Well, using your own particular logic that makes you a Bing fanboi, right? Oh wow, I see now why you view the world in such a manichean fashion, it feels so good!
Wow, this post is like a shitcrazy hamburger. The buns on either side are stale as fuck and the meat is this weird chimera of conspiracy and lack of awareness.
And I've listed a few, but you strategically ignored them in your reply.
Nope. I mentioned earlier how dumb the south was not to include all the reasons you listed in their little breakup letter. If their concerns truly were as varied as you claim they were, they'd have put more effort into mentioning them instead of just sticking to the slavery issue. Troll harder next time.
And your argument would make more sense if you had said "we shouldn't build statues of these people because they believed in things that we now consider to be vile"
I did:) Quite a few of your precious momuments were built within the last 100 years, many decades after the civil war.
Besides, by your that rationale then we shouldn't honor MLK because he was against gay marriage
That's certainly a conversation you and I can have, but it's a wee bit off the beaten path of our current topic, which I'll remind you again is about our disagreement about the south's motivation for secession. Moreover, you've sustained none of your fantastic claims with evidence, so maybe tangents are a little out of your reach right now, hmmm?
your reading comprehension?
Pay attention here: Your specific reply to my sentence 'Literally no one's actually arguing for [the statues to be torn down by a mob]' was: 'You're the one clamoring to take all these statues down from public places.' I'll give you a pass if english isn't your first language. Otherwise, pay attention fuckwit.
Straw man (or you misunderstood). My point was that it was just one example that can easily be taken out of context (at the time very few people cared about the ethics of slavery) and used to say "it was slavery and only slavery so we have the moral high ground!". Some claim that all the taxes and laws (which disproportionately affected the south) may have been passed to bankrupt the rich there so that the northern industrialists could buy everything up. Anyway, the north was willing to continue allowing slavery as a bargaining chip to keep the country together and they still seceded, so obviously that wasn't "the reason" but "a reason", which may have been a simple, easily-explainable example of "northern oppression" without having to talk about overtaxing and not seeing any of those taxes back, etc.
An entire paragraph of stuff we're not arguing about. Thanks for boring me.
You mean the thing you're doing by reducing the cause of the single greatest loss of American lives to a single sentence while simultaneously painting everyone that supported the secession as evil and pathetic?
Another strawman. All I'm doing is refuting all your pathetic notions that the cause of the civil war was anything but the desire to continue slavery. Your varied hedges have no basis in history. Also, painting people who wanted to be able to legally own and exploit slaves 'evil and pathetic' is the correct thing to do. Vile motherfuckers get called vile names. Why you're fighting this concept I have no idea.
I say let each town have a public debate and decide on their own, just don't destroy them in a mob or quietly take them down in the middle of the night without discussion.
Literally no one's actually arguing for the former, and as for the latter, that's between you and your lcoal government. Don't look at me.
Who's the traitor to the country when our Declaration of Independence specifically allows for secession?
Not a legal historian, so I can't answer that. Although I doubt the qualifications for secession are that broad.
Only when you frame it in the broadest possible way, as you do. The rest of us just want statues of traitors and racists on private property or museums, where they belong.
so obviously it wasn't such a moral imperative to abolish it.
Even if assuming your little unsourced nugget there is true, it's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about what reason the south had to secede in the first place. Keep dodging, asshole.
Or, you know, you could realize that history is always written by the winners and they'll always find ways to twist things to make it so that the winner was 100% right and the loser 100% wrong.
Wait, so those devilish northerners went and rewrote the South's declarations after the war? LOL! The way you revisionists twist yourselves up to minimize half a country throwing a hissy fit because they can't own black people never fails to disgust me.
Assuming any of that bullshit is true, then further shame to the Confederacy for drafting what they knew was a historical document and doing such a shit job of making their case beyond "no one should be able to tell us we can't own slaves."
Meanwhile, the rest of us will apply Occam's razor and not trouble our minds with such crap.
It's not a slashdot thread until someone says "WELL, actually..."
Congrats comrade, you're technically correct, the best kind of correct!
And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades
Well, expect for that large gap from the late 80s to the mid-aughts, but sure!
And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world.
But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate is that somehow it was Trump working with the Russians on this.
So you admit they do it, but this one time only it didn't have an impact? Dafuq?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, using your own particular logic that makes you a Bing fanboi, right? Oh wow, I see now why you view the world in such a manichean fashion, it feels so good!
Wow, this post is like a shitcrazy hamburger. The buns on either side are stale as fuck and the meat is this weird chimera of conspiracy and lack of awareness.
3/10 would not eat again.
CEO psychopaths have inherited the Earth!
FTFY.
You see them quite often, glamorizing street thug lifestyle, gangsta rappers
HOT TAKE! GETCHER HOT TAKES HERE! WE PROMISE THEY'RE FRESH TOO!
Wow, that's like the most banal, underwhelming conspiracy theory ever. Bro, do you even internet?
Fantastic job wiggling around the point there, mate. Don't let the real world intrude on your thought experiments. Stay pure!
The car argument would be great if it weren't much easier to obtain a gun than a driver's license in most places.
Look up purity ponies. Plenty idiots on the left think Obama/Clinton are as bad as Trump.
And I've listed a few, but you strategically ignored them in your reply.
:) Quite a few of your precious momuments were built within the last 100 years, many decades after the civil war.
Nope. I mentioned earlier how dumb the south was not to include all the reasons you listed in their little breakup letter. If their concerns truly were as varied as you claim they were, they'd have put more effort into mentioning them instead of just sticking to the slavery issue. Troll harder next time.
And your argument would make more sense if you had said "we shouldn't build statues of these people because they believed in things that we now consider to be vile"
I did
Besides, by your that rationale then we shouldn't honor MLK because he was against gay marriage
That's certainly a conversation you and I can have, but it's a wee bit off the beaten path of our current topic, which I'll remind you again is about our disagreement about the south's motivation for secession. Moreover, you've sustained none of your fantastic claims with evidence, so maybe tangents are a little out of your reach right now, hmmm?
your reading comprehension?
Pay attention here: Your specific reply to my sentence 'Literally no one's actually arguing for [the statues to be torn down by a mob]' was: 'You're the one clamoring to take all these statues down from public places.' I'll give you a pass if english isn't your first language. Otherwise, pay attention fuckwit.
No one goes to war to "free those poor people because it's the right thing to do", that BS gets tacked on for justification.
One last time: Not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about the South's motivation for secession.
Calling people vile when that was the norm of the time is looking at the past through the lens of modern ethics.
This would be a much more useful argument if a) A good portion of these monuments weren't raised in "modern" times, and b) It weren't 2017.
You're the one clamoring to take all these statues down from public places.
Which you're now equating to destruction by a mob? The fuck is wrong with you?
Straw man (or you misunderstood). My point was that it was just one example that can easily be taken out of context (at the time very few people cared about the ethics of slavery) and used to say "it was slavery and only slavery so we have the moral high ground!". Some claim that all the taxes and laws (which disproportionately affected the south) may have been passed to bankrupt the rich there so that the northern industrialists could buy everything up. Anyway, the north was willing to continue allowing slavery as a bargaining chip to keep the country together and they still seceded, so obviously that wasn't "the reason" but "a reason", which may have been a simple, easily-explainable example of "northern oppression" without having to talk about overtaxing and not seeing any of those taxes back, etc.
An entire paragraph of stuff we're not arguing about. Thanks for boring me.
You mean the thing you're doing by reducing the cause of the single greatest loss of American lives to a single sentence while simultaneously painting everyone that supported the secession as evil and pathetic?
Another strawman. All I'm doing is refuting all your pathetic notions that the cause of the civil war was anything but the desire to continue slavery. Your varied hedges have no basis in history. Also, painting people who wanted to be able to legally own and exploit slaves 'evil and pathetic' is the correct thing to do. Vile motherfuckers get called vile names. Why you're fighting this concept I have no idea.
I say let each town have a public debate and decide on their own, just don't destroy them in a mob or quietly take them down in the middle of the night without discussion.
Literally no one's actually arguing for the former, and as for the latter, that's between you and your lcoal government. Don't look at me.
Who's the traitor to the country when our Declaration of Independence specifically allows for secession?
Not a legal historian, so I can't answer that. Although I doubt the qualifications for secession are that broad.
It's a slippery slope
Only when you frame it in the broadest possible way, as you do. The rest of us just want statues of traitors and racists on private property or museums, where they belong.
So lumping an arbitration agreement under "Right to Work" is simply incorrect.
Which is why I began my sentence with "Another", as in "in addition to". Could have been clearer, though.
Tell us more!
How far do you want to take this erasure of history?
Statues removed from public property is not, and never will be, erasure of history.
Another US-invented oxymoron: "Right To Work" laws are anything but. At least all that FREEDOM! balances it out though, no?
I think you're getting the cause and effect backwards here. Youtube is free, so why the fuck not?
so obviously it wasn't such a moral imperative to abolish it.
Even if assuming your little unsourced nugget there is true, it's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about what reason the south had to secede in the first place. Keep dodging, asshole.
Or, you know, you could realize that history is always written by the winners and they'll always find ways to twist things to make it so that the winner was 100% right and the loser 100% wrong.
Wait, so those devilish northerners went and rewrote the South's declarations after the war? LOL! The way you revisionists twist yourselves up to minimize half a country throwing a hissy fit because they can't own black people never fails to disgust me.
there are non-racist reasons to keep the statue.
Keep them? Sure. On public property? Not so much.
was far more important than slavery
Assuming any of that bullshit is true, then further shame to the Confederacy for drafting what they knew was a historical document and doing such a shit job of making their case beyond "no one should be able to tell us we can't own slaves."
Meanwhile, the rest of us will apply Occam's razor and not trouble our minds with such crap.
As for the civil war, it was less about slavery and more about economic freedom
Yeah, the economic freedom to own slaves. Nice dodge, asshole.
See the slider at the top of the page? You're welcome.
Wax cylinder or GTFO.
Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump."
It's not a slashdot thread until someone says "WELL, actually..."
Congrats comrade, you're technically correct, the best kind of correct!
And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades
Well, expect for that large gap from the late 80s to the mid-aughts, but sure!
And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world.
But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate is that somehow it was Trump working with the Russians on this.
So you admit they do it, but this one time only it didn't have an impact? Dafuq?
he "thinks different"
LOL, no. Not even close.