Senethro
Overlord
Its pretty irritating when shapeless cowards who claim their inactivity is moderation go on to revise history so as to ideologically claim the radical of a few decades ago.
Just like when close-mindedness and stupidity is reinterpreted as courage.
You can picture yourself as a revolutionary, you're just some no-name keyboard warrior with an inflated need of validation.
I advocate for a lot of things, and quite strongly at that. That you're so completely unable to either notice it or understand it is telling and actually probably a symptom of the problem.Are you able to advocate for anything? Like, at all? Because if we subtract everything you gripe about, what we're left with is a sort of learned helplessness, which would actually explain a lot about you.
I advocate for a lot of things, and quite strongly at that. That you're so completely unable to either notice it or understand it is telling and actually probably a symptom of the problem.
Not going to waste more time with you.That you're so completely unable to either notice it or understand it is telling and actually probably a symptom of the problem.
=>
Not going to waste more time with you.
You're right, let's instead take inspiration from the Montagnards, who certainly didn't let these yellow-livered moderate get in the way.
Or better, those several communist revolutionaries who knew how to not get slowed down and which provided their population with resounding successes with all these "Democratic Republic of Something".
Ideological zeal has such a great record for human happiness, we totally should try to rely on it rather than consensus.[/
(BTW, isn't it precisely the ideological zeal of the Southerners which revolted against a democratic decision to limit slavery that started the war ?)
That's so obvious as to be a tautology. I don't mind action. I don't even mind some measure of revolutionary - the status quo doesn't easily change, and the status can be unjust and needing to be changed.History advances, for the most part, by the way of action
(BTW, isn't it precisely the ideological zeal of the Southerners which revolted against a democratic decision to limit slavery that started the war ?)
And creates cultural richness. Integration takes time and effort, but it happens where prejudice is absent. Look at how Hispanics have worked their way into the culture of the Midwest.People self segregate based on similarities? That doesn't bode well for melting pots.
What does it mean to say "I'm an advocate for x"?Are you able to advocate for anything?
In the first half of the 19th C in the US the definition of democracy did not include slaves; nor did it include women or dogs. Applying your modern sensibilities to a world almost 200 years gone is inappropriate.Edit: Also pretty hard to claim the US was a democracy in the 1860s when there was literal mass slavery btw
If by "ideological zeal", you mean "material interest tied up in the continued expansion of slavery as a means to balancing largely industrial or industry-serving anti-slave states", then sure! In the future, I strongly recommend you read American Exceptionalism and American Innocence to get a small taste of what was at work through all of this.
I would strongly consider growing past whatever bizarre Hegelian vision of history you've picked up over the last, what, three or four decades?
Edit: Also pretty hard to claim the US was a democracy in the 1860s when there was literal mass slavery btw
What does it mean to say "I'm an advocate for x"?
Having an opinion is worthless if that's all you got.
Anyone can say "I'm an advocate for single mothers (or fathers)", actually helping them raise the kid is another matter.
Issues like women's rights not to be shackled to a family because of a child? Because, that is what is at stake in this "non-issue", and the rabid way that the right-wing enforces social control upon women's lives. If you don't get it, that's not the left's problem, that is a you problem. Immigration: are you kidding me? Thousands of people murdered on the border, not to mention the fact that the U.S border (and, really, all borders - look to the EU, look at Poland nowadays) is instrumental in establishing state terror.
In the first half of the 19th C in the US the definition of democracy did not include slaves; nor did it include women or dogs. Applying your modern sensibilities to a world almost 200 years gone is inappropriate.
In the first half of the 19th C in the US the definition of democracy did not include slaves; nor did it include women or dogs.
Applying your modern sensibilities to a world almost 200 years gone is inappropriate.
People have wanted more rights and less oppression for 6000 years. That is irrelevant to the question of whether the US was undemocratic in 1850. The rules of US democracy in 1850 were known and did not include voting rights for slaves, women Indians or dogs.Except that, slaves and women agitated for their rights thorough the entirety of the 19th century, you absolute fool. There is nothing modern about people wanting basic democratic rights!