Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism - Page 15
Register

User Tag List

Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LastLast
Results 701 to 750 of 803
  1. ISO #701

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    No Ganelon my point of discussion with you and Helz are different, you aren't the same person. My point with you and always has been is how you keep pushing away the slavery aspect of the civil war. You have done it since the beginning of the thread and you are still doing it.

    >Abolishment was an undeniable Northern policy
    >War is started over this policy

    "Northerners didn't give a shit about slavery they just wanted to protect the union."

    If you think the Northerners didn't give a shit about slavery what was the point of even taking the stance? You keep on trying to separate the slavery when you fucking can't, then you go off on a tangent. You can't chop away the driving factor of something and just look at the result. This is what I have been saying on the topic since I started commenting on it. I give up chasing you down all these rabbit holes you go down to dodge this.
    This is a typical conservative/right wing method of arguing that I see all the time, especially with demagogues like Tucker Carlson and especially Ben Shapiro. They rapid fire a bunch of irrelevant, dubious, or even completely made-up points in an argument about anything such that they still come out the victor in an argument with someone who cares about integrity of facts and addressing points. It's impossible to address a plethora of irrelevant and often factually incorrect points when they're presented without evidence and you feel compelled to address each one with actual facts. It makes it such that, even if you conclusively argue against some of the points, you'll leave many unanswered and thus presumed true by others. Often, the person themselves isn't even lying, they've just fallen victim to the same tactic and they're parroting points that their favourite talking head has spoon fed them.

    Many will also take a so-called "centrist" position where they spout whataboutisms and do both-sides arguments, but conveniently only in a way that benefits the side they argue for. You'll find these people arguing that, for example, Democrats are just as bad as Republicans for any given reason. But when a topic such as Hillary Clinton's emails or Obama's civilian drone strikes come up, you'll oddly find that these so-called centrists are completely missing. They won't hop in with their enlightened statements that, really if you think about it, both sides are bad because Trump and his family did exactly the same thing with their own private email servers, or that the drone war actually escalated under Trump. If anything, they'll shout from the rooftops about how these points further prove that liberals are just as bad as conservatives. These people are extremely dangerous because you can't spot them without knowing more about the person. They implicitly argue for one side by butting in with centrist arguments in defence of their own side, while letting anything that makes their side look good or the other side look bad slide. In principle, their arguments hold water a lot of the time, but they misrepresent themselves as being centrists when really they are very much for a specific side, which manifests in them muddying specific conversations and sowing discord among a specific group.

    Once you're aware of these argument styles, you'll see them everywhere. It's quite worrying how often people fall victim to them.

  2. ISO #702

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    I read something describing that not too long ago lol



    Mmm yes being pro abolishment cause it doesn't affect you... until your factories come to a screaming halt because the plantations stop producing the goods they require. Tariffs the federal government put in place to ensure domestic markets rather than reliance on the international market. Just because they didn't have slavery like the South doesn't mean they wouldn't have been affected by abolishing slavery, they had skin in the game too. For visual sake the British textile industry was ~60% reliant on the Souths cotton alone. Imagine how reliant the North was on it and other slave produced goods because of tariffs encouraging domestic trade. But yeah, another rabbit hole - just peaking down this one.

    Pls don't @ me anymore I want off this wild ride

  3. ISO #703
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Sure but that doesn’t capture the entire economic situation. The south was primarily agricultural and heavily dependent on slave labour. The northern economy was not agricultural; it was most industrial and mechanized, and just because the textile industry depended on the southern slave economy, it doesn’t mean that their economy depended on it. The northern economy continued to grow after the war - showing that slavery wasn’t an integral part of it.

  4. ISO #704
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    If you don’t think slavery wasn’t a contentious issue in the north (it was, I just don’t think it was anywhere near as contentious as it’s usually made out to be), then why do you think the North abolished slavery whilst the south didn’t?

  5. ISO #705
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    It’s a very simple economic explanation and I don’t see how you can deny it. Many major countries had abolished slavery - France, Britain having banned it earlier than even the northern states. And the people who owned slaves in the south were primarily of British origin. I can’t see how you could say that it was anything other than economic reasons that persuaded the south (or the north, for that matter) to take the stance that they did on Slavery. You’re saying slavery cannot be disentangled from the secession war, I’m saying the economics of slavery cannot be ignored when looking at the institution of slavery in the south.

    Like, the only other reason I can think of is a demographic one - there were far more blacks in the southern states than in the northern states (if I’m not mistaken, they were ~30% of the population in some states).

  6. ISO #706
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Jim Crow laws and military segregation are not slavery. Nobody is claiming the north wasn't racist.

    I love the statement "It’s easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesn’t affect you, isn’t it". Probably the funniest sentence I've read in this thread. I like how we've gotten to the point where feeling empathy for enslaved people is an argument against someone's character.
    I just think it’s hypocritical. All men are equal but some men are more equal than others. That kinda thing

  7. ISO #707

  8. ISO #708

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Honestly, it also looks like you have no idea what your own points are. Look at how like 5 pages back you pointed out that the Jim Crow laws were actually evidence that the Confederacy was racist, now suddenly you're using it against the north?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Why? Isn’t it a very strong argument in favour of the confederates being essentially fundamentally founded on racist principles?

  9. ISO #709
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    The north could’ve repealed it or prevented their passing, they didn’t. I’m not saying the south wasn’t racist; in saying the north was too, and that if they had really given a shit about blacks they wouldn’t have allowed the south to pass those laws. They were probably less racist than the south, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t racist.

  10. ISO #710
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Idk I don’t really have the energy but my point about abolitionism has nothing to do with empathy. I’m saying it’s easy to be in favour of personal freedom (who the fuck is in favour of slavery?) in some abstract sense, but a lot tougher to implement said belief in practice.

  11. ISO #711
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Its just, it is clearly an exaggeration to state that the North was all good and nice. Sure they cared about slavery to some extent, but obviously not enough to prevent the passing of Jim Crow laws, or to cease funding the American Colonization society. The North considered preservation of the Union the primary goal of the war - not slavery. Slavery wasn’t immediately abolished, and the Union had made many compromises (like the Missouri compromise) with the southern states and even gave the south extra representation due to the fact that they had slaves (slaves needed representation or something. idk the reason)

    Its biased as hell. The North was racist, just less so than the south. Did the support abolition? Yes, but it wasn’t anywhere near as important to them as it’s usually made out to be.

  12. ISO #712
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Again, if it had been, Jim Crow laws would never have been passed in the South, and blacks would’ve had representation (they didn’t even have the right to vote in most states in the South)

  13. ISO #713

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    If they did give a shit answer me this. Why the Jim Crow laws? And why was the military segregated for a long time? I’m just saying, the North probably did away with slavery because it didn’t affect their economy much. They didn’t have many slaves to begin with; they only had indentured servants. It’s easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesn’t affect you, isn’t it
    First of all, the North did not invent Jim Crow laws. Secondly, Abraham Lincoln wasn't even president when Jim Crow laws expanded and started affecting a majority of black people. Thirdly, the South still had black people farming their plantations even after slavery ended, through a method called sharecropping.

    The reason Jim Crow laws lasted so long was most likely because upcoming presidents and political parties favored state laws, it's really that simple. It turns out that making social change in an era of extreme racism is really difficult.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    The north could’ve repealed it or prevented their passing, they didn’t. I’m not saying the south wasn’t racist; in saying the north was too, and that if they had really given a shit about blacks they wouldn’t have allowed the south to pass those laws. They were probably less racist than the south, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t racist.
    Again, Jim Crow laws were state laws. There is very little the Union could have done about it at the time. They just had a massive war over the ratification of the 13th Amendment. You really think they wanted another war with the amount of idiots at the time that were in favor of state rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Would it help if I pointed out that the Union was majority republican?.
    Sir, did you know that the swastika was a symbol of peace until Hitler used it on his political platform?
    Spoiler : Forum Mafia :

    FM VI: Ash (Sinner) FM VII: Glen (Drug Dealer) FM VIII: Liane (Vigilante) FM IX: Andrei (Reserved Proletarian) FM X: fm Deathfire123 (Modkilled Blacksmith) FM XI: Corki (Citizen) FM XIII: Phoebe (Bodyguard) FM XIV: Helena (Grave Robber) FM XV: FM Pikachu (Mayor) FM XVI: FM Master Chef (Escort)

  14. ISO #714
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    First of all, the North did not invent Jim Crow laws. Secondly, Abraham Lincoln wasn't even president when Jim Crow laws expanded and started affecting a majority of black people. Thirdly, the South still had black people farming their plantations even after slavery ended, through a method called sharecropping.
    They didn’t, the south did, but the north didn’t do anything to stop them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ash
    The reason Jim Crow laws lasted so long was most likely because upcoming presidents and political parties favored state laws, it's really that simple. It turns out that making social change in an era of extreme racism is really difficult.
    Fair enough. You’re right that ingrained societal attitudes such as these don’t change overnight just because you want them to. However, segregation still occurred in national areas (e.g. the military).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ash
    Again, Jim Crow laws were state laws. There is very little the Union could have done about it at the time. They just had a massive war over the ratification of the 13th Amendment. You really think they wanted another war with the amount of idiots at the time that were in favor of state rights?
    That’s possible.

  15. ISO #715
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    From the link in previous posts



    Even historians of that era overwhelmingly disagree with the rhetoric put out here.
    So, the quote there says that the Union fought to put down a rebellion. I do agree slavery was a contentious issue in the north but it was definitely nowhere near as important to them as it’s made out to be.

  16. ISO #716

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    What did I say about removing the build up and looking at only the result man. Seriously you @ me after I asked not to just to spit in what I have said time and time again. Maybe you should read the text that came before that passage. Oh wait you can't because you don't believe in context.

    Seriously don't @ me I don't want to take part anymore.

  17. ISO #717
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    I didn’t @ you
    lol

  18. ISO #718

  19. ISO #719
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Fine. I don’t mind talking about this honestly I’m kinda miffed when people tell me that I’m pushing a dogma. No shit I’m gonna ‘keep pushing’ my dogma if you say that kind of thing to me lmao. Sure, slavery was important in the North, I just think its importance is exaggerated. We can argue to what extent that is the case but it’s unfair to just ignore the economic aspect of slavery from the equation. Slavery had a great economic benefit. Did the North benefit from slavery? Probably, but they didn’t benefit from it anywhere near as much as the South did. It’s not like the northern economy shut down because of abolition, lol.

  20. ISO #720
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    My last post was kinda dumb (the one ‘I didn’t @ you’). I knew what you meant so there was no need for it.

  21. ISO #721
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    I mean, you’re right that the North cared about slavery but obviously when push came to shove, preserving the Union was more important to them than the issue of slavery. That’s why all the compromises with the south were forged, and that’s the light in which I’m seeing the war. A war to preserve the union. And partly to feel the slaves. Slavery was obviously not going to last forever in the south as most other countries had already done away with it.

  22. ISO #722

  23. ISO #723
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    We’re not actually going in circles. We’re arguing for similar but slightly different things and fighting over it. I am saying the United States fought the war to preserve the Union, while the confederates fought the war primarily so that they could continue to practice slavery. And that the North didn’t care THAT much about slavery, and that you can’t divorce the economic aspects of slavery from the discussion. The first states to secede were the ones that most heavily depended on slave labour. That’s no coincidence. And I’m saying the North could afford to make abolition noises because their economy wasn’t based on slavery. I just think the North was at least partly hypocritical.

  24. ISO #724
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Wikipedia says that the North was in favour of gradual rather than immediate abolition. This I can actually agree with it and it seems as unbiased as you can get with respect to the north’s motives, and its something I can actually get behind, myself. You can’t nust free people who’ve never known freedom their entire lives and expect them to do something. I don’t know enough about this to discuss it in any depth, but my suspicion is that freeing children first and declaring those born of slaves to be free men would be a good start.

  25. ISO #725

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    If anything, I think the Union was too easy on the Confederacy. They basically let all the traitors live out the rest of their lives on their old estates and plantations, when really they should have executed Lee and Davis and stamped out the entire pathological culture that led to the rebellion and glorification of slavery and racism. Instead they let the cancer of racism fester in the south. That's what I truly fault the Union for.

    I also find it absolutely pathetic that southerners have had 160 years to find a culture and symbols that aren't the Confederacy and they still haven't been able to. I have no sympathy for them now that people are burning their traitor rags and demolishing their illegitimate landmarks and memorials when they've had so much time to find and create something else to unite around.

  26. ISO #726
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    I think the war could’ve been avoided if the Union, instead of compromising with the South by essentially ignoring slavery, had tried to reach an equitable settlement with the south by offering to shoulder at least part of the costs of the abolition and founding trade schools for slaves so that they could have economic utility as free men (and by offering slave holders money for each slave they freed). I believe gradual abolition would’ve been a very smart decision had it actually been attempted. Not only could they have avoided the war but perhaps the Jim Crow laws in the south as well, and the South would’ve had time to catch up to the rest of the country, seeing as they had untapped mineral reserves (in the appalachians, say).

    I don’t know. It sounds awfully simplistic but I want to believe that war wasn’t inevitable, and I believe gradual, incremental change is fundamentally a better idea than radical change in such scenarios.

  27. ISO #727
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Secondly and most importantly, the traitor state known as West Virginia would not exist /s

  28. ISO #728
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    If anything, I think the Union was too easy on the Confederacy. They basically let all the traitors live out the rest of their lives on their old estates and plantations, when really they should have executed Lee and Davis and stamped out the entire pathological culture that led to the rebellion and glorification of slavery and racism. Instead they let the cancer of racism fester in the south. That's what I truly fault the Union for.

    I also find it absolutely pathetic that southerners have had 160 years to find a culture and symbols that aren't the Confederacy and they still haven't been able to. I have no sympathy for them now that people are burning their traitor rags and demolishing their illegitimate landmarks and memorials when they've had so much time to find and create something else to unite around.
    Why is the secession such a great deal to you? I believe in the right of the individual to protest, even by force of arms, against a government they consider illegitimate. It’s not as if they attempted to defect to an enemy country (Mexico or some shit). They only wanted to secede. By executing them you essentially shit on the constitution. Misguided as they were, they weren’t traitors. I have no doubt that many of them would’ve given their lives for the United States before and after the war if, say, Britain invaded via Canada, or if Mexico became revanchist and conducted a Reconquista of California.

  29. ISO #729
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Even disregarding that aspect, it’s seldom a good idea to execute the leaders of a rebellion. Especially one like the Confederacy. Like, in case of a communist or nazi uprising I would definitely consider execution or life imprisonment for the leaders but, the Confederacy was in no way comprabile to either of these.

    Thirdly - you hate the Confederate flag but do you hate the South African flag? The one they had prior to apartheid? Nobody really ever talks about that flag but to me the flag of South Africa has literally nothing to do with Apartheid, anymore than Afrikaans (an extremely ugly language btw) does.

  30. ISO #730

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Why is the secession such a great deal to you? I believe in the right of the individual to protest, even by force of arms, against a government they consider illegitimate. It’s not as if they attempted to defect to an enemy country (Mexico or some shit). They only wanted to secede. By executing them you essentially shit on the constitution. Misguided as they were, they weren’t traitors. I have no doubt that many of them would’ve given their lives for the United States before and after the war if, say, Britain invaded via Canada, or if Mexico became revanchist and conducted a Reconquista of California.
    No they were traitors that seceded to defend a racist legacy of slavery. Had they wanted to secede for another reason they'd still be traitors, but at least for a different, perhaps more honourable reason. As it stands they're traitors for the cause of upholding institutional racism and it's a shame that they were afforded so much mercy by the Union, given the impact racism had and continues to have. As I said, that's what I fault the Union for more than anything else, and the strongest argument against the Union being virtuous anti-racists.

  31. ISO #731

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Even disregarding that aspect, it’s seldom a good idea to execute the leaders of a rebellion. Especially one like the Confederacy. Like, in case of a communist or nazi uprising I would definitely consider execution or life imprisonment for the leaders but, the Confederacy was in no way comprabile to either of these.
    Yes it was, the Confederacy was founded to enslave a third of their population. 3.5 million people. They were as bad, morally, as the Nazis, and should have been treated with just as much mercy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Thirdly - you hate the Confederate flag but do you hate the South African flag? The one they had prior to apartheid? Nobody really ever talks about that flag but to me the flag of South Africa has literally nothing to do with Apartheid, anymore than Afrikaans (an extremely ugly language btw) does.
    Yes, I hate the South African flag.

  32. ISO #732
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Uhhh the nazis are really without parallel in human history, unless you look at Italy (and even *they* weren’t as bad as the Nazis). I certainly don’t see confederates summarily executing blacks just for being black. That’s what he nazis did. The confederates didn’t, and apart from the issue of slavery, they were otherwise not repressive, had a democratic government closely modeled after the government of the US, and gave (free white) men the right to vote. Even South Africa, bad as it was, wasn’t comparable to Nazi Germany. I don’t know why, and I don’t know what the difference is, but it’s definitely there IMO.

  33. ISO #733

  34. ISO #734
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Have you ever heard of lynching?
    Those weren’t institutionalized. I can point you to pogroms in Russia against the Jews; doesn’t mean that the Russian Empire was fascist. Fascism did not even exist back then. Lynching is an indicator of cultural attitudes, though even the the term ‘lynching’ brings to mind images of vigilanteism. Those were by no means advocated by the state.

  35. ISO #735
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    They were also nowhere near as widespread as the Nazi gas chambers.
    Honestly the first state, in my view, that bordered on being totalitarian, in human history would probably be revolutionary France. But even if they had wanted to be totalitarian, they couldn’t have been. Neither could the confederates. The technology simply didn’t exist, and IMO cultural attitudes in the south weren’t tilted so far in the racial supremacy direction for them to be described as nazis.

  36. ISO #736

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Have you ever heard of lynching?
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Honestly, it also looks like you have no idea what your own points are. Look at how like 5 pages back you pointed out that the Jim Crow laws were actually evidence that the Confederacy was racist, now suddenly you're using it against the north?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Those weren’t institutionalized. I can point you to pogroms in Russia against the Jews; doesn’t mean that the Russian Empire was fascist. Fascism did not even exist back then. Lynching is an indicator of cultural attitudes, though even the the term ‘lynching’ brings to mind images of vigilanteism. Those were by no means advocated by the state.
    This looks like a contradiction to me. I haven't read the majority of posts in this thread, but I don't need to to point that out. Looks like oops also already did.

    Also, who cares if they're institutional or not, the point still stands.

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  37. ISO #737

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Anyways this is a bit of a rant but my question is:
    What do you feel about the idea that right-wing liberalism has nothing to do with conservatism?
    A second question is, why is the media trying to paint right wingers as immoral nazis?
    Because they don't do NEARLY enough to distance themselves from it.

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  38. ISO #738

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    Because they don't do NEARLY enough to distance themselves from it.
    Err, going to be a bit more clear here.

    Because American conservatives don't do nearly enough to distance themselves from Nazis that go to and support right-wing rallies.

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  39. ISO #739

  40. ISO #740

  41. ISO #741

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    IMO cultural attitudes in the south weren’t tilted so far in the racial supremacy direction for them to be described as nazis.
    "Its 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."

    I wonder what more you need.

    Keep in mind I'm not saying that they were literally the same as Nazis. The Nazis did far worse in history, in part because they weren't as fucking stupid and didn't shoot themselves in the foot at every moment like the Confederacy did. But the Confederacy's ideas were as dangerous as Nazi ideas and they came from the same type of hatred.

    In terms of death toll, it's hard to put a specific number on the slave trade, but the death toll from the Atlantic slave trade and from the Holocaust were roughly equal. Not all of these can be attributed to the Confederacy, but they are all attributed to the ideas that the Confederacy was founded on.
    Last edited by oops_ur_dead; July 6th, 2020 at 02:12 AM.

  42. ISO #742

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Honestly my favourite part about cringy redneck southerners sticking so hard to Confederate symbols as their heritage and unifying cause is the implication that southern culture and the south are so shit that their proudest accomplishment in the past 200 years is that time that they formed an unrecognized slave state for 4 years until they got completely trashed. I've taken shits that lasted longer than the Confederacy but you don't see me making statues of them and putting them in my lawn.

  43. ISO #743
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    Because they don't do NEARLY enough to distance themselves from it.
    And left wingers do? There is a worrying lack of reaction on the left nowadays when it comes to major social issues such as the riots in America; and these riots are all parts of a greater whole. A couple in the US got painted by the media as racists for defending their home against looters who broke into their yard. It was actually quite astonishing to see the differences in the portrayal of that event between CNN and Tucker (I’m not counting Fox News as a whole because I only watch Tucker, and sometimes Ingraham).

    There are many other examples, and I doubt I am in the wrong here. The left really is more radical than the right nowadays. I believe that the elements of the radical right that exist today arose as a response to ideological excesses on the left. This is not to excuse them of course, but they’ve played a major role in polarization.

    Take climate change for instance. There is a really high chance that climate change will not be a significant disaster this century. If you take a look at various statistics the environmentalists like to peddle as a) evidence of human influence on the climate and b) evidence of a major humanistic catastrophe occurring later, you’ll find that many of them have no actual basis in reality. There is evidence to suggest that humans are influencing the climate to a significant extent, but the evidence also says that carbon emissions are actually decreasing (and its not because of green energy): developed countries are now switching to cleaner power sources like uranium and natural gas, which do not pollute. There’s a plethora of other reasons, all arising from increase industrialization, technological development and economic growth: forests have actually started growing back in Europe and America, precisely because agriculture has become more efficient and needs less space. I see apocalyptic environmentalism as coming precisely from the left, and more exactly, it’s coning from people who I do not trust: a poll revealed that a significant proportion of British children were convinced that they wouldn’t live past the age of 30 (because of climate change).

    This is just an example of many.

  44. ISO #744

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    And left wingers do? There is a worrying lack of reaction on the left nowadays when it comes to major social issues such as the riots in America; and these riots are all parts of a greater whole.
    Left winger views don't align with nazis, who are far right wingers. So the answer is yes, left wingers distance themselves literally on the other end of the political spectrum.

    Not all right wingers are nazis. But nazis ARE right wingers.

    What viewpoints do nazis espouse that align with the left?
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  45. ISO #745

  46. ISO #746
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    "Its 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."

    I wonder what more you need.

    Keep in mind I'm not saying that they were literally the same as Nazis. The Nazis did far worse in history, in part because they weren't as fucking stupid and didn't shoot themselves in the foot at every moment like the Confederacy did. But the Confederacy's ideas were as dangerous as Nazi ideas and they came from the same type of hatred.

    In terms of death toll, it's hard to put a specific number on the slave trade, but the death toll from the Atlantic slave trade and from the Holocaust were roughly equal. Not all of these can be attributed to the Confederacy, but they are all attributed to the ideas that the Confederacy was founded on.
    I’m not ignoring that point. I know full well what the VP of the CSA said. However, racist attitudes weren’t uncommon at the time, and honestly I think you can’t divorce the economic aspect of slavery from the institution at all. Its no wonder that racialist policies and slavery survived the longest in the territories where it had economic utility. Brazil and the South were (I believe) the two places in the Americas where slavery survived the longest.

    If were talking about the death toll, a fairer comparison would be the number of Jewish deaths resulting from pogroms and general antisemitism, versus the number of blacks who died in segregation. You can take both the segregation/slavery occurring in the CSA/the South and in RSA. The number of total Jews killed in pogroms or mass extermination’s most likely far exceeds the number of slaves or blacks who perished under conditions of slavery and apartheid/segregation.

    The two things that really stand out to me when comparing the Confederates and the Nazis are a) the historical context, and b) the general cultural atmosphere directly caused by/related to the evil committed by both. Remember that slavery was a very old institution in 1860 and it wasn’t as if the South wanted to enslave northern blacks, which is a crucial point that must not be forgotten. I’ve already mentioned the economic aspect, and in my view it cannot be done away with in discussions of slavery. Further, the South did not engage in mass slaughter of slaves; had they been that racist, they could’ve done it; yet they chose not to.

    Anyways, I don’t think I can convince you that the Confederacy... isn’t as evil as the Nazis. You certainly can tell convince me of the reverse. For me, and I’ll finish by saying this, there is something distinctly awful and heart-wrenching about the Nazis, something the Confederates didn’t have and probably couldn’t have had. The inherent statism of the Nazis plays a huge role in this, but it’s not all. In my view, the war could’ve been avoided if the Union had attempted to compromise with the south in a different way (rather than essentially sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending nothing was wrong). I believe the South could’ve been reasoned with if the proper steps had been taken. This couldn’t have happened with the he nazis, who were hell-bent on annihilating everyone who wasn’t of the master race. In fact the Nazis were so evil, that they put their murderous goals above the need to win the war. Hitler accelerated the mass killings when he started losing the war. That’s no coincidence. And the fact that Hitler killed the Jews instead of enslaving them is quite telling.

  47. ISO #747
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Left winger views don't align with nazis, who are far right wingers. So the answer is yes, left wingers distance themselves literally on the other end of the political spectrum.

    Not all right wingers are nazis. But nazis ARE right wingers.

    What viewpoints do nazis espouse that align with the left?
    My point is that the left does even less than the right to distance themselves from their rabid, dangerous, radical cousins.

  48. ISO #748

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    My point is that the left does even less than the right to distance themselves from their rabid, dangerous, radical cousins.
    You asked this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    why is the media trying to paint right wingers as immoral nazis?
    The response you got to your question is this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    Because they don't do NEARLY enough to distance themselves from it.
    This has nothing to do with radicals on the left. You were given an answer, you can address the point or you can try to distract by pointing out flaws on the left.

    But pointing out flaws on the left doesn't change the fact that nazis and right wingers are conflated because they are "cousins", as you put it.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  49. ISO #749

  50. ISO #750

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Have you ever heard of lynching?
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Honestly, it also looks like you have no idea what your own points are. Look at how like 5 pages back you pointed out that the Jim Crow laws were actually evidence that the Confederacy was racist, now suddenly you're using it against the north?
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    You asked this:



    The response you got to your question is this:



    This has nothing to do with radicals on the left. You were given an answer, you can address the point or you can try to distract by pointing out flaws on the left.

    But pointing out flaws on the left doesn't change the fact that nazis and right wingers are conflated because they are "cousins", as you put it.
    Just to reiterate, (though it's unneeded, since Banana already did a good job here) :


    Mag, you "countered?" my post about my take on why nazi-ism is being associated to conservatism by talking about climate change. what??

    I would not expect these types of logic jumps on mafia site. If these logic jumps have been prevalent throughout this thread, props to the people diligently responding to theses posts.

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

 

 

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
  •