No more Civil War

4,037 Views | 74 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by Fyght4Cal
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.

Yeah, I didn't get the Grant thing either. This is going too far.
Fyght4Cal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.

Yeah, I didn't get the Grant thing either. This is going too far.
I also don't get the Grant thing. The US Grant Memorial is my favorite monument. It's grandeur and drama, along with its placement, defending Capitol Hill, is a solemn reminder that he literally saved the Union. When I first saw and understood the memorial, it brought me to tears.
🎵There’s the Highland Dutch and the Lowland Dutch
The Rotterdam Dutch and Tim DeRuyter 🎶
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Beaver Believers vs Nike Town.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.

Yeah, I didn't get the Grant thing either. This is going too far.

"Civil War general does-not-necessarily-equal Confederate general" is a nuance that is probably lost on many Americans.

It's like "reopening the economy does-not-equal a return to pre-pandemic life": Who can grasp these subtleties?!?
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

sycasey said:

Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.

Yeah, I didn't get the Grant thing either. This is going too far.

"Civil War general does-not-necessarily-equal Confederate general" is a nuance that is probably lost on many Americans.

It's like "reopening the economy does-not-equal a return to pre-pandemic life": Who can grasp these subtleties?!?


Grant was very progressive for his time. He condemned the Mexican-American War as unjust (but fought in it). He promoted a vision of American citizenship that included African Americans, Native Americans, Catholic, Jewish and Chinese immigrants. Yet, it was under his presidency that the US waged a genocidal war on the Lakota and other plains tribes in massive land grab. The detractors are focused on that later fact.
MaxBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.
Grant, despite fighting for the Union, owned slaves before the war. That's why the protestors took it down.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MaxBear said:

Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.
Grant, despite fighting for the Union, owned slaves before the war. That's why the protestors took it down.


He freed his slaves before the civil war.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

MaxBear said:

Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.
Grant, despite fighting for the Union, owned slaves before the war. That's why the protestors took it down.


He freed his slaves before the civil war.


His father was a prominent abolitionist. Before the war, Grant worked as a hired laborer alongside slaves on a plantation in the south. The owners complained about him being unwilling to command/discipline the slaves and for "not being a slavery man." Later, just before the war, he freed one of the slaves he purchased from that same plantation. He never wrote anything about it other than the paper that gave the man his freedom. Many have speculated that he only bought a friend his freedom, but he undoubtedly "owned" another human being for some period of time.
SadbutTrue999
How long do you want to ignore this user?
upsetof86 said:

But will they one day have to stop calling it a war as well? They should think ahead and maybe call it the Willamette Valley Conflict lol. Sounds like a second place winner at Sundance.
The 103rd Dispute in the Woods...
LateHit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Engaging inantimate objects and taking a victory lap is easier than doing something of susbstance.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MaxBear said:

Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.
Grant, despite fighting for the Union, owned slaves before the war. That's why the protestors took it down.

I'd like to think they carefully weighed his merits and faults and decided that, on the basis of having owned slaves plus the genocide against the Lakota, they determined that he didn't pass. The cynic in me, however, thinks it was more like, "Dead President and Civil War general ("Huh? There were two sides?"), let's topple him."
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

MaxBear said:

Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.
Grant, despite fighting for the Union, owned slaves before the war. That's why the protestors took it down.

I'd like to think they carefully weighed his merrits and faults and decided that, on the basis of having owned slaves plus the genocide against the Lakota, they decided he didn't pass. The cynic in me, however, thinks it was more like, "Dead President and Civil War general, let's topple him."

And honestly, based on those metrics there are zero historical leaders who will pass. If that's the argument (no statues period), then let's have that discussion. I feel like it isn't though.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Big C said:

MaxBear said:

Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.
Grant, despite fighting for the Union, owned slaves before the war. That's why the protestors took it down.

I'd like to think they carefully weighed his merrits and faults and decided that, on the basis of having owned slaves plus the genocide against the Lakota, they decided he didn't pass. The cynic in me, however, thinks it was more like, "Dead President and Civil War general, let's topple him."

And honestly, based on those metrics there are zero historical leaders who will pass. If that's the argument (no statues period), then let's have that discussion. I feel like it isn't though.


Yeah, I'm not too invested in a statue to Grant. If his statue comes down NBFD. At least the Confederate generals and flags are coming down and I'm sure that if Grant is somewhere watching he is OK with that.
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fyght4Cal said:

LunchTime said:

What is too far?

Serious question.
Strap in. There's a 400-year backlog.
what does that mean? Anything goes because of past injustices? Anything goes because of current injustices?

What is too far? Seriously. Do you have a limit?

FWIW, "strap in" sounds like I should be ready for any retribution the mob demands. I am not.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LunchTime said:

Fyght4Cal said:

LunchTime said:

What is too far?

Serious question.
Strap in. There's a 400-year backlog.
what does that mean? Anything goes because of past injustices? Anything goes because of current injustices?

What is too far? Seriously. Do you have a limit?

FWIW, "strap in" sounds like I should be ready for any retribution the mob demands. I am not.


Just curious why people have decided to focus on public statues as the thing that could possibly lead to a dissolution of our great nation. There are so many other flash points that are both more problematic today and more likely to lead to serious consequences down the road.

I get it - it's possible that vandalizing statuary today could lead to violent overthrow of the federal government or whatever nightmare scenario you could think of but that's basically true for every other iniquity out there.

If people can't be bothered to wear masks today, what will we do when the zombie virus hits?

If we are being serious, what level of inequality are we willing to put up with in our society and at what point along the way before the equivalent of the French Revolution do people stand up and say it's enough?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

sycasey said:

Big C said:

MaxBear said:

Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.
Grant, despite fighting for the Union, owned slaves before the war. That's why the protestors took it down.

I'd like to think they carefully weighed his merrits and faults and decided that, on the basis of having owned slaves plus the genocide against the Lakota, they decided he didn't pass. The cynic in me, however, thinks it was more like, "Dead President and Civil War general, let's topple him."

And honestly, based on those metrics there are zero historical leaders who will pass. If that's the argument (no statues period), then let's have that discussion. I feel like it isn't though.


Yeah, I'm not too invested in a statue to Grant. If his statue comes down NBFD. At least the Confederate generals and flags are coming down and I'm sure that if Grant is somewhere watching he is OK with that.

I mean, it's not on the top of my list of concerns for the future of the country or anything. But if we are going to talk about it then I don't get the reasoning behind taking down some of these statues.

Confederate monuments, I 100% understand. Those should have been gone a long time ago.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?

New name:

Uncle Phil's Beaver Beatdown

ducktilldeath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One argument seems to be "but my T-Shirts" and the other one is "well, it's disrespectful to the descendants of slaves".

I didn't do debate in skool, but one of those seems like the short straw.
ducktilldeath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LunchTime said:

Fyght4Cal said:

LunchTime said:

What is too far?

Serious question.
Strap in. There's a 400-year backlog.
what does that mean? Anything goes because of past injustices? Anything goes because of current injustices?

What is too far? Seriously. Do you have a limit?

FWIW, "strap in" sounds like I should be ready for any retribution the mob demands. I am not.
It means there's still a ****load of racism all over the place, it's not hard to grasp. Renaming the CW could be libtard virtue signalling, yet it doesn't take away from the actual point. FFS, of all the things to argue about, being careful to not promote the kidnapping, rape, murder, torture, and general exploitation of humans shouldn't be a hot topic. If this were a topic about Nazi sympathizers there'd be no question because you've actually seen video of it.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducktilldeath said:

One argument seems to be "but my T-Shirts" and the other one is "well, it's disrespectful to the descendants of slaves".
I have yet to hear a good explanation for why it's disrespectful.
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducktilldeath said:

LunchTime said:

Fyght4Cal said:

LunchTime said:

What is too far?

Serious question.
Strap in. There's a 400-year backlog.
what does that mean? Anything goes because of past injustices? Anything goes because of current injustices?

What is too far? Seriously. Do you have a limit?

FWIW, "strap in" sounds like I should be ready for any retribution the mob demands. I am not.
It means there's still a ****load of racism all over the place, it's not hard to grasp. Renaming the CW could be libtard virtue signalling, yet it doesn't take away from the actual point. FFS, of all the things to argue about, being careful to not promote the kidnapping, rape, murder, torture, and general exploitation of humans shouldn't be a hot topic. If this were a topic about Nazi sympathizers there'd be no question because you've actually seen video of it.


All I know is that Disney better rename Mickey Mouse because the 12% Irish in me is very offended.
joe amos yaks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The annual uO v. OSu --

The Punch & Benny Show
The Old Applegate Trail.
The Scuffle on the Long Tom.
The Old Oxbow Skirmish.
The Clearcut-Harvest Bowl.
The Old Buzz-cutter.
The Chainsaw Cup.
Firs v Furs.
Quackers v Tail-flappers.
Tail feathers v Tail-flappers
Swag v Ag
The River flows north.
The Old Big Meander.
Upstream v Downstream.
The Big Deserving.
Phil v Phil.
Just Feed Phil.
Just do it!
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

LunchTime said:

Fyght4Cal said:

LunchTime said:

What is too far?

Serious question.
Strap in. There's a 400-year backlog.
what does that mean? Anything goes because of past injustices? Anything goes because of current injustices?

What is too far? Seriously. Do you have a limit?

FWIW, "strap in" sounds like I should be ready for any retribution the mob demands. I am not.


Just curious why people have decided to focus on public statues as the thing that could possibly lead to a dissolution of our great nation. There are so many other flash points that are both more problematic today and more likely to lead to serious consequences down the road.

I get it - it's possible that vandalizing statuary today could lead to violent overthrow of the federal government or whatever nightmare scenario you could think of but that's basically true for every other iniquity out there.

If people can't be bothered to wear masks today, what will we do when the zombie virus hits?

If we are being serious, what level of inequality are we willing to put up with in our society and at what point along the way before the equivalent of the French Revolution do people stand up and say it's enough?


The statue thing is just the most visible and tangible change people see, even if it's of lesser importance (and personally, there are some monuments that should come down, some that should stay, and some that are in between).

If I were in charge I would be focusing on policing practices, voter registration, and voting rights. Use the movement to get power, then initiate reforms.
concernedparent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

MaxBear said:

Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.
Grant, despite fighting for the Union, owned slaves before the war. That's why the protestors took it down.


He freed his slaves before the civil war.
Who cares. He was still a slaveowner.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MaxBear said:

Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.
Grant, despite fighting for the Union, owned slaves before the war. That's why the protestors took it down.
This seems like a fair account from a reasonable source. He owned one slave for a short period before freeing him. He was ambivalent on the question of slavery. He was fighting to save the Union, not to keep or abolish slavery. He worked a plantation where part of his job was to manage slaves and it appears he was not thrilled with that, but did it. The account is far better than my shorthand.

https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-grant-slaveholder/

One of my criteria for these types of questions is what the purpose of the honor is. Another is balancing the bad and good. Hypothetically, Thomas Jefferson's place in American history is more important than the bad things he did. If there is a monument honoring him as a slaveholder, it should come down. If there is a monument to him drafting the Declaration of Independence, it should stay up.

Under my formulation, Grant stays.

In any case, take all the monuments to the Confederacy down and then you tell people that we are not making decisions about monuments based on a few people getting mad and dragging them down. Put in a process that is reasonable that people can trust and then stop people from deciding for everyone by taking matters into their own hands.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concernedparent said:

golden sloth said:

MaxBear said:

Big C said:

sycasey said:

I guess I don't get the logic here. Was anything about the game's marketing or pageantry actually referencing the Confederacy?

The American Civil War was not the only civil war.

Just the name "Civil War" was too sensitive. Don't ask me to explain why, because I cannot, really. This is similar to tearing down the U.S. Grant statue. I mean, different for a number of reasons, but similar in distorted logic. PC gone amok.

But it's where we're at now.
Grant, despite fighting for the Union, owned slaves before the war. That's why the protestors took it down.


He freed his slaves before the civil war.
Who cares. He was still a slaveowner.
Maybe you think there was a better general that could have beat Lee?
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

LunchTime said:

Fyght4Cal said:

LunchTime said:

What is too far?

Serious question.
Strap in. There's a 400-year backlog.
what does that mean? Anything goes because of past injustices? Anything goes because of current injustices?

What is too far? Seriously. Do you have a limit?

FWIW, "strap in" sounds like I should be ready for any retribution the mob demands. I am not.


Just curious why people have decided to focus on public statues as the thing that could possibly lead to a dissolution of our great nation. There are so many other flash points that are both more problematic today and more likely to lead to serious consequences down the road.

I get it - it's possible that vandalizing statuary today could lead to violent overthrow of the federal government or whatever nightmare scenario you could think of but that's basically true for every other iniquity out there.

If people can't be bothered to wear masks today, what will we do when the zombie virus hits?

If we are being serious, what level of inequality are we willing to put up with in our society and at what point along the way before the equivalent of the French Revolution do people stand up and say it's enough?
Why is everyone so scared of this question? Does it offend people to think about where their limits are?

To your rebuttal: What is too far in law enforcement? There is quite a long distance between incarcerating murderers and incarcerating people unable to pay a jaywalking ticket who "resists arrest" right? I mean, isnt that what this is all about? Is murdering a black guy by kneeling on him 8:46 (or 7:46) the limit? **** no, it isnt. That is so far beyond the limit that its hard to even remember what the limit should have been.

We reached that point because no one was saying what is the limit as we incrementally moved the posts after each abuse. FWIW, my limit is when the legislators and courts legalize constitutional violations (ie when they can stop you for a minor infraction and search your car for larger infractions). But at SOME point, it became normalized for cops to take our recordings from our home without a warrant. Because no one says "X is the line." Every day the government pushes a little more. Hell, right now they are voting on requiring a backdoor into all electronic devices.

What scares you about answering THIS question? Because you might set a limit that ends up on the "wrong side?" Because you cant see things getting out of hand as we capitulate to the mob? Because you are with something that group did today? What is the limit to righting injustice? Murdering each other for the next 3000 years? "Troubles" for a decade maybe?

Is renaming innocuous things like the civil war OK? Is "autonomous zones?" Is defunding police 50%? Is defunding police 100%? Shooting federal security guards? Shooting Local law enforcement?


It is extremely telling when a simple question of "what is too far" gets this type of push back. Everyone should be asking themselves all the time what is too far, but it implies that incrementalism exists. I guess that is offensive.

You dont have to answer, you just have to think about it. Being offended by it is asinine.

To be transparent: My limits are:
1. The government should not be able to search property because of a minor ordnance violation contact. Hell, NYC went a step beyond and said they didnt even need a minor violation. That is the line they cant cross and maintain my support. Anything on the other side is unsupportable.
2. Wealth inequality is more nuanced, because that just happens. My line is at exporting the need for labor but doing it to increase margins. I support exporting capital to exploit low wage labor. It is a critical component to how capitalism makes the world better. But what happens is that the wealth of that company goes to a few people in the host country, and is spread back in the form of capital to the target country. The losers are the labor in the host country. My limit is when median "income" (as a proxy) stagnates or retreats while GDP grows. That started a long time ago.
3. With these protests, my limit is autonomous zones. Broad identity based statements of who owes who what. Tearing down monuments to historical figures of our country (ie Missionaries, Columbus, Confederates, etc I dont care about). Taking down those statues is fine with me. Mobs tearing them down is not.
4. Ping >150 in FPS gaming.

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LunchTime said:



What scares you about answering THIS question? Because you might set a limit that ends up on the "wrong side?" Because you cant see things getting out of hand as we capitulate to the mob? Because you are with something that group did today? What is the limit to righting injustice? Murdering each other for the next 3000 years? "Troubles" for a decade maybe?

Is renaming innocuous things like the civil war OK? Is "autonomous zones?" Is defunding police 50%? Is defunding police 100%? Shooting federal security guards? Shooting Local law enforcement?


It is extremely telling when a simple question of "what is too far" gets this type of push back. Everyone should be asking themselves all the time what is too far, but it implies that incrementalism exists. I guess that is offensive.

You dont have to answer, you just have to think about it. Being offended by it is asinine.

To be transparent: My limits are:
1. The government should not be able to search property because of a minor ordnance violation contact. Hell, NYC went a step beyond and said they didnt even need a minor violation. That is the line they cant cross and maintain my support. Anything on the other side is unsupportable.
2. Wealth inequality is more nuanced, because that just happens. My line is at exporting the need for labor but doing it to increase margins. I support exporting capital to exploit low wage labor. It is a critical component to how capitalism makes the world better. But what happens is that the wealth of that company goes to a few people in the host country, and is spread back in the form of capital to the target country. The losers are the labor in the host country. My limit is when median "income" (as a proxy) stagnates or retreats while GDP grows. That started a long time ago.
3. With these protests, my limit is autonomous zones. Broad identity based statements of who owes who what. Tearing down monuments to historical figures of our country (ie Missionaries, Columbus, Confederates, etc I dont care about). Taking down those statues is fine with me. Mobs tearing them down is not.
4. Ping >150 in FPS gaming.




Thanks for taking the time to respond. First, to be clear, I'm not offended and have never said or implied that I am. I don't think it's "asinine" to question why this has been singled out.

To more fully flesh out my point, there are only so many meaningful conversations that can be had so each one you pursue is a choice to the exclusion of others. We all choose to engage in conversations we believe are worthwhile and avoid those that aren't.

Many people decry the culture wars and consider them a distraction to progress on more meaningful issues.

While I appreciate your responses at the end, I was not implying that you had to go on record about the points I raised or that anyone is required to go on record on any topic, if they have a good faith basis to do so.

As to your particular question to me, to be honest I haven't thought much about where the line is or whether it's even a meaningful formulation of a potential slippery slope. There may not be any connection between the current petty vandalism and the future injustice that you seek to avoid. Occupy Wall Street didn't lead to a parade of horribles and, to the contrary, arguably motivated people to achieve there goals through proper channels.

I am far more concerned with state sponsored violence and the consequences of state actions on our society and would rather not have that discussion hijacked.
Fyght4Cal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LunchTime said:

Fyght4Cal said:

LunchTime said:

What is too far?

Serious question.
Strap in. There's a 400-year backlog.
what does that mean? Anything goes because of past injustices? Anything goes because of current injustices?

What is too far? Seriously. Do you have a limit?

FWIW, "strap in" sounds like I should be ready for any retribution the mob demands. I am not.
Luckily for the USA, Native-, African-, Asian-, and Latino Americans are not nearly as hostile to Caucasians, as Caucasians have been to them. In fact, that hostility is present in far too many cases. There are a lot of historical myths that all Americans must relinquish. There is also a lot of truth that needs to be taught.

Every monument to slavers and slavery needs to go. But more importantly, our dedication to a true multi-racial democracy must be reflected in all of our institutions and in the hearts of our people. Many will find change difficult. But on the other side of that change will be astonishing freedom for all.
🎵There’s the Highland Dutch and the Lowland Dutch
The Rotterdam Dutch and Tim DeRuyter 🎶
upsetof86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SadbutTrue999 said:

upsetof86 said:

But will they one day have to stop calling it a war as well? They should think ahead and maybe call it the Willamette Valley Conflict lol. Sounds like a second place winner at Sundance.
The 103rd Dispute in the Woods...


+1 Lmao
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oregon Big Game.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

Oregon Big Game.


Oregon is the top producer of hops and has a good microbrewery scene, so in keeping with the agricultural theme of other states I would go for "the Beer Mug Contest" sponsored by_________(name of highest bidding beer company). Then promote "civilly sharing a beer" after the game like they do in rugby.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

oskidunker said:

Oregon Big Game.


Oregon is the top producer of hops and has a good microbrewery scene, so in keeping with the agricultural theme of other states I would go for "the Beer Mug Contest" sponsored by_________(name of highest bidding beer company). Then promote "civilly sharing a beer" after the game like they do in rugby.


Not even close. Washington makes 6x the hops, by pound, as Oregon
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

LunchTime said:



What scares you about answering THIS question? Because you might set a limit that ends up on the "wrong side?" Because you cant see things getting out of hand as we capitulate to the mob? Because you are with something that group did today? What is the limit to righting injustice? Murdering each other for the next 3000 years? "Troubles" for a decade maybe?

Is renaming innocuous things like the civil war OK? Is "autonomous zones?" Is defunding police 50%? Is defunding police 100%? Shooting federal security guards? Shooting Local law enforcement?


It is extremely telling when a simple question of "what is too far" gets this type of push back. Everyone should be asking themselves all the time what is too far, but it implies that incrementalism exists. I guess that is offensive.

You dont have to answer, you just have to think about it. Being offended by it is asinine.

To be transparent: My limits are:
1. The government should not be able to search property because of a minor ordnance violation contact. Hell, NYC went a step beyond and said they didnt even need a minor violation. That is the line they cant cross and maintain my support. Anything on the other side is unsupportable.
2. Wealth inequality is more nuanced, because that just happens. My line is at exporting the need for labor but doing it to increase margins. I support exporting capital to exploit low wage labor. It is a critical component to how capitalism makes the world better. But what happens is that the wealth of that company goes to a few people in the host country, and is spread back in the form of capital to the target country. The losers are the labor in the host country. My limit is when median "income" (as a proxy) stagnates or retreats while GDP grows. That started a long time ago.
3. With these protests, my limit is autonomous zones. Broad identity based statements of who owes who what. Tearing down monuments to historical figures of our country (ie Missionaries, Columbus, Confederates, etc I dont care about). Taking down those statues is fine with me. Mobs tearing them down is not.
4. Ping >150 in FPS gaming.




Thanks for taking the time to respond. First, to be clear, I'm not offended and have never said or implied that I am. I don't think it's "asinine" to question why this has been singled out.

To more fully flesh out my point, there are only so many meaningful conversations that can be had so each one you pursue is a choice to the exclusion of others. We all choose to engage in conversations we believe are worthwhile and avoid those that aren't.

Many people decry the culture wars and consider them a distraction to progress on more meaningful issues.

While I appreciate your responses at the end, I was not implying that you had to go on record about the points I raised or that anyone is required to go on record on any topic, if they have a good faith basis to do so.

As to your particular question to me, to be honest I haven't thought much about where the line is or whether it's even a meaningful formulation of a potential slippery slope. There may not be any connection between the current petty vandalism and the future injustice that you seek to avoid. Occupy Wall Street didn't lead to a parade of horribles and, to the contrary, arguably motivated people to achieve there goals through proper channels.

I am far more concerned with state sponsored violence and the consequences of state actions on our society and would rather not have that discussion hijacked.
"Current petty vandalism"? What planet are you describing, Unit2?

Nationally, during the current protest, there have been 27 deaths so far, the latest being Secoriea Turner, an 8-year old little girl, riding in a car with her mother in Atlanta on July 4 when shooters manning a protest barricade opened fire on the car. At least one policeman, David Dorn, was shot and killed when he went to a friend's pawn shop in St Louis to help him deal with looters. Officer Shay Mikalonis was shot in the head during a George Floyd protest in Las Vegas, and the prognosis is that he will be paralyzed and on a ventilator for the rest of his life. An estimated 700 police officers have been injured in these protests, 292 in New York City alone.

In Minneapolis-St. Paul, the site of the early protests, 1500 businesses have been damaged or destroyed, wrecking the livelihood of thousands of employees alone. 150 buildings were set on fire, and dozens burned down to the ground. The estimated damage is $500 million.

That little excursion for protestors in Seattle to take over several blocks of that city, do some "petty vandalism," and protect the area with armed security of their own, resulted in those guards shooting two young black boys, a 16 year old who died, and a 14 year old. In all, 4 protesters have been shot, one girl allegedly raped, and many businesses and buildings damaged. And the police were blocked from entering the zone to help by the same security and protestors.

Another result of the protests is the police are pulled away from their usual responsibilities of trying to respond to 911 calls and managing crime, especially in inner cities, creating more opportunities for criminal to do their thing. About 67 people were shot over the weekend in Chicago, leaving 13 dead, including a 14 year old black boy out in the street celebrating July 4th.

None of this was "Petty Vandalism". So you are more concerned about state-sponsored violence than this "petty vandalism"? Where is this state-sponsored violence of which you speak? Do you honestly think the officer who killed George Floyd was doing this under orders or with the approval of any supervisor or public official of the state above him?

What has happened here was a tragic incident, an incident of extreme individual brutality, inexcusable. We do not know the motives or thoughts of this policeman, whether they involve racial prejudice or not, and hopefully the case will go to trial, and the facts will be revealed. But rather than wait for judgment, one group, Black Lives Matter, jumped to the conclusion that the killing was racially motivated. BLM is an organization founded by Marxists. They are Communists, in the true sense of the word. They hijacked the clear-cut issue of police brutality to push their own agenda, which is the dismantling and destruction of the United States, its government, its economic system, its culture and way of life. They could care less about black lives. If they really cared about black lives, they would go into the inner cities and lay their lives on the line there to try and destroy the drug culture there, try and end the black on black violence, which is the real problem. Do you realize that last year, about twice as many blacks were killed by other blacks (about 6000) than were killed by the Ku Klux Klan in 50 years? 1000 persons of all colors were killed by police, likely mostly justified, and some not justified. 235 blacks were killed by police last year, compared to 6000 blacks killed by other blacks, so I would say even though blacks killed by police is terrible, black on black crime is the greater problem. 48 officers were killed by perpetrators.

Over the last 50 years, the welfare system imposed on the poor has resulted in more black children born out of wedlock, and being raised by a single parent, the mother. Rates of delinquency have skyrocketed, and drugs and guns have infested the black population in the cities. The father has been replaced by the monthly government welfare check, and the incentive to go to work and earn a living is fast disappearing. BLM will take advantage of this situation to gain control over this country, and many of us have become willing dupes in this effort. Even blacks don't support BLM. Only one out of 7 BLM protestors is black. Most are white, mostly women, and more affluent. The news cycle is very short now, and George Floyd will soon be a distant memory. BLM will be looking for another martyr for the cause. The trouble is they apparently killed little Secoriea Turner themselves, so she won't do.

calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.