Shoot, for that matter one could put a whole wheelbarrow full of countries, religions, and explorers in the reparation category.
Lawd, just imagine, ' Ok, here's the money we owe you, sorry, oh and thanks for the money back you owed us now, you owed us to ya know. Oh and get 'those' folks over there to anti up as well, cause they owe us both. But that dude over there, he can forget it, he ain't gettin a darn thing. Why you dirty so an so, you better pay up'. Imagine the lines of ambassadors and representatives linin up at The Hague.
Probably have to an army out there to keep the lawyers from breakin out into fights, slingin briefcases and cellphones n such at each other, with a group THAT big.
I agree. Although, I think those damned Mongolians owe Europe and China a lot of reparations. Too bad they're broke now...
I actually read this interesting theory about how the mongolian siege of Baghdad back in the 13th century caused so much destruction that neither the region or Islam itself have fully recovered from it yet. True or not, it's still interesting to try to imagine what the Middle east would be like today if the mongolians had never gone there.
I agree. Although, I think those damned Mongolians owe Europe and China a lot of reparations. Too bad they're broke now...
I actually read this interesting theory about how the mongolian siege of Baghdad back in the 13th century caused so much destruction that neither the region or Islam itself have fully recovered from it yet. True or not, it's still interesting to try to imagine what the Middle east would be like today if the mongolians had never gone there.
I think the mongols and eastern powers kind of cancelled each other out while Europe was walking around in pig crap in the dark ages at the time.
Its interesting that people get so worked up over the monuments to southern generals but are okay with northern ones. The Civil War was never a war over slavery (there were slaves on both sides and the north is just as guilty of propagating slavery). It was all over secession. The north was the agressor, with the south fighting a defensive war. Lincoln chose a hypocritical slaughter over a peaceful secession. If the south was guilty of treason, so is all of America, which by that same logic, should still be a British colony today.
Its interesting that people get so worked up over the monuments to southern generals but are okay with northern ones. The Civil War was never a war over slavery (there were slaves on both sides and the north is just as guilty of propagating slavery). It was all over secession. The north was the agressor, with the south fighting a defensive war. Lincoln chose a hypocritical slaughter over a peaceful secession. If the south was guilty of treason, so is all of America, which by that same logic, should still be a British colony today.
What universe did this scenario happen in?? Speculative historical fiction?? The South seceded because they wanted every new State added to the Union to be slave states. They seceded because they feared their free labor force and god-given right to OWN other people (and their children, should they be born) was being threatened. The Union tried two major compromises in the 20 years leading up to the war. 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Missouri Compromise. They were placated time and again. They would accept nothing less than the 100% right to own slaves. Lincoln emancipated the slaves during the war. Arguing the South should have been dealt with in any other way is arguing for a possibility of that human bondage existing to this very day. No, the only tragedy is that Sherman's March to the Sea was only limited to Georgia. It would have been far better if the entire Confederacy had been ground to dust in the same manner.
I supppose all of America would be guilty of treason, except they won. And the South lost. Personally, if there had been a way to funnel out all the freed slaves out and let the South go, the country would have been far better off, and the Confederacy would have long since turned into a failed fascist state.
Its interesting that people get so worked up over the monuments to southern generals but are okay with northern ones. The Civil War was never a war over slavery (there were slaves on both sides and the north is just as guilty of propagating slavery). It was all over secession. The north was the agressor, with the south fighting a defensive war. Lincoln chose a hypocritical slaughter over a peaceful secession. If the south was guilty of treason, so is all of America, which by that same logic, should still be a British colony today.
If the south won, that maybe how it would have been viewed.
The slavery debate was never about if the southern states should give up slavery, it was about if new territories coming into the union would be allowed to choose if they are free states or slave states. The North didn't want to give them that choice with the, "all men created equal" talk.
If the south won and broke away from the north, the war would have been much longer as the two competing sides continued to fight over the land between them and California, with Mexico making a push up north to reclaim lost territory over now a fractured union. Native Americans might have also had the chance to play both sides to retain some of their land, however that play didn't work well for them in 1812.
The map of North America would be drawn much differently if the north didn't go to drastic matters to keep the union together.
Its interesting that people get so worked up over the monuments to southern generals but are okay with northern ones. The Civil War was never a war over slavery (there were slaves on both sides and the north is just as guilty of propagating slavery). It was all over secession. The north was the agressor, with the south fighting a defensive war. Lincoln chose a hypocritical slaughter over a peaceful secession. If the south was guilty of treason, so is all of America, which by that same logic, should still be a British colony today.
If the south won, that maybe how it would have been viewed.
The slavery debate was never about if the southern states should give up slavery, it was about if new territories coming into the union would be allowed to choose if they are free states or slave states. The North didn't want to give them that choice with the, "all men created equal" talk.
If the south won and broke away from the north, the war would have been much longer as the two competing sides continued to fight over the land between them and California, with Mexico making a push up north to reclaim lost territory over now a fractured union. Native Americans might have also had the chance to play both sides to retain some of their land, however that play didn't work well for them in 1812.
The map of North America would be drawn much differently if the north didn't go to drastic matters to keep the union together.
There is also ZERO reason to believe the South, left to secede or if they had won, would have EVER freed the slaves. The 100 years after the war is proof positive. They had to be forced to free them, and forced AGAIN to give them equal rights 100 years later. America may usually do the right thing, eventually, but the Confederacy NEVER would have short of violent confrontation.
I'm not surprised people think the Civil War wasn't about slavery, because that's how it is taught in high school history classes. Confederate leaders revered as heroes, and slavery reduced to little more than some ancient, cute colloquialism
I know that the majority of Muslims are just like anyone else and want to live their life, but I yet to see mass demonstration of anti-terrorism/extremism by the different Muslim communities around the world, only deafening silence or weak condemnation to fulfil one's obligation.
Ignoring the fact that it is completely routine for large Muslim organisations to condemn any and all acts of terrorism in strong terms...
When exactly do we get to see the mass demonstration of anti-colonialism/genocide by white people? When exactly is every straight person going to get around to apologising for the actions of anti-gay bigots? When exactly is every American going to stage a mass demonstration of abject apology and contrition for what their country did to Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Granada, Haiti, Pakistan, and so very many others? Don't even get me started on what Britain has to mass demonstrate their contrition for - let's just say it'll need at least a month blocked off on the calender before I'll buy their sincerity.
So, once you start apologising for things you didn't do, perhaps they'll take your good example and follow suit. More than they already are.
So it happens the 99% of Muslims are just like anybody else, but also 99% of the terrorist acts around the world are done by Muslims.
So it happens that 99% of white Christians are just like anybody else, but also 99% of the attacks on abortion clinics and doctors are by white Christians. Are you a white Christian? I guess we better start keeping some lists of you, and your family, and your friends, and hack into your emails, and listen in on your phone calls, and have the FBI run some ops which are maybe-kinda-sorta entrapment but who cares because we're stopping terrorism and bigotry and other bad things.
Also, 99% of "terrorist acts" are done by Muslims because the West - particularly the US - defines "terrorism" as "anything done by Muslims we don't like". The word has no other significant meaning in English discourse. Sure, once it had certain meanings that would, for instance, make the United States government guilty of a multitude of acts of terrorism. But now it primarily means "Muslims did something we don't like", so yeah, what an amazing shock that most "terrorism" is committed by Muslims.
As I see it, all the three monotheistic religions are violent, if you take them by the book. But while all of the Christian countries are democratic/secular/or non-theocratic, and Judaism doesn't believe in 'by the book' but in the 'Halacha' - much later Interpretation of bible which is more liberal and adopted to the modern world, I don't sure that the Islam has gone such process.
Yes, yes, those terrible primitive nasty Muslims. If only they would be more like the enlightened, secular democratic West that continuously bombs and attacks them, assist in the ongoing genocide in Palestine, props up all the most despicable and autocratic dictators in the Muslim world, and kills far more innocent Muslims on a regular basis than Muslim terrorists kill in the West (or, for that matter, anywhere).
But of course when you murder people with bombs from 20,000 feet up, it is so much less brutish and theocratic than when you murder people with bombs you're wearing in a vest. I'm not sure why, since they're just as dead, but that's how it goes, and the amount the press spends reporting on one and not the other proves it.
All of this is why the Mau Mau Massacre con worked for so long. Like, every single time in human history that there was a scary bogeyman Other for the wealthy and comfortable to fear despite there being no risk of actually being invaded, it turns out "Whoops! Actually as it turns out they're pretty much the same as us after all and actually contribute some pretty cool stuff". Be it Catholics or Irish in America, the Jews, Chinese immigrants, people of different skin tones, what-have-you - the people who buy into the hype of how "different" or "incompatible" they are always, always wrong.
Not only wrong, but so wrong that in retrospect they look completely goddamn silly. Do you know that you can't let a Catholic be President of the United States because they'll be more loyal to the Pope than to their own country? It's true! Until Kennedy. Then it turned out whoops, no, it wasn't true and was actually really kind of stupid.
But I'm sure Muslims, who constitute nearly a quarter of the entire human race, are totally the exception and really are totes different than "us" in some vaguely menacing way and we'll not look back on this period in thirty years and laugh at the clueless media who bought into the hype while discussing the totally real, dire threat of Hindus (do you know they worship multiple gods!? That's why they just can't play nice with Pakistan and China).
Yes, the Civil War was totally about state's rights. Specifically, the state's right to have slaves. And if you doubt it, I suggest you read the Confederate constitution, which is not exactly subtle on this point and on a few other points those fine gentlemen wanted to make about the "Negro race".
I mean, sure, the North had no moral right to fight to keep states that wanted to secede in the Union (the confeds did shoot first, though), and sure, it's tedious to hear people call them "traitors" when the United States was founded on treason (treason by mostly Southern slaveholders, at that!), but the reason the South seceded was overwhelmingly to do with slavery and slavery-adjacent issues. You just can't divorce it from that and be intellectually honest.
(That being said, you CAN compare lack of moral concern with plantation slavery, which was very profitable, with today's lack of moral concern for the child labour that keeps our clothes cheap and the exploitation of the Third World that underlies the unsustainable First World standard of living. People are very good at justifying and ignoring things that it is in their financial interest to justify and ignore.)
Also, alas for the Turtledove fans, an independent South will be lucky to end up as more than an impoverished basket case client state of Britain. Even without the devastation of the war, their cash crop economy was doomed and rather sooner than later. There were a LOT of slavery-based cash crop economies at this time, and I'm not certain a single one of them ended up anything but an economic basket case. The South, controlled by rich conservative planters who would fight the inexorable changes threatening their way of life, would not be an exception. The fact they'd have to stay armed to the teeth to forestall the Union coming back and walking over them wouldn't help. If they actually acted out any mad plans to grab Cuba from the Spanish, they'd a) have a pretty good chance of losing for various reasons, and b) only succeed in acquiring a bleeding ulcer if they did get it.
In an update on the Montana Republican candidate who assaulted a reporter last night: 1.) he was given a citation for misdemeanor assault, but not arrested. I guarantee if a black man had body-slammed this representative in the same location, he'd be on a slab in the morgue right now. 2.) multiple GOP reps, conservative pundits, and think-tank heads have brushed it off, or even praised the assault. Keep in mind this isn't some anonymous masked bandit at a college campus, but a man likely to still win a House seat tonight. But the kicker is #3:
They not only fund-raised off assaulting a reporter who asked a question about healthcare, but they are BRAGGING about it. As I predicted last night, the core of Trump's base is totally enamored with this incident. And it signals once again that it is fascistic to the core.
As I predicted last night, the core of Trump's base is totally enamored with this incident. And it signals once again that it is fascistic to the core.
I dunno, to be honest. I mean, it's awful, but I remember the left doing jumping jacks over "punching Nazis" not so long back, and we know for a fact the "Nazi" in question wasn't doing anything physically threatening that justified retaliation (and also wasn't actually a Nazi).
And for people on a certain segment of the American right spectrum, representatives of the "mainstream media" are held in just about as much regard as pretend Nazis are on the left. Now, one could argue that not-really-Nazis are much worse people than reporters as a rule, and that's totally true. But that same instinct, to cheer bodily harm against somebody with loathsome political views, isn't much more comforting just because the screaming mob is actually correct about how loathsome their views are.
In short, I'd chalk this up to another symptom of how polarised and hostile the political tone has become in the US (and I'd also point to pre-civil war politics for similar sorts of things, like the famous caning incident), rather than anything inherent even to the Trumpy areas of the right.
Oh, and obviously Gianforte's ass should be hauled into court on assault charges, which should go without saying.
As I predicted last night, the core of Trump's base is totally enamored with this incident. And it signals once again that it is fascistic to the core.
I dunno, to be honest. I mean, it's awful, but I remember the left doing jumping jacks over "punching Nazis" not so long back, and we know for a fact the "Nazi" in question wasn't doing anything physically threatening that justified retaliation (and also wasn't actually a Nazi).
And for people on a certain segment of the American right spectrum, representatives of the "mainstream media" are held in just about as much regard as pretend Nazis are on the left. Now, one could argue that not-really-Nazis are much worse people than reporters as a rule, and that's totally true. But that same instinct, to cheer bodily harm against somebody with loathsome political views, isn't much more comforting just because the screaming mob is actually correct about how loathsome their views are.
In short, I'd chalk this up to another symptom of how polarised and hostile the political tone has become in the US (and I'd also point to pre-civil war politics for similar sorts of things, like the famous caning incident), rather than anything inherent even to the Trumpy areas of the right.
Oh, and obviously Gianforte's ass should be hauled into court on assault charges, which should go without saying.
Well, Richard Spencer is absolutely a Nazi, but that's neither here nor there. But go watch his little torch ceremony in protest to the Confedrate monuments being taken down about a week ago. I specifically myself remember saying I wasn't going to lose sleep over him being punched, but that charges should be filed if that person was found.
Here is the difference: for one thing, the same people who are up in arms about "violence at Berkeley" are either silent or actively celebrating this, including no less than 3 sitting members of the House. For another, a random asshole on the street cold-cocking someone is not on the same level of disturbing as a candidate for office assaulting a reporter for asking a totally benign question about a CBO report.
I fully would expect the MAJORITY of Republican voters to approve of this if a poll was taken. Furthermore, I believe most of the same people would approve if he had actually killed the reporter.
The point is, how can there not be a higher standard for a person who is likely going to be in the House of Representatives than for some random person who punched Richard Spencer?? One is a simple assault, the other is an attack on the free press and democracy itself. To put it more succinctly, the guy who punched Richard Spencer isn't the official Democratic nominee for anything. They have not withdrawn their support. The strongest statement Paul Ryan gave is that he should "apologize". Lol.
Ignoring the fact that it is completely routine for large Muslim organisations to condemn any and all acts of terrorism in strong terms...
When exactly do we get to see the mass demonstration of anti-colonialism/genocide by white people? When exactly is every straight person going to get around to apologising for the actions of anti-gay bigots? When exactly is every American going to stage a mass demonstration of abject apology and contrition for what their country did to Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Granada, Haiti, Pakistan, and so very many others? Don't even get me started on what Britain has to mass demonstrate their contrition for - let's just say it'll need at least a month blocked off on the calender before I'll buy their sincerity.
So, once you start apologising for things you didn't do, perhaps they'll take your good example and follow suit. More than they already are.
After reading this comment, and even beforehand @jjstraka34 comment, I admittedly made a mistake with my comments and I stand corrected.
Yes, yes, those terrible primitive nasty Muslims. If only they would be more like the enlightened, secular democratic West that continuously bombs and attacks them
Admittedly I wasn't clear at my initial comment, and I think vanatos explained it quite well about moderation in Islam.
Also if we are at it, I'm not going to apologize if I think that those who practice laws written hundreds of years ago to be primitive. If you think that Sharia laws, which are part of Islam, such as death penalty for those criticizing Muhammad, amputation of the right hand of a thief, female genital mutilation are legitimate (Which is still practiced in some Islamic majority countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia) in the name of freedom of religion and tolerance of others, good for you, I don't.
And make no mistake, I don't single out Islam here. In Judaism there was the 'Sanhadrin' - a jewish court of law of 70 members, and according to the laws, those who worked on 'Sabbath', gay relations or a jew who is working different god( Very similar to some the of Sharia laws), should put to death by stoning or burning. Fortunately this has stopped 1600 years ago. Although there are still Jewish extremists which dream of 'Sanhadrin' rule of law again, which I take as primitive and very dangerous.
assist in the ongoing genocide in Palestine props up all the most despicable and autocratic dictators in the Muslim world, and kills far more innocent Muslims on a regular basis than Muslim terrorists kill in the West (or, for that matter, anywhere).
Really?! ongoing genocide in Palestine?? I wasn't aware of that..
*** On a final note, I stopped responding to the previous posts because I noticed it wasn't going to be constructive argument, more towards the offensive. some due to my fault, I made mistakes in some of my initial comments which I take back. Also I wasn't specific enough and I didn't manage to be clear and explain well what I mean.
One of my conclusions is to stop posting on 4a.m, or stop posting at all.. I think I will go back to an observer mode for now, in-order to not mistakenly derail this thread.
I cant remember at the moment, but wasn't there some some rep in congress getting interviewed a while back at the capital that threatn to throw some reporter over the 2nd floor balcony. Jeeze, some of these dudes need OUT.
Yes, the Civil War was totally about state's rights. Specifically, the state's right to have slaves. And if you doubt it, I suggest you read the Confederate constitution, which is not exactly subtle on this point and on a few other points those fine gentlemen wanted to make about the "Negro race".
I mean, sure, the North had no moral right to fight to keep states that wanted to secede in the Union (the confeds did shoot first, though), and sure, it's tedious to hear people call them "traitors" when the United States was founded on treason (treason by mostly Southern slaveholders, at that!), but the reason the South seceded was overwhelmingly to do with slavery and slavery-adjacent issues. You just can't divorce it from that and be intellectually honest.
And it has been settled by the SCOTUS (admittedly after the war), in Texas v. White that in their constitutional opinion, essentially no state has the right to secede without, more or less, the consent of the states of the Union.
Their justification was that the text of the Constitution is "In order to form a MORE PERFECT UNION", based on the "more perfect" being a reference to the Articles of Confederation, which calls for a PERPETUAL union between states.
Although since such a thing hasn't been tried since the Civil War, the "consent of the states" still remains an open question.
I cant remember at the moment, but wasn't there some some rep in congress getting interviewed a while back at the capital that threatn to throw some reporter over the 2nd floor balcony. Jeeze, some of these dudes need OUT.
Michael Grimm, NY 11th. Not surprisingly, another Republican, who also just so happened to go to jail for tax fraud not long afterwards.
Its interesting that people get so worked up over the monuments to southern generals but are okay with northern ones. The Civil War was never a war over slavery (there were slaves on both sides and the north is just as guilty of propagating slavery). It was all over secession. The north was the agressor, with the south fighting a defensive war. Lincoln chose a hypocritical slaughter over a peaceful secession. If the south was guilty of treason, so is all of America, which by that same logic, should still be a British colony today.
What universe did this scenario happen in?? Speculative historical fiction?? The South seceded because they wanted every new State added to the Union to be slave states. They seceded because they feared their free labor force and god-given right to OWN other people (and their children, should they be born) was being threatened. The Union tried two major compromises in the 20 years leading up to the war. 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Missouri Compromise. They were placated time and again. They would accept nothing less than the 100% right to own slaves. Lincoln emancipated the slaves during the war. Arguing the South should have been dealt with in any other way is arguing for a possibility of that human bondage existing to this very day. No, the only tragedy is that Sherman's March to the Sea was only limited to Georgia. It would have been far better if the entire Confederacy had been ground to dust in the same manner.
I supppose all of America would be guilty of treason, except they won. And the South lost. Personally, if there had been a way to funnel out all the freed slaves out and let the South go, the country would have been far better off, and the Confederacy would have long since turned into a failed fascist state.
So are we now ignoring that the north kept slaves as well? Saying that the war was to free slaves or end slavery was simply justification after the fact. I'm not defending slavery here, but NOTHING ABOUT THE CIVIL WAR WAS BLACK AND WHITE. Neither side were the good guys here.
*facepalm* I noticed the horrible pun I made as I clicked "save comment", that was not intentional.
The special election in Montana may be followed here. As of 2211 CDT (that's the UTC -6 time zone for those of you keeping score) with 12.78% of districts fully reporting the results stand at Gianforte 49%, Quist 45%, and Wicks 6%.
update: 0000 UTC -6 with 58.3% reporting the results sit at Gianforte 50%, Quist 44%, and Wicks 6%.
Look....the citizens of Montana are going to easily elect Gianforte by about 6%. Which is 15% less than what Trump won the State by, but.....let's get to brass tacks here. I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to ask these Montana voters about their "economic anxiety", yet Quist was personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders. I'm also told that the Republican Party is the party of "law and order", but, let's get real, that only applies when we are talking about people with dark skin. Because they just elected a guy who assaulted a reporter for asking him a question about a CBO score and has questionable ties to white nationalists. Furthermore, the Sheriff in charge of this guy's case DONATED to his campaign and earlier said at a press conference that Gianforte had "declined" to come in for an interview. So that is something to keep in mind if you are visiting Montana. If you assault someone with audio evidence and about a dozen witnesses, you can just not show up for police questioning. I'm sure if a black man at that event had body-slammed Gianforte, he would be given the same treatment. Sure thing.
Say what you will about Democrats, but their candidate in this race didn't go ape-shit and attack a reporter, but, again, there is a SIZABLE portion of the citizens of Montana tonight who think this development is just peachy. I've said it before, and I will keep saying it. There is a serious strain of authoritarianism that has bubbled to the surface because of Trump, and it's going to get worse before it gets better. After all, what do the residents of Montana have to worry about?? Trump is only going to stick it to those "other" people. Which is, of course, what many of them want. Liberals, reporters, minorities. What many of these people mean by "Making America Great Again" is living in a world without those 3 groups of people.
Gianforte just apologized to Ben Jacobs AFTER he'd won the election. What a profile in courage. The crowd thought it was an absolute hoot. I hope Ben Jacobs tells him to stick his apology up his ass and sues this guy (who is worth $300 million) for every goddamn penny he can get out of him.
A reporter on the scene captures the mood at the celebration:
Of course. That's where we are on the America Right. If you get up in arms about a Congressional candidate beating the shit out of a reporter, you are too "politically correct". What have I been saying about that term for months now. Nothing but an escape hatch for allowing people to unleash their ugliest, base emotions. Well, here you go. This is the inevitable destination of the "anti-PC" train.
I have no vested interest in the Montana election either way; I am merely reporting the numbers as they exist.
That being said, what Gianforte did was at least misdemeanor assault so shouldn't the district attorney be pressing charges? I don't know the laws in Montana but in most States having a misdemeanor on your record does not prevent you from holding office (as far as I know). I have no doubt that some people voted for him specifically because "he showed that reporter who's boss" (paraphrasing their words, not mine).
Perhaps some of the people voting for Gianforte did so because they are tired of people calling them "racist", "xenophobe", "misogynist", or "deplorable" on a daily basis. If you encountered someone who routinely called you names and tried to make you feel bad about yourself because you hold political views which are different than theirs then many people would call that person an emotional abuser, a bully, or a troll.
As noted in many posts, this is yet more proof of how divided we are among ourselves--with each passing day rural and/or conservative voters find that they have less in common with urban and/or liberal voters. We are past the point of reconciling these two groups.
Perhaps some of the people voting for Gianforte did so because they are tired of people calling them "racist", "xenophobe", "misogynist", or "deplorable" on a daily basis. If you encountered someone who routinely called you names and tried to make you feel bad about yourself because you hold political views which are different than theirs then many people would call that person an emotional abuser, a bully, or a troll.
To be fair, it's not really reasonable to try to characterize racists, xenophobes, and misogynists as simply having "different political views." They clearly hold particular views about large groups of people, and those views are often quite repugnant.
It's not simply a difference of opinion. It's a matter of people believing that it is appropriate to establish or maintain power over these groups of people, of treating them as less human.
I mean, sure, they can be tired of being called out for their awful views and vote according to those views, but is it really appropriate to minimize these things? Would they really vote differently if they were never called these things? They're going to support the candidates who validate their racist, misogynist views either way.
Montana, your voters are dumb. Good luck with voting against your self interests. That millionaire you voted in is going to take away your healthcare and cut taxes for the rich. Nicely played.
Another liberal victory in Montana! Oh wait... But there's Georgia! Oh wait... I wouldn't be too sure about Trump going down in flames if I were on the left. Advertisers and media outlets in marginal states sure are getting rich though. Probably more money spent in this Montana election than in all the rest of the elections there in the last 20 years put together.
Perhaps some of the people voting for Gianforte did so because they are tired of people calling them "racist", "xenophobe", "misogynist", or "deplorable" on a daily basis. If you encountered someone who routinely called you names and tried to make you feel bad about yourself because you hold political views which are different than theirs then many people would call that person an emotional abuser, a bully, or a troll.
To be fair, it's not really reasonable to try to characterize racists, xenophobes, and misogynists as simply having "different political views." They clearly hold particular views about large groups of people, and those views are often quite repugnant.
It's not simply a difference of opinion. It's a matter of people believing that it is appropriate to establish or maintain power over these groups of people, of treating them as less human.
I mean, sure, they can be tired of being called out for their awful views and vote according to those views, but is it really appropriate to minimize these things? Would they really vote differently if they were never called these things? They're going to support the candidates who validate their racist, misogynist views either way.
This is exactly the kind of preachy, I'm better than you because you're 'x' views that alienate those people. The more the left talks this way the more entrenched those folks become. There are better ways of approaching these issues than calling people Nazi's (which is absolutely ridiculous and an insult to the millions that died in those concentration camps). If I yelled at you, called you a 'commie' and outed you as stupid on social media, I'm sure you'd see the errors of your ways and join me on the conservative side. Right?
Comments
Lawd, just imagine, ' Ok, here's the money we owe you, sorry, oh and thanks for the money back you owed us now, you owed us to ya know. Oh and get 'those' folks over there to anti up as well, cause they owe us both. But that dude over there, he can forget it, he ain't gettin a darn thing. Why you dirty so an so, you better pay up'. Imagine the lines of ambassadors and representatives linin up at The Hague.
Probably have to an army out there to keep the lawyers from breakin out into fights, slingin briefcases and cellphones n such at each other, with a group THAT big.
@JoenSo I often wonder what the ME would be like if my fellow 'mericans' hadn't gone there, for that matter.
I supppose all of America would be guilty of treason, except they won. And the South lost. Personally, if there had been a way to funnel out all the freed slaves out and let the South go, the country would have been far better off, and the Confederacy would have long since turned into a failed fascist state.
The slavery debate was never about if the southern states should give up slavery, it was about if new territories coming into the union would be allowed to choose if they are free states or slave states. The North didn't want to give them that choice with the, "all men created equal" talk.
If the south won and broke away from the north, the war would have been much longer as the two competing sides continued to fight over the land between them and California, with Mexico making a push up north to reclaim lost territory over now a fractured union. Native Americans might have also had the chance to play both sides to retain some of their land, however that play didn't work well for them in 1812.
The map of North America would be drawn much differently if the north didn't go to drastic matters to keep the union together.
I'm not surprised people think the Civil War wasn't about slavery, because that's how it is taught in high school history classes. Confederate leaders revered as heroes, and slavery reduced to little more than some ancient, cute colloquialism
When exactly do we get to see the mass demonstration of anti-colonialism/genocide by white people? When exactly is every straight person going to get around to apologising for the actions of anti-gay bigots? When exactly is every American going to stage a mass demonstration of abject apology and contrition for what their country did to Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Granada, Haiti, Pakistan, and so very many others? Don't even get me started on what Britain has to mass demonstrate their contrition for - let's just say it'll need at least a month blocked off on the calender before I'll buy their sincerity.
So, once you start apologising for things you didn't do, perhaps they'll take your good example and follow suit. More than they already are. So it happens that 99% of white Christians are just like anybody else, but also 99% of the attacks on abortion clinics and doctors are by white Christians. Are you a white Christian? I guess we better start keeping some lists of you, and your family, and your friends, and hack into your emails, and listen in on your phone calls, and have the FBI run some ops which are maybe-kinda-sorta entrapment but who cares because we're stopping terrorism and bigotry and other bad things.
Also, 99% of "terrorist acts" are done by Muslims because the West - particularly the US - defines "terrorism" as "anything done by Muslims we don't like". The word has no other significant meaning in English discourse. Sure, once it had certain meanings that would, for instance, make the United States government guilty of a multitude of acts of terrorism. But now it primarily means "Muslims did something we don't like", so yeah, what an amazing shock that most "terrorism" is committed by Muslims. Yes, yes, those terrible primitive nasty Muslims. If only they would be more like the enlightened, secular democratic West that continuously bombs and attacks them, assist in the ongoing genocide in Palestine, props up all the most despicable and autocratic dictators in the Muslim world, and kills far more innocent Muslims on a regular basis than Muslim terrorists kill in the West (or, for that matter, anywhere).
But of course when you murder people with bombs from 20,000 feet up, it is so much less brutish and theocratic than when you murder people with bombs you're wearing in a vest. I'm not sure why, since they're just as dead, but that's how it goes, and the amount the press spends reporting on one and not the other proves it.
All of this is why the Mau Mau Massacre con worked for so long. Like, every single time in human history that there was a scary bogeyman Other for the wealthy and comfortable to fear despite there being no risk of actually being invaded, it turns out "Whoops! Actually as it turns out they're pretty much the same as us after all and actually contribute some pretty cool stuff". Be it Catholics or Irish in America, the Jews, Chinese immigrants, people of different skin tones, what-have-you - the people who buy into the hype of how "different" or "incompatible" they are always, always wrong.
Not only wrong, but so wrong that in retrospect they look completely goddamn silly. Do you know that you can't let a Catholic be President of the United States because they'll be more loyal to the Pope than to their own country? It's true! Until Kennedy. Then it turned out whoops, no, it wasn't true and was actually really kind of stupid.
But I'm sure Muslims, who constitute nearly a quarter of the entire human race, are totally the exception and really are totes different than "us" in some vaguely menacing way and we'll not look back on this period in thirty years and laugh at the clueless media who bought into the hype while discussing the totally real, dire threat of Hindus (do you know they worship multiple gods!? That's why they just can't play nice with Pakistan and China).
I mean, sure, the North had no moral right to fight to keep states that wanted to secede in the Union (the confeds did shoot first, though), and sure, it's tedious to hear people call them "traitors" when the United States was founded on treason (treason by mostly Southern slaveholders, at that!), but the reason the South seceded was overwhelmingly to do with slavery and slavery-adjacent issues. You just can't divorce it from that and be intellectually honest.
(That being said, you CAN compare lack of moral concern with plantation slavery, which was very profitable, with today's lack of moral concern for the child labour that keeps our clothes cheap and the exploitation of the Third World that underlies the unsustainable First World standard of living. People are very good at justifying and ignoring things that it is in their financial interest to justify and ignore.)
Also, alas for the Turtledove fans, an independent South will be lucky to end up as more than an impoverished basket case client state of Britain. Even without the devastation of the war, their cash crop economy was doomed and rather sooner than later. There were a LOT of slavery-based cash crop economies at this time, and I'm not certain a single one of them ended up anything but an economic basket case. The South, controlled by rich conservative planters who would fight the inexorable changes threatening their way of life, would not be an exception. The fact they'd have to stay armed to the teeth to forestall the Union coming back and walking over them wouldn't help. If they actually acted out any mad plans to grab Cuba from the Spanish, they'd a) have a pretty good chance of losing for various reasons, and b) only succeed in acquiring a bleeding ulcer if they did get it.
There are respectful ways to phrase an argument.
They not only fund-raised off assaulting a reporter who asked a question about healthcare, but they are BRAGGING about it. As I predicted last night, the core of Trump's base is totally enamored with this incident. And it signals once again that it is fascistic to the core.
And for people on a certain segment of the American right spectrum, representatives of the "mainstream media" are held in just about as much regard as pretend Nazis are on the left. Now, one could argue that not-really-Nazis are much worse people than reporters as a rule, and that's totally true. But that same instinct, to cheer bodily harm against somebody with loathsome political views, isn't much more comforting just because the screaming mob is actually correct about how loathsome their views are.
In short, I'd chalk this up to another symptom of how polarised and hostile the political tone has become in the US (and I'd also point to pre-civil war politics for similar sorts of things, like the famous caning incident), rather than anything inherent even to the Trumpy areas of the right.
Oh, and obviously Gianforte's ass should be hauled into court on assault charges, which should go without saying.
Here is the difference: for one thing, the same people who are up in arms about "violence at Berkeley" are either silent or actively celebrating this, including no less than 3 sitting members of the House. For another, a random asshole on the street cold-cocking someone is not on the same level of disturbing as a candidate for office assaulting a reporter for asking a totally benign question about a CBO report.
I fully would expect the MAJORITY of Republican voters to approve of this if a poll was taken. Furthermore, I believe most of the same people would approve if he had actually killed the reporter.
The point is, how can there not be a higher standard for a person who is likely going to be in the House of Representatives than for some random person who punched Richard Spencer?? One is a simple assault, the other is an attack on the free press and democracy itself. To put it more succinctly, the guy who punched Richard Spencer isn't the official Democratic nominee for anything. They have not withdrawn their support. The strongest statement Paul Ryan gave is that he should "apologize". Lol.
Admittedly I wasn't clear at my initial comment, and I think vanatos explained it quite well about moderation in Islam.
Also if we are at it, I'm not going to apologize if I think that those who practice laws written hundreds of years ago to be primitive. If you think that Sharia laws, which are part of Islam, such as death penalty for those criticizing Muhammad, amputation of the right hand of a thief, female genital mutilation are legitimate (Which is still practiced in some Islamic majority countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia) in the name of freedom of religion and tolerance of others, good for you, I don't.
And make no mistake, I don't single out Islam here. In Judaism there was the 'Sanhadrin' - a jewish court of law of 70 members, and according to the laws, those who worked on 'Sabbath', gay relations or a jew who is working different god( Very similar to some the of Sharia laws), should put to death by stoning or burning. Fortunately this has stopped 1600 years ago. Although there are still Jewish extremists which dream of 'Sanhadrin' rule of law again, which I take as primitive and very dangerous. Really?! ongoing genocide in Palestine?? I wasn't aware of that..
***
On a final note, I stopped responding to the previous posts because I noticed it wasn't going to be constructive argument, more towards the offensive. some due to my fault, I made mistakes in some of my initial comments which I take back. Also I wasn't specific enough and I didn't manage to be clear and explain well what I mean.
One of my conclusions is to stop posting on 4a.m, or stop posting at all.. I think I will go back to an observer mode for now, in-order to not mistakenly derail this thread.
You literally cannot get any closer to Trump.
Their justification was that the text of the Constitution is "In order to form a MORE PERFECT UNION", based on the "more perfect" being a reference to the Articles of Confederation, which calls for a PERPETUAL union between states.
Although since such a thing hasn't been tried since the Civil War, the "consent of the states" still remains an open question.
*facepalm* I noticed the horrible pun I made as I clicked "save comment", that was not intentional.
update: 0000 UTC -6 with 58.3% reporting the results sit at Gianforte 50%, Quist 44%, and Wicks 6%.
Say what you will about Democrats, but their candidate in this race didn't go ape-shit and attack a reporter, but, again, there is a SIZABLE portion of the citizens of Montana tonight who think this development is just peachy. I've said it before, and I will keep saying it. There is a serious strain of authoritarianism that has bubbled to the surface because of Trump, and it's going to get worse before it gets better. After all, what do the residents of Montana have to worry about?? Trump is only going to stick it to those "other" people. Which is, of course, what many of them want. Liberals, reporters, minorities. What many of these people mean by "Making America Great Again" is living in a world without those 3 groups of people.
Gianforte just apologized to Ben Jacobs AFTER he'd won the election. What a profile in courage. The crowd thought it was an absolute hoot. I hope Ben Jacobs tells him to stick his apology up his ass and sues this guy (who is worth $300 million) for every goddamn penny he can get out of him.
A reporter on the scene captures the mood at the celebration:
Of course. That's where we are on the America Right. If you get up in arms about a Congressional candidate beating the shit out of a reporter, you are too "politically correct". What have I been saying about that term for months now. Nothing but an escape hatch for allowing people to unleash their ugliest, base emotions. Well, here you go. This is the inevitable destination of the "anti-PC" train.
That being said, what Gianforte did was at least misdemeanor assault so shouldn't the district attorney be pressing charges? I don't know the laws in Montana but in most States having a misdemeanor on your record does not prevent you from holding office (as far as I know). I have no doubt that some people voted for him specifically because "he showed that reporter who's boss" (paraphrasing their words, not mine).
Perhaps some of the people voting for Gianforte did so because they are tired of people calling them "racist", "xenophobe", "misogynist", or "deplorable" on a daily basis. If you encountered someone who routinely called you names and tried to make you feel bad about yourself because you hold political views which are different than theirs then many people would call that person an emotional abuser, a bully, or a troll.
As noted in many posts, this is yet more proof of how divided we are among ourselves--with each passing day rural and/or conservative voters find that they have less in common with urban and/or liberal voters. We are past the point of reconciling these two groups.
It's not simply a difference of opinion. It's a matter of people believing that it is appropriate to establish or maintain power over these groups of people, of treating them as less human.
I mean, sure, they can be tired of being called out for their awful views and vote according to those views, but is it really appropriate to minimize these things? Would they really vote differently if they were never called these things? They're going to support the candidates who validate their racist, misogynist views either way.
But there's Georgia! Oh wait...
I wouldn't be too sure about Trump going down in flames if I were on the left. Advertisers and media outlets in marginal states sure are getting rich though. Probably more money spent in this Montana election than in all the rest of the elections there in the last 20 years put together.