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.
Best Way To Defeat the Right?
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
Akka
Moody old mage.
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.
You can picture yourself as a revolutionary, you're just some no-name keyboard warrior with an inflated need of validation.
Senethro
Overlord
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.
Akka
Moody old mage.
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.
Senethro
Overlord
Post history says no. You're probably in favour of sarcasm as you use it so often, and you certainly believe in your own intelligence and tell people about it, but I've rarely seen you say things affirmatively. Such as: "Water is wet", as that would be to take a risky stance!
Moderator Action: Chill; there is no need to get aggressive. Thanks. Birdjaguar
Last edited by a moderator:
Akka
Moody old mage.
=>
Not going to waste more time with you.
Senethro
Overlord
If only you would be as respectful with our time as with your own!
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
This is probably going to be a complete waste of time, but nonetheless,
There is a curious irony when centrists begin to cut down their very own heritage. Factions like the Jacobins and the Montagnards were the reason why bourgeois democracy successfully took hold in France (and, from there, the rest of Europe over time) -- because the alternative was to be crushed and choked by feudal and foreign reaction that swarmed across France in 1793. That is the simple history of it, that the triumph of the bourgeoisie was paved with immense violence - and, if we have to be frank, the Montagnards and Jacobins are amateurs as far as that goes, when you compare them with Napoleon, who set ablaze all of Europe in a series of devastating wars. But you may say, oh, I am an American, this doesn't apply to me! In which case, it seems you'd be actually repudiating the proud and honest struggle of the U.S patriots (to colonize the West and own slaves) against the British crown. Now, will anyone in the audience call for George Washington seeking consensus with the British? No? Thought so.
History advances, for the most part, by the way of action, regardless of whether it is the ruling or the ruled classes that initiate it. Every step, every act by them that meets blows is what's remembered. We speak of the Patriot Act and the Bolshevik Party and not of James Buchanan and the Cadets. That fact is clear to anyone who studies history and isn't an absolute blockhead.
On one hand: yes. But it was also aided by fifty years of knocking down the can in various, compromises (e.g, the Missouri Compromise, the Nebraska-Kansas Act, etc.) by Notherners who, also, called for compromise, for consensus. What good did it do them! It goes to show that you have to end your enemies before they grow strong and resist you. Or you would face a civil war. It also goes without mentioning that the Reconstruction was incomplete, barren and ended prematurely, something that still affects U.S society. What you see before yourself is the fruit of the behaviour you plead for. Embrace it! Or at least stop pretending you're on our side.
There is a curious irony when centrists begin to cut down their very own heritage. Factions like the Jacobins and the Montagnards were the reason why bourgeois democracy successfully took hold in France (and, from there, the rest of Europe over time) -- because the alternative was to be crushed and choked by feudal and foreign reaction that swarmed across France in 1793. That is the simple history of it, that the triumph of the bourgeoisie was paved with immense violence - and, if we have to be frank, the Montagnards and Jacobins are amateurs as far as that goes, when you compare them with Napoleon, who set ablaze all of Europe in a series of devastating wars. But you may say, oh, I am an American, this doesn't apply to me! In which case, it seems you'd be actually repudiating the proud and honest struggle of the U.S patriots (to colonize the West and own slaves) against the British crown. Now, will anyone in the audience call for George Washington seeking consensus with the British? No? Thought so.
History advances, for the most part, by the way of action, regardless of whether it is the ruling or the ruled classes that initiate it. Every step, every act by them that meets blows is what's remembered. We speak of the Patriot Act and the Bolshevik Party and not of James Buchanan and the Cadets. That fact is clear to anyone who studies history and isn't an absolute blockhead.
On one hand: yes. But it was also aided by fifty years of knocking down the can in various, compromises (e.g, the Missouri Compromise, the Nebraska-Kansas Act, etc.) by Notherners who, also, called for compromise, for consensus. What good did it do them! It goes to show that you have to end your enemies before they grow strong and resist you. Or you would face a civil war. It also goes without mentioning that the Reconstruction was incomplete, barren and ended prematurely, something that still affects U.S society. What you see before yourself is the fruit of the behaviour you plead for. Embrace it! Or at least stop pretending you're on our side.
Akka
Moody old mage.
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.
Those I don't trust and hold in contempt are zealous ideologues. People who consider that they are the only bastion of good in the world, and anyone who doesn't fall in line with their pet ideology is an evil mortal foe to be crushed, or at best a collaborator/an enabler who needs to be either punished or reeducated. People who don't want to get a consensus, because the consensus might not agree with them, which says pretty much everything about them - just like their tendencies to conflate "centrist" with "moderate" and to consider both some sort of insult, say a lot about their grasp of nuance and what will happens if they ever seize the power.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
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
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.
Narz
keeping it real
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.
Last edited:
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.
Zardnaar
Deity
Nowhere was a Democracy in 1860 by modern standards. Women couldn't vote, and iirc something like one in seven could vote in the UK early 19th century.
Senethro
Overlord
Nah, having an opinion is better than being unable to form or communicate one at all, which is what I was implying in that posts original context.
warpus
In pork I trust
To clarify my position on these two points in particular, I believe that women should have the right to do with their bodies as they please and that it shouldn't even be a discussion. That it still is in some places is alarming.
As for refugees, that is a more complex issue, but refugees should not be mistreated the way they are all over the world today. Countries should also be severely punished for using refugees as a weapon. Anybody found exploiting refugees for monetary gain, whether it involves trafficking or not, should be thrown in jail for years.
Hopefully my position on these two subjects is clear. With that aside, yes, I think that certain people pushing the talking points back to these subjects is a big distraction from other problems
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
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!
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,851
Why are you putting dogs in the same list as slaves and women? Like…what on Earth are you trying to posit here?
This level of moral relativism is absurd. Slavery is a horrific evil and any society that practices it ought to be condemned, historical or extant.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
If there is anything absurd, it is the historical illiteracy on display here
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.
Similar threads
