Brought to you by CFC

[Kyriakos]

I don't think that Trumped will win at all. I mean it will be pretty suicidal to have such a clown as the final candidate. He would likely lose to a piranha as well.

Btw, any polls by now (i mean peripheral/sporadic polls, obviously it is unrealistically early for more focus) on a Rand Paul vs Hillary possible outcome?

In general i view Hillary as one of the worst choices, and Paul as the more (only?) sane/sane-ish choice for the other party. But i should note that i have not followed the debates much..

 

[choxorn]

If I knew how to photoshop or make gifs, I'd make a gif of this with Trump's head photoshopped on top of our lord and savior Ron Paul's.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Thanks, Lucy!

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Okay, you Americans seriously need to elect Donald Trump this coming election.

This is setting a dangerous precedent. Now watch President Trump decide to change the name of the nation's capital to Donald DC.

That would be hilarious, given everybody would just start calling your capital Donald Duck.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yes, but like nukes, if everyone can make a robot army overnight, robot armies will be useless and obsolete and never ever actually used, beyond as a tool of intimidation.

I will be printing sex robots !
Not sure if they will be useful as tools of intimidation

If they have large enough breasts. Large breasts are said to be quit intimidating to some men.

Especially when large enough to hide ICBMs in them...

5char

 

[caketastydelish]

Out of boredom/nostalgia I went to my visitor wall for a blast to the past. Someone wrote this there. I won't tell you who, but let's just say you probably wouldn't be surprised to find out:

"I really hear you on that second paragraph of the first part. My main argument is that the south had a legal right to secede, not really that they had any morals (The North didn't either though.) The reality is, Lincoln attacked the south to force them to stay in his country, not because of slavery, that's what bothers me. If the invasion was to free the slaves, fine, but its not.

There's some real nuances to do with slavery, the main one being that, as awful as it was as an institution, most slaves *Were* treated better than people think. Now, that doesn't excuse the institution, its evil, but a lot of slaves did stay voluntarily, which says a little about it. I think its absolutely relevant that a lot of people were even worse off (Although I'll give you gratefully it had nil to do with race) in the 1890's than the slaves were in the 1850's."

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The content may be wrong, but assuming it to be true, that is not such a terrible argument. Yes it relativizes and that is problematic, but since it does not excuse, for all I can see, we may just as well call it contextualization.

That is what the fresh eyes of a child can provide. A fresh contextualization. Even if I understand your ideological qualms in this case.

 

[caketastydelish]

You have me wrong. I'm probably less than 5% of OT that would defend him and say he wasn't a white supremacist. But he also genuinely wondered why people accused him of such. It's a "politically incorrect" post by him, at the very least. It's awfully insensitive and I don't think he realizes the full-on implications of what he's saying.

Slaves staying "voluntarily"... what. During slavery they stayed on their plantations because of the fear of what would happen if caught after escaping. After slavery was over, some of them may have worked for their former masters yes... they were then working for MONEY and given some amount of basic human rights. They may be in the same geographical location, but it isn't even remotely the same situation.

edit: To bring the point home, I find it ironic that the same person who says "well, slavery isn't all that bad because the northern factory workers were wage slaves which is almost even worse" is also the same person that wants to completely get rid of the minimum wage and give workers no rights.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I actually suspect you truly overestimate the practical relevancy of freedom out of ideological reasons "cause FREEEDOOOOAM111111!!!!!!!"
If for instance you got the choice between no home, no food, no foreseeable income in a white world which collectively looks down on you and a master who you have grown to at least somewhat trust and who provides for you (not all masters were cruel monsters, I am sure - as cruel as that sounds, just as to pets, many masters surely had a quit trusting relationship to their slaves) - then the choice may be an easy one. Against freedom. Just such were the opportunities at the time. Simple as that. Freedom isn't that important. Or why do you think the vast majority of people enslave themselves so willingly to whatever employer? Choice does not matter if you do not actually have it (that much).

 

[caketastydelish]

First, a lot of them did get in a better situation. Not all of them stayed. And to those that did, they now at least sort of had dignity. And yes, everyone has to work for a living unless they're lucky. But they have the CHOICE to work for someone else. They have the CHOICE to go somewhere else. You can't tell me it doesn't make a difference.

Second, for those whose situation only marginally improved, that's because of the Jim Crow/racist laws that were put in place following the end of slavery. Black people went from having no rights whatsoever to some rights. Not as much rights as whites have, but some rights.

In other words, "no foreseeable income in a white world which collectively looks down on you" is very much tied together to a white world where blacks are enslaved to begin with. A white person being "nice" to their slave and a white person being nice to a black equal are completely different things.

I highly, I highly doubt the slaves were happy as they were. The odds of being caught while escaping was very real, which probably scared lots of them from trying to. Beyond this I highly doubt the slaves all of a sudden got treated even worse once they were freed, whether they decided to work for their former masters or otherwise. I'm sure the pay was barely enough to get by. I'm sure the hours were long. I highly doubt it was any worse than while they were actual slaves though, that's the thing. The only difference is now they are human beings with some amount of rights, whereas before they had none. They went from nothing at all to just a little bit.

And even with all the discrimination against blacks at the time, some of them would indeed go on to become rich, educated and much more highly successful than many poor whites would be of the same time. Yes, even with all these whites looking down on them. The odds were grim, yes. But how could you argue the odds actually got worse, than while they were slaves?

edit: the problem is that

a) his basis that "the slaves were actually treated fairly well" is a giant presumption already. Slaves were beaten, abused, raped, etc on an outright regular basis.

b) Ok, fine. Whatever. Let's just say while the poor whites in the north were working their ass off in factories getting their fingers chopped off, the black slaves got to just sit down and play nintendo all day while their sugar daddy master baked them a cake. They are still SLAVES, and moreso, they know it. I can be nice to a dog or cat but it's not equal to me. They were a 'plaything companion' at the very, very best. They know the only reason their master is "nice" is because their master doesn't take them seriously to begin with.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

First, a lot of them did get in a better situation. Not all of them stayed. And to those that did, they now at least sort of had dignity. And yes, everyone has to work for a living unless they're lucky. But they have the CHOICE to work for someone else. They have the CHOICE to go somewhere else. You can't tell me it doesn't make a difference.

I am not. But I got the impression you may overestimate the importance of that difference beyond measure, beyond more crucial concerns as that you even have a way to provide for yourself (and your family).

But assuming that you are correct that the situation improved immediately or fairly quickly for many and for those it did not it was due to further institutionalized racism - then this would mean the not-to-be-named poster was (arguing in good faith) simply ill-informed.
However, that only makes his quote stupid if that wrong information was obviously wrong, and I don't see that. But maybe I am ill-informed, too.

I highly doubt the slaves were happy as they were.

I am sure they weren't, overall. To be permanently subdued is in principle a bad feeling, period. That is just the infamous "human nature". That only changes when that feeling is replaced by a feeling of trust or even love, but for such a complete replacement, I'd imagine you would need an extraordinary great relationship to your master, which surely was not the normal state of things.

I highly doubt it was any worse than while they were actual slaves though, that's the thing. The only difference is now they are human beings with some amount of rights, whereas before they had none. They went from nothing at all to just a little bit.

You may be right, in many instances I am sure you are, but again, that just is not obvious to me on the whole. Slavery provides a security which can be attractive in the face of truly abysmal employment situations. At least that is my assumption. Though you got a point that those abysmal situations were to an at the very least relevant part a product of the very same slavery.

a) his basis that "the slaves were actually treated fairly well" is a giant presumption already. Slaves were beaten, abused, raped, etc on an outright regular basis.

He did not say so, at least in the quote provided by you. He said they were treated better than people think, not exactly "well".

 

[abradley]

{Snip}

b) Ok, fine. Whatever. Let's just say while the poor whites in the north were working their ass off in factories getting their fingers chopped off, the black slaves got to just sit down and play nintendo all day while their sugar daddy master baked them a cake. They are still SLAVES, and moreso, they know it. I can be nice to a dog or cat but it's not equal to me. They were a 'plaything companion' at the very, very best. They know the only reason their master is "nice" is because their master doesn't take them seriously to begin with.

At http://www.maddogdrivethru.net/viewtopic.php?p=245051#p245051 there's a link to a book titled

'U.S. Slaves and English Farmworkers Compared, c. 1750-1875'
by Eric V. Snow

This book compares American slaves and English farmworkers in the general period of 1750-1875 concerning their standard of living, the quality of life, the sexual division of labor, how their superiors attempted to control them and how the slaves and farmworkers attempted to resist their superiors. It makes a heavy use of primary and leading secondary sources. Roughly the first fourth of this book was accepted as an M.A. thesis at Michigan State University in 1997.

Might be of interest.

 

[Flying Pig]

If your choice is to work for Mr Smith or starve, it's not a free choice. If you can move employers, but all of the employers are equally awful, you don't have a free choice about your employment conditions. I think Terx has essentially got it.

Anyway, isn't this supposed to be a thread of funny or interesting posts?

 

[gay_Aleks]

You already know the answer. Two.

the perfect way to end a thread.

 

[Kyriakos]

the perfect way to end a thread.

Nice that it ended on that note indeed

 

[sophie]

You have me wrong. I'm probably less than 5% of OT that would defend him and say he wasn't a white supremacist. But he also genuinely wondered why people accused him of such. It's a "politically incorrect" post by him, at the very least. It's awfully insensitive and I don't think he realizes the full-on implications of what he's saying.

It's rude to speak ill of the dead.

 

[Formaldehyde]

At http://www.maddogdrivethru.net/viewtopic.php?p=245051#p245051 there's a link to a book titled Might be of interest.

I find your comment in that thread you started far more interesting:

Because he's a Christian he's not to be believed ... if he was an atheist would you believe him.

Congrats, you just got a REP from Nero. :roll:

You certainly do love your smileys.

How can you possibly compare slavery to free people being mistreated as farm workers in England during the same period? To what end? As a rationalization for slavery? Or as a condemnation of the exploitation of the English poor? Only the latter makes any sense at all.

 

[abradley]

I find your comment in that thread you started far more interesting:

You certainly do love your smileys.

How can you possibly compare slavery to free people being mistreated as farm workers in England during the same period? To what end? As a rationalization for slavery? Or as a condemnation of the exploitation of the English poor? Only the latter makes any sense at all.

Very easy, find out the standard of living for each. Rather like comparing a jungle dwelling Brazilian's life style to a City dweller.

As for the rest of your questions, they're answered in the linked thread. As to what makes sense, read the thread and point out the senseless points.

Smileys, yah

And what comments do you find '...more interesting.'

 

[sophie]

One thing I don't like is when people don't like pork because its 'disgusting', or 'pigs are disgusting and they roll around in mud all day'.

They're still far less disgusting than us humans.

Do you eat humans?

Flawless victory.

 

[Flying Pig]

How can you possibly compare slavery to free people being mistreated as farm workers in England during the same period? To what end? As a rationalization for slavery? Or as a condemnation of the exploitation of the English poor? Only the latter makes any sense at all.

Does history always need a moral angle? I'm not sure it should be always impossible to write or think about (say) slavery or war without including a comment about how slavery and war are bad things. The facts you lay out should speak for themselves.