Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Donward said:

The point is that perhaps the politicians in Baltimore have more pressing concerns than cheap political theater and grandstanding.

But maybe not.

But that's how they stay elected, sure as fuck isn't their phenomenal job running that city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy to be psychic with the left. Just look for the most absurd progression of their current stated opinions/objective/what have you, and that is where they will go next.

 

It's so easy to show just how absurd the left is willing to be. I wonder if the correct tactic is to skip their methods of incremental progression and get them so flustered that they try to make these absurd moves all at once. They want to boil the frog anyways, so just trick them into cranking up the heat faster and faster until it's obvious to everyone what they are trying to do. Basically, force them to expose their own untenable positions. I have a feeling that Trump is going to do just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Why do we only have one word for "racism"? Because there are several different flavors that don't have much in common with one another. For example, there's the pre-Civil War Southern variety of institutional racism, which has way more in common with classism than the latter day xenophobic type racism we see with white nationalists, etc.

I mean, I know the answer to this question ( - the confusion is politically convenient for some) but I am asking anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ulric said:

It's easy to be psychic with the left. Just look for the most absurd progression of their current stated opinions/objective/what have you, and that is where they will go next.

 

It's so easy to show just how absurd the left is willing to be. I wonder if the correct tactic is to skip their methods of incremental progression and get them so flustered that they try to make these absurd moves all at once. They want to boil the frog anyways, so just trick them into cranking up the heat faster and faster until it's obvious to everyone what they are trying to do. Basically, force them to expose their own untenable positions. I have a feeling that Trump is going to do just that.

 

 

I think the push on identity politics,  and the new revolution,  BS is that point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Donward said:

The point is that perhaps the politicians in Baltimore have more pressing concerns than cheap political theater and grandstanding.

But maybe not.

My limited experience is that politicians can multitask ITO things to make political hay out of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yeah, kinda. The stated purpose of removing the statues was that they make black people feel bad. And as we know from our AA studies class, black people feeling bad is the sole reason the black community has problems.

I really hope that that's not an accurate summary of what got taught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Question: Why do we only have one word for "racism"? Because there are several different flavors that don't have much in common with one another. For example, there's the pre-Civil War Southern variety of institutional racism, which has way more in common with classism than the latter day xenophobic type racism we see with white nationalists, etc.

I mean, I know the answer to this question ( - the confusion is politically convenient for some) but I am asking anyway.

Might it not be a chicken-and-egg issue? IE: having only one word is why there's usable confusion that can be politicised?

 

 

Related: I also wonder a lot about how English has only one word for love - as that's a word that's pulling way too much conceptual weight as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Might it not be a chicken-and-egg issue? IE: having only one word is why there's usable confusion that can be politicised?

 

 

Related: I also wonder a lot about how English has only one word for love - as that's a word that's pulling way too much conceptual weight as well.

 

I bet you $100 that if you go out in public and try to invent another word for any of the different varieties of racism, you'll be called a racist and a Nazi apologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I bet you $100 that if you go out in public and try to invent another word for any of the different varieties of racism, you'll be called a racist and a Nazi apologist.

Considering how many hits I get for 'different kinds of racism' on google, I suspect you might owe me R1317.27 in today's money ;). Then again; a lot of the hits are from .co.za addresses, so maybe it's just more acceptable to discuss this stuff here?

 

I like this as a concept though - because we need more terms for stuff. I'm going to think a bit and maybe make an 'add to the English language' thread. And if we have legit new users coming over specifically shout at me then I'll donate $100 to SH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Considering how many hits I get for 'different kinds of racism' on google, I suspect you might owe me R1317.27 in today's money ;). Then again; a lot of the hits are from .co.za addresses, so maybe it's just more acceptable to discuss this stuff here?

 

I like this as a concept though - because we need more terms for stuff. I'm going to think a bit and maybe make an 'add to the English language' thread. And if we have legit new users coming over specifically shout at me then I'll donate $100 to SH.

 

You could probably pulled it off if you wrote a screed on intersectional oppression on Tumblr first. I mean, these guys aren't exactly tearing down Woodrow Wilson statues, if you catch my drift. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You could probably pulled it off if you wrote a screed on intersectional oppression on Tumblr first. I mean, these guys aren't exactly tearing down Woodrow Wilson statues, if you catch my drift. 

 

He has statues?

 

Also; aren't the tublr left supposed to be famous for eating their own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Toxn said:

He has statues?

 

Also; aren't the tublr left supposed to be famous for eating their own?

 

Wilson has shitloads of statues.

And yes, SJWs love to eat their own once they've outlived their usefulness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Donward said:

The point is that perhaps the politicians in Baltimore have more pressing concerns than cheap political theater and grandstanding.

But maybe not.


 

For the record, all this shit about the statues is the most disgusting type of grandstanding.

 

Imma explain this stuff straight up, because not everyone here is from the USA.

 

Charles Francis Adams Sr. made a speech entitled "Shall Cromwell Have a Statue?"  This speech is explicitly about whether Robert E. Lee ought to have a statue.  Also, within context, this speech clarifies the reason why there are statues of Confederate generals in the USA in the first place.

 

When the rebels called it quits in 1865 it was because it was clear that the Confederates could no longer win.  It was not because they could no longer fight.  The Confederacy could have very plausibly continued a low-level guerrilla campaign against Union forces for years and seriously run up the body count.  Look up Quantrill's Raiders to get an idea of how nasty this could have become.

 

But the Confederates did not choose to do this.  They chose to lay down arms instead, come what may.  They realized that they were beaten.
 

Thus, the prevailing sentiment in the Union immediately after the war was that there should be a reasonable attempt at reconciliation.  In the immediate aftermath of the war very few Confederates were charged with treason.  After that there were further overtures, especially under President William Mckinley at the turn of the century.  Confederate soldier's graves were given headstones, and that's about the time that statues of Lee started growing in various places.  In general, it was felt that the rebels were traitors in a technical sense, but who had acted without malice or greed.  Furthermore, the legality of secession and indeed the theoretical underpinnings of the constitution were largely unanswered questions at the time.  It hardly seemed magnanimous to hold the issue against the rebels after beating them and burning their homes to the ground.

 

And that is why the USA was fine with statues of Confederate generals springing up here and there.  Did nobody think it odd that there's a statue of Robert E. Lee, a Confederate general, in Maryland, which was a Union state?  Of course they didn't think it odd.  They didn't think.  That statue was erected because, a mere generation after the war, the Confederates were seen as losers in a high stakes political controversy, but otherwise completely American and honorable.  Filthy modern iconoclasts made up their own bizarre interpretations of what the statue meant, and tore it down.  They got rid of a symbol of one of the greatest national efforts of re-unification, ostensibly in the name of tolerance.

Fucking philistines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim "The Last Real Journalist" Poole's sanity check on Charlottesville:

 

 

Note that Tim usually flies out and actually physically visits these hotspots (he certainly did with Berkeley, not sure about Charlottesville), so when he compares and contrasts them he really does know what he's talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, tearing down the status of famous generals can be poorly argued that you disagree with what they stood for, and that it has no place in the modern times, and that people's feelings get hurt, etc. It's barely plausible. Tearing down the statue depicting a random Confederate soldier is desecration of a war memorial, plain and simple. You might as well have exhumed their grave, taken a shit on their bones, and wiped your ass with their death certificate. Maybe these people wouldn't find themselves being run over by cars if they didn't make it so damn easy to hate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Collimatrix said:


 

For the record, all this shit about the statues is the most disgusting type of grandstanding.

 

Imma explain this stuff straight up, because not everyone here is from the USA.

 

Charles Francis Adams Sr. made a speech entitled "Shall Cromwell Have a Statue?"  This speech is explicitly about whether Robert E. Lee ought to have a statue.  Also, within context, this speech clarifies the reason why there are statues of Confederate generals in the USA in the first place.

 

When the rebels called it quits in 1865 it was because it was clear that the Confederates could no longer win.  It was not because they could no longer fight.  The Confederacy could have very plausibly continued a low-level guerrilla campaign against Union forces for years and seriously run up the body count.  Look up Quantrill's Raiders to get an idea of how nasty this could have become.

 

But the Confederates did not choose to do this.  They chose to lay down arms instead, come what may.  They realized that they were beaten.
 

Thus, the prevailing sentiment in the Union immediately after the war was that there should be a reasonable attempt at reconciliation.  In the immediate aftermath of the war very few Confederates were charged with treason.  After that there were further overtures, especially under President William Mckinley at the turn of the century.  Confederate soldier's graves were given headstones, and that's about the time that statues of Lee started growing in various places.  In general, it was felt that the rebels were traitors in a technical sense, but who had acted without malice or greed.  Furthermore, the legality of secession and indeed the theoretical underpinnings of the constitution were largely unanswered questions at the time.  It hardly seemed magnanimous to hold the issue against the rebels after beating them and burning their homes to the ground.

 

And that is why the USA was fine with statues of Confederate generals springing up here and there.  Did nobody think it odd that there's a statue of Robert E. Lee, a Confederate general, in Maryland, which was a Union state?  Of course they didn't think it odd.  They didn't think.  That statue was erected because, a mere generation after the war, the Confederates were seen as losers in a high stakes political controversy, but otherwise completely American and honorable.  Filthy modern iconoclasts made up their own bizarre interpretations of what the statue meant, and tore it down.  They got rid of a symbol of one of the greatest national efforts of re-unification, ostensibly in the name of tolerance.

Fucking philistines.

 

Ultimately, tearing down and/or forcing the removal of statues is a way for the Left to lash out after having been so soundly beaten in November. They don't really give a shit about the Confederacy or slavery, that is all words in dusty books to them. They want to piss off the Right. They want to get back at their political opponents and give them lumps in return.

 

Collectively, the Left has become a bully who has finally gotten whupped. For 8 years (arguably longer) they bullied the Right using isms as bludgeons, until the Right cracked and changed. Then the skinny kid hit back and it turned out the bully wasn't so tough after all. Now the bully is sore and pissed, and he needs a puppy to kick.

 

So we have a political movement that wants no reconciliation, that in fact wants to further the gap between the parties*, destroying the symbols that remind the US both of the greatest division and the greatest reconciliation this country has ever known, and doing it all in the name of "tolerance", something nobody believes they give a whit about but them. I can't tell if that's irony or poetry or what. 

 

*If you don't believe the Left wants division, ask yourself how the radical Left would react if every single right-winger became an outright Nazi overnight. You don't even have to imagine it, just look at the virtual glee that the Left expressed at Charlottesville. I suppose one could also argue the Right wants division as well, but if that is now true I think it happened very recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Spanish American War - largely forgotten today - was a watershed moment in terms of reconciling North and South where the US entered the world stage as major player and became a colonial power. One of the themes for Teddy Roosevelt's autobiographical account of his stint commanding The Rough Riders was on Southerners saluting Old Glory again as US Army regiments travelled by train through The South to embark on transports from Florida to Cuba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Similar Content

    • By T___A
      Reposting for those that didn't see it the first time around:

       
      https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-true-story-of-collusion_2684629.html
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By Xoon
      Colonization Of The Solar System

       
      This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. 
      Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering,  energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. 
       
       
       
       
      First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars:
      Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. 
       
      How does he plan to do this?
      By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building  basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. 
       
      This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. 
       
       
       

       
       
      Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason.
      In my opinion,  the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system.  Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology!  If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. 
       
      Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future.  Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from  cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. 
       
       
      The plan:
      If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships,  mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony.  The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. 
       
      I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so.
       
       
      Mining:
      I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components:

      In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil.
      How do we refine them? By doing this.
       
      Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable.  Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. 
       More on aluminum rocket fuel here:
      https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/88130-aluminum-as-rocket-fuel/&
      http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#umlunar
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/15/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-1/
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/21/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-2/
       
      Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor.  
       
       
      Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
      https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion
      https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/HEP_Lunar.html
       
      NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon:
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
       
      Map over the south pole:
      http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan
       
       
      Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization. 
       
       
×