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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×