    I've read this several times and still may not fully understand what you're saying, but I think you're suggesting that these statues have historical and cultural value and the decision of whether they're kept up or taken down shouldn't be made solely by examining whether the message of the statue is moral by current standards. If the statue was in a museum or was on someone's private property, I'd say "fair enough". However, this is a statue of a political figure paid for by taxes in a public space. Its existence is deeply political and viewing it simply like a piece of art is naiive. Though you perhaps view my perspective as rather cold.

    p;edit both paragraphs are replying to your first paragraph, to be clear
    Last edited by yzb25; June 27th, 2020 at 11:12 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  13. ISO #413

  14. ISO #414

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Why has this issue (the statues) become so polarizing lately? Ten years ago it wasn’t in the public eye - not to this extent. What changed?
    I am not talking about the Confederacy because this thread shows nothing good can come from this topic.

    Furthermore, doesn’t anyone else feel lIke politics has become much more polarized in the last 5 years or so? I can’t recall a year that was as polarized as this. I guess in retrospect Bush’s presidency was also controversial, although that is for some understandable reasons.
    The economy is going to shit - in some ways we never truly recovered from the 2008 recession. A bunch of corrupt goons are in charge, and our society is changing faster than it ever has before, and the internet has profoundly changed how people acquire information and, by extension, how politicians are incentivized to behave. Then on top of all that we now have to deal with coronavirus. That said, the politics of this period of time isn't particularly polarizing in the grand scheme of things... yet...

    There have always been people who had a problem with these statues. People are just getting angrier about the fact our system has become so stagnant we can't even get rid of a fucking statue any more without a full on riot lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  15. ISO #415

  16. ISO #416

  17. ISO #417

  18. ISO #418

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    I can see it being possible to support the flag without being racist or pro-slavery, but I am also not an idiot and understand that flying that specific flag will get you accused of being racist. There is no and will never be any wriggle room around this opinion people have. There is too much negativity connected to the flag. If people truly cared to separate themselves from the racist implications of the flag there would be some evidence of southern priders proposing something else, maybe a flag or some sort of identifier from one of the anti-slavery societies in the south but I literally can't find any reference to this being true. They want to use a battle flag of an army that fought to ensure the survival of slavery. They have only themselves to blame.
    This right here is a good point and why it's entirely impossible to use and support Confederate symbols (among other stuff like saying the n-word in a supposedly-non racist generic insult way) without being a racist. By flying a Confederate flag you are saying that you don't give a shit about black people getting upset over it's historical use as a racist symbol, which in and of itself is a racist act. Even if you entirely use it as a symbol of southern pride you are saying that your use as such is more important than how the vast majority of black people feel about it.

  19. ISO #419

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I wonder if in 100 years people will be flying the Nazi flag and arguing it's for their German heritage, and claiming that the Holocaust wasn't done for racism and rather for economic reasons while completely disregarding anything Hitler or Himmler or any Nazi actually said.

    I wonder how many enlightened centrists would already make that argument today.
    Hey don’t steal my point
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  20. ISO #420

  21. ISO #421

  22. ISO #422

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    You're making this much more abstract than is appropriate. I'm not saying that "preserving ideology is only ok when it corresponds with the current ideology". Statues of political figures in public spaces are maintained using taxes from the local citizens and those spaces are used and enjoyed by the local citizens. It's rather unfair if a large swathe of the citizens are paying taxes to put up with a statue of a political figure in a public space who is, by modern moral standards, an asshole. That's very different from believing "preserving ideology is only ok when it corresponds with the current ideology". I'm not suggesting we break into people's houses to destroy whatever statues society currently considers racist.

    I've read this several times and still may not fully understand what you're saying, but I think you're suggesting that these statues have historical and cultural value and the decision of whether they're kept up or taken down shouldn't be made solely by examining whether the message of the statue is moral by current standards. If the statue was in a museum or was on someone's private property, I'd say "fair enough". However, this is a statue of a political figure paid for by taxes in a public space. Its existence is deeply political and viewing it simply like a piece of art is naiive. Though you perhaps view my perspective as rather cold.

    p;edit both paragraphs are replying to your first paragraph, to be clear
    I honestly did not have any 'message' there. I just liked that thought and had never taken a moment to think about the purpose of a landmark in relation to the events/culture as seen through time. I do kinda like the idea of landmarks being created but then having to survive through time to earn their place as something that gives them value. A sort of 'trial by time' that weeds out those unworthy of existing kinda thing.

    On your reply though I don't really care for the mix of politics and art. But at the same time I hate politics in general. Its like the practice of manipulating populations to get power and using that power for your personal interest without getting caught. I think its really disgusting that this is how we function as a species but thats just my take on politics.
    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.

  23. ISO #423

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    I’m totally not arguing in bad faith here, I just strongly disagree with the idea that the flag and the statues shouldn’t be used. Maybe I’ve presented a faulty argument here, but I would blame that on my general airheadedness rather than any racism on my part.
    I understand your feeling here. I do not agree with the confederate war flag being anything but a symbol of offence and the overwhelming majority of confederate statues I feel were placed as symbols of offence if you keep in mind the context of the time they were placed (Decades after the civil war and during times of genuine human rights movements.)

    At the same time there are the few that were made to commemorate the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of citizens in a time after the union purposefully targeted civilian infrastructure burning down homes and towns indiscriminately. I do not know how that would feel to loose a war, have many of your friends and family dead and have not just your home but your entire state in ruins but I can imagine there was a lot of emotion in those monuments dedicated to commemorate that loss. The issue I run into is that the overwhelming majority of southern monuments were not made in this context. The south really screwed itself in my opinion by creating symbols of hatred with the pretense of commemorating the war so the backlash on all monuments is pretty much justified to me.

    I take the same issue with medals in the Military. A bronze star means absolutely nothing to me right now because its often 'blanketed' to an entire units E6+Officers. Its terrible that that takes away from the few that truly earned a bronze star but because of this choice the value of that medal has lost the prestige and respect it would otherwise command.

    I do have to say that you should feel no need to say "I am arguing in good faith" when people keep straw-manning the fuck out of you and throwing around Nazi rhetoric. I get that this is an emotional subject but that is truly arguing in bad faith in my book given that you truly believe the things you are saying. You kinda nailed it here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    I think this is indicative of a political polarization. Which nicely ties in with the original intent of the thread.
    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.

  24. ISO #424

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    If people truly cared to separate themselves from the racist implications of the flag there would be some evidence of southern priders proposing something else, maybe a flag or some sort of identifier from one of the anti-slavery societies in the south but I literally can't find any reference to this being true. They want to use a battle flag of an army that fought to ensure the survival of slavery. They have only themselves to blame.
    There actually is. Its the actual confederate flag (not the confederate battle flag.) The majority of people dont even recognize it as a confederate flag and it does not carry the message of hatred that the battle flag does. I can't speak for everyone but I live in Texas and last year had a chat with an old guy in Georgetown who flew it in his front yard. He basically said he used that flag specifically because he stood for southern pride but not racism. After that I noticed it in quite a few places.
    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.

  25. ISO #425

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    This is also why photos of the slave states and the states who voted Republican were compared against one another. I’m possibly wrong in assuming the Confederaxy wasn’t primarily about slavery and I can accept that, but IMO it’s completely disingenuous to compare Trump supporters to slavery supporters. It’s literally outlandish lol, I know plenty of people on the right and it’s generally the case that people vote along ideological lines, and many of those who are on the right don’t agree with slavery or with racism lol
    We make some of the same points but I really dont see any way to think the confederacy was not primarily about slavery. It really really was. I think its much more complicated than just saying "racism" and totally agree with you on the significant economic and power struggle but slavery was where the system broke.
    I kind of look at it as the south lost 2 wars. The first was the political power struggle. When it became apparent they had lost, that they would be subjected to northern industrial control, and their voice no longer mattered they chose to separate. The north chose to make a war out of it instead of letting go at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. This is largly why I am so critical of the north. They get the 'moral high ground' of fighting for human rights (which by their actions they were not) while preforming evil for a power grab. Someone earlier brought up the point of how its immoral that at one time one person would murder another because they are stronger but thats essentially how I see the civil war. There was a population difference of 18 million union to 8 million confederate with the union being an advanced industrialized civilization and the confederacy being a rural agrarian society. The "Bigger and stronger" Union murdered the "Smaller and weaker" Confederacy because they wanted power and we now give them moral credit for the war? Thats trash in my opinion.

    Its one thing for evil to be questioned as a degree of evil but another for evil to be called good. Everyone has their split hairs on this discussion but the indoctrinated historical revision irks me. The north was no more justified in fighting the south to grab power than America was in launching terror bombing campaigns targeting civilian populations in Japan in WW2. We just have that need to be seen as morally justified after we commit evil as a species.
    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.

  26. ISO #426

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    We make some of the same points but I really dont see any way to think the confederacy was not primarily about slavery. It really really was. I think its much more complicated than just saying "racism" and totally agree with you on the significant economic and power struggle but slavery was where the system broke.
    I kind of look at it as the south lost 2 wars. The first was the political power struggle. When it became apparent they had lost, that they would be subjected to northern industrial control, and their voice no longer mattered they chose to separate. The north chose to make a war out of it instead of letting go at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. This is largly why I am so critical of the north. They get the 'moral high ground' of fighting for human rights (which by their actions they were not) while preforming evil for a power grab. Someone earlier brought up the point of how its immoral that at one time one person would murder another because they are stronger but thats essentially how I see the civil war. There was a population difference of 18 million union to 8 million confederate with the union being an advanced industrialized civilization and the confederacy being a rural agrarian society. The "Bigger and stronger" Union murdered the "Smaller and weaker" Confederacy because they wanted power and we now give them moral credit for the war? Thats trash in my opinion.

    Its one thing for evil to be questioned as a degree of evil but another for evil to be called good. Everyone has their split hairs on this discussion but the indoctrinated historical revision irks me. The north was no more justified in fighting the south to grab power than America was in launching terror bombing campaigns targeting civilian populations in Japan in WW2. We just have that need to be seen as morally justified after we commit evil as a species.
    I can't say I'm well learned in the Civil War but could you please provide concrete sources that the Union actually began as the aggressors? Because literally every single source I can find directly contradicts you.

  27. ISO #427

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I can't say I'm well learned in the Civil War but could you please provide concrete sources that the Union actually began as the aggressors? Because literally every single source I can find directly contradicts you.
    Im not sure where you are looking. The Confederacy declared secession- not war. The Union declared their succession illegal and called it 'rebellion' which is just a clever way of declaring war but saying the other side declared war. At the point that the Confederacy declared war the Union had a choice. They could have allowed them to leave but why would they? They were more advanced and had well over twice as many people and had just established political dominance over the areas that wanted to leave.

    I mean.. I could dig up sources but literally every source I look at just speaks to this narrative citing the Union as declaring the Confederate succession as "illegal/rebellion." Its not any different than the American war for Independence where England declared America in rebellion instead of letting them separate. You can place the blame for 'who was the aggressor' where you want but I dont see it as much different than an abusive boyfriend knocking around his girlfriend after she says she wants to leave and then telling people she made him do it.

    -edit
    Im actually way off. At the time war was established only 7 states succeeded putting the numbers more like 4 million confederate vs 22 million union. I doubt an article exists that argues 4 million people declared war against 22 million.
    Last edited by Helz; June 27th, 2020 at 06:06 PM.
    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.

  28. ISO #428

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Im not sure where you are looking. The Confederacy declared secession- not war. The Union declared their succession illegal and called it 'rebellion' which is just a clever way of declaring war but saying the other side declared war. At the point that the Confederacy declared war the Union had a choice. They could have allowed them to leave but why would they? They were more advanced and had well over twice as many people and had just established political dominance over the areas that wanted to leave.

    I mean.. I could dig up sources but literally every source I look at just speaks to this narrative citing the Union as declaring the Confederate succession as "illegal/rebellion." Its not any different than the American war for Independence where England declared America in rebellion instead of letting them separate. You can place the blame for 'who was the aggressor' where you want but I dont see it as much different than an abusive boyfriend knocking around his girlfriend after she says she wants to leave and then telling people she made him do it.

    -edit
    Im actually way off. At the time war was established only 7 states succeeded putting the numbers more like 4 million confederate vs 22 million union. I doubt an article exists that argues 4 million people declared war against 22 million.
    I'd argue that declaring secession without getting approval first from your federal government is a declaration of war/rebellion
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  29. ISO #429

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    I'd argue that declaring secession without getting approval first from your federal government is a declaration of war/rebellion
    I am very curious why you think this. I do not see any relationship dynamic (regardless of personal, business or political) where the oppressive side would agree to give freedom to the oppressed. Scale that to slavery and it sounds a lot like an argument a slaver would make if his slaves decided to leave. Isn't the entire point about free will?

    I do get the concept but in Feudalism it makes sense because the crown owned everything but granted rights to use that land for the mutual benefit the vassals taxation and military service where as in America the Federal government postdated the existence of the colonies and never owned the land to grant it to the colonies. Its the difference of equals entering a compact then separating instead of a powerful side giving a measure of power to a weak side in return for services with the weak side reneging and stealing the measure of power granted to them.
    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.

  30. ISO #430

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I am very curious why you think this. I do not see any relationship dynamic (regardless of personal, business or political) where the oppressive side would agree to give freedom to the oppressed. Scale that to slavery and it sounds a lot like an argument a slaver would make if his slaves decided to leave. Isn't the entire point about free will?

    I do get the concept but in Feudalism it makes sense because the crown owned everything but granted rights to use that land for the mutual benefit the vassals taxation and military service where as in America the Federal government postdated the existence of the colonies and never owned the land to grant it to the colonies. Its the difference of equals entering a compact then separating instead of a powerful side giving a measure of power to a weak side in return for services with the weak side reneging and stealing the measure of power granted to them.
    i'm not saying it's wrong to rebel, but rebelling is still rebelling and I don't think it's right to view the union as the one who declared war. You basically just agreed with me by pointing out that no greater power is going to just let a smaller power secede. Therefore by trying to secede the smaller power knows exactly what it's getting into
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  31. ISO #431

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    i'm not saying it's wrong to rebel, but rebelling is still rebelling and I don't think it's right to view the union as the one who declared war. You basically just agreed with me by pointing out that no greater power is going to just let a smaller power secede. Therefore by trying to secede the smaller power knows exactly what it's getting into
    Sure. I agree with you on both points 100%. My entire point was that it spells out how immoral the war was for the Union. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed for greed and power and I dislike the idea of them being viewed as 'morally justified' after the fact because some good came out of it.

    Ie- The fact the union was acting in their own self interest as expected from any power structural invalidates the argument for their morality in the civil war and underscores human rights as a pretense for greed.
    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.

  32. ISO #432

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Furthermore, doesn’t anyone else feel lIke politics has become much more polarized in the last 5 years or so? I can’t recall a year that was as polarized as this. I guess in retrospect Bush’s presidency was also controversial, although that is for some understandable reasons.
    Trump gaining the presidency has shifted the Overtom Window, the range of policies the public finds acceptable as a result of continued radical ideas being brought forth.

    "Build the wall!" vs stronger immigration control

  33. ISO #433

  34. ISO #434

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Im not sure where you are looking. The Confederacy declared secession- not war. The Union declared their succession illegal and called it 'rebellion' which is just a clever way of declaring war but saying the other side declared war. At the point that the Confederacy declared war the Union had a choice. They could have allowed them to leave but why would they? They were more advanced and had well over twice as many people and had just established political dominance over the areas that wanted to leave.

    I mean.. I could dig up sources but literally every source I look at just speaks to this narrative citing the Union as declaring the Confederate succession as "illegal/rebellion." Its not any different than the American war for Independence where England declared America in rebellion instead of letting them separate. You can place the blame for 'who was the aggressor' where you want but I dont see it as much different than an abusive boyfriend knocking around his girlfriend after she says she wants to leave and then telling people she made him do it.

    -edit
    Im actually way off. At the time war was established only 7 states succeeded putting the numbers more like 4 million confederate vs 22 million union. I doubt an article exists that argues 4 million people declared war against 22 million.
    Dude what.

    I'm sorry but this makes no sense. Of course the Union is not going to recognize a big part of it deciding to secede (because they want to keep slaves, no less), just like literally every other country that that would happen to. The actual start of aggression and battle was by the Confederacy lmao.

    I suppose you'll also start arguing that the US government recognize CHAZ as a foreign nation, right? (spoiler: he won't)

  35. ISO #435

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by secondpassing View Post
    The union engaging in the civil war isn't a "good" act.
    So any self respecting nation is just expected to let a large portion of it just break off whenever it decides and effectively declare a war of ideology against it's mother-nation?
    The United States was the first democratic state in the modern world, letting a large portion of it rebel and keep it's very undemocratic institution would be a failure in the experiment that was democracy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MattZed View Post
    deathworld's and RLVG's suicides made me lul. I take a lot of pleasure in knowing that I gave you an night action, and that you used it to kill yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    At least Mesk has lewdy lefty and raunchy righty. You're not even Canadian.
    Quote Originally Posted by FM-Shocked Kirby Face View Post
    Deathworlds is simply better than us at this game. Don't kill them for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    fucketh me in the ass

  36. ISO #436

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I honestly did not have any 'message' there. I just liked that thought and had never taken a moment to think about the purpose of a landmark in relation to the events/culture as seen through time. I do kinda like the idea of landmarks being created but then having to survive through time to earn their place as something that gives them value. A sort of 'trial by time' that weeds out those unworthy of existing kinda thing.

    On your reply though I don't really care for the mix of politics and art. But at the same time I hate politics in general. Its like the practice of manipulating populations to get power and using that power for your personal interest without getting caught. I think its really disgusting that this is how we function as a species but thats just my take on politics.
    Ah, fair enough. That's quite a romantic thought, actually.

    That makes sense, but why on earth are you posting in the thread then? :P
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  37. ISO #437

  38. ISO #438

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    I'm kind of mystified that y'all seem to view declaring secession as intrinsically bad. I thought we were in agreement that the confederacy was bad because they were founded primarily to hold onto slavery, whether driven by economics and ideology or pure ideology is besides the point. Forcing groups to remain part of a state on the other hand is fundamentally oppressive. And I'm willing to bet the union didn't give a shit about slaves lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  39. ISO #439
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    I actually do disagree with the secession itself; I think states shouldn’t have the right to secede unilaterally, not from a federation, at least. If they do, the whole concept of government breaks down. Federations need a moderately strong central government.

  40. ISO #440
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Yeah I do find the things the Union did in the south during the war (Sherman’s march to the Sea) pretty reprehensible. Not saying I don’t think the Union should’ve won the war (I do), but they could’ve bene a lot of less brutal about it. After all, they weren’t fighting against a hostile nation. They were fighting their own countrymen lol.

  41. ISO #441

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    If they do, the whole concept of government breaks down.
    Sorry is this supposed to be a counter argument? :P

    Lol but seriously, it's a shame that the strength of the central government erodes, but that doesn't entitle them to rule over people who reject them. That's fundamentally undemocratic. I don't think "the whole concept of government breaks down". The minority will just go form their own government.

    Would this put you on the side of England who ruthlessly crushed Ireland's and Scotland's numerous attempts to leave?
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  42. ISO #442

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    It would be chaotic if they could check in or check out whenever they like, but permitting military force to keep them in line is very authoritarian. I think the EU has the right balance. Trying to leave is bureaucratic hell, but nevertheless nominally permitted at the very least. And the UK now permits Scotland to vote for independence. But it's made sharply clear that if they leave, they won't be allowed to come back. And the vote is held rarely.
    Last edited by yzb25; June 28th, 2020 at 04:11 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  43. ISO #443

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Yeah I do find the things the Union did in the south during the war (Sherman’s march to the Sea) pretty reprehensible. Not saying I don’t think the Union should’ve won the war (I do), but they could’ve bene a lot of less brutal about it. After all, they weren’t fighting against a hostile nation. They were fighting their own countrymen lol.
    The Confederacy ceased to be our fellow countrymen when they denounced the United States and its federal government.
    They literally were a hostile nation wtf bro, and to answer yzb never did I say that the Confederacy was bad ONLY because they rebelled. They kept and tried to defend an institution that's barely a step above genocide in the "things you can do to a population moral ladder". That alone is enough to declare war in my humble opinion, at least in an pre nuclear era
    Quote Originally Posted by MattZed View Post
    deathworld's and RLVG's suicides made me lul. I take a lot of pleasure in knowing that I gave you an night action, and that you used it to kill yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    At least Mesk has lewdy lefty and raunchy righty. You're not even Canadian.
    Quote Originally Posted by FM-Shocked Kirby Face View Post
    Deathworlds is simply better than us at this game. Don't kill them for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    fucketh me in the ass

  44. ISO #444

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by deathworlds View Post
    The Confederacy ceased to be our fellow countrymen when they denounced the United States and its federal government.
    They literally were a hostile nation wtf bro, and to answer yzb never did I say that the Confederacy was bad ONLY because they rebelled. They kept and tried to defend an institution that's barely a step above genocide in the "things you can do to a population moral ladder". That alone is enough to declare war in my humble opinion, at least in an pre nuclear era
    I'm not saying you said that. I believe they were bad ONLY because they were founded upon keeping slaves, and I'm saying you at least partially see them as bad for "rebelling" (attempting to secede). Am I wrong about that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  45. ISO #445
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    So basically if California decided to secede now and you were conscripted, would you treat a Californian soldier the same way you’d treat a Russian invader?

  46. ISO #446
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    They did not suddenly become a hostile nation. The cultural, familial, religious, historical and linguistic bonds between the north and the south didn’t suddenly disappear with secession.

  47. ISO #447
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    At the end of the day, the Union had to reintegrate the Southern states. They rever recognized the Confederate government as a legitimate one, and so they didn’t view them as a separate nation, either.

  48. ISO #448
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Sorry is this supposed to be a counter argument? :P

    Lol but seriously, it's a shame that the strength of the central government erodes, but that doesn't entitle them to rule over people who reject them. That's fundamentally undemocratic. I don't think "the whole concept of government breaks down". The minority will just go form their own government.

    Would this put you on the side of England who ruthlessly crushed Ireland's and Scotland's numerous attempts to leave?
    Of course not, but I don’t see the Confederate as being ‘oppressed’ by the north. On the contrary, they were highly autonomous (as states are wont to be), and were allowed to keep slavery as an institution; they were represented in Congress, and had the right to participate in presidential elections. The only thing they weren’t allowed to do is leave.

  49. ISO #449

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    I'm not saying you said that. I believe they were bad ONLY because they were founded upon keeping slaves, and I'm saying you at least partially see them as bad for "rebelling" (attempting to secede). Am I wrong about that?
    Yes I do see the Confederacy as bad partly because they were a rebel state from the first democratic state, they had a good deal going on and decided to fuck it up for everyone involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    So basically if California decided to secede now and you were conscripted, would you treat a Californian soldier the same way you’d treat a Russian invader?
    Well A.) I'd never have to worry about that in the first place because I have enough excuses to avoid conscription, plus we'd never go to war with another state in the modern world because it's likely that every single one of them would be a literal nuclear state if it seceded.
    B.) I love how ya tryta make a subtle difference between californians "soldiers" and russian "invaders" as if there's any difference between the two peoples intrinsically.
    C.) This is clearly a strawman argument. Of course it's easier to talk about a rebel state that existed for less than a quarter of my life over a hundred years ago than a hypothetical in the modern world.
    Quote Originally Posted by MattZed View Post
    deathworld's and RLVG's suicides made me lul. I take a lot of pleasure in knowing that I gave you an night action, and that you used it to kill yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    At least Mesk has lewdy lefty and raunchy righty. You're not even Canadian.
    Quote Originally Posted by FM-Shocked Kirby Face View Post
    Deathworlds is simply better than us at this game. Don't kill them for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    fucketh me in the ass

  50. ISO #450

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    At the end of the day, the Union had to reintegrate the Southern states. They rever recognized the Confederate government as a legitimate one, and so they didn’t view them as a separate nation, either.
    Literally no government will recognize it's failed rebel state as a legitimate one. But they'll fight them anyways.
    Quote Originally Posted by MattZed View Post
    deathworld's and RLVG's suicides made me lul. I take a lot of pleasure in knowing that I gave you an night action, and that you used it to kill yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    At least Mesk has lewdy lefty and raunchy righty. You're not even Canadian.
    Quote Originally Posted by FM-Shocked Kirby Face View Post
    Deathworlds is simply better than us at this game. Don't kill them for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    fucketh me in the ass

 

 

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •