Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[luiz]

I wasn't the slightest bit offended. I just wondered why you'd limit it to "colonists," when colonists were not all, or even most of the people living here at the time. I was criticizing your analysis because it left out a large number of people, and therefore seemed rather incomplete, perhaps myopic. Your analysis of the "average guy" left out a bunch of people. People who, despite your claims to the contrary, fought on both sides of the revolution. Just as "colonists" took up sides. Many slaves were granted their freedom by fighting with the rebels, many more found freedom by using the chaos of war to escape their oppressors. Many, of course, died in the war. That's to say nothing of the free blacks, who of course can't rightly be called "colonists." Then, of course, there is the far greater number of natives who suffered subsequent to the revolution, more greatly even than when the colonies were under British rule.

Yes, and?

I was having an argument about the convenience / effectiveness of adopting riotous / rebellious tactics. The American Revolution was brought up; I said even though things turned out well it is debatable whether it made life better for the people who rebelled (the colonists). The slaves didn't choose to rebel, and at any rate in average their lives were not really made better. Some were freed by the rebels, some were freed by the British, a lot died. And after the war slavery was kept for almost one century. So the presence of slaves changes nothing of my argument.

But seeing that it was an argument about the wisdom of "rebellion" (in fact rioting), when I replied to a comment about the American independence it was quite obvious that, in context, I was talking about the colonists, who actually chose to rebel. Slaves didn't take part in the Continental Congress.

I am not obliged to mention all groups that existed at the time just to make a simple argument about the impact of the decision to revolt on the people who actually chose to revolt. The colonists. Not slaves, free blacks or Indians. The post to which I replied was also obviously about the actions of colonists, not any other group. So I made an analysis based on that group, as any rational person would.

There is absolutely no way to read my statement and be unclear about that, but obviously you were not interested in clarifying any point or making any honest analysis, just throwing the usual SJW crap. "Oh he is talking about colonial history and didn't mention slaves! Quick, grab the pitchforks!"

 

[Lexicus]

Characterizing metalhead as an SJW is utterly ridiculous.

 

[luiz]

His "analysis" of my post is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, I don't agree that it was "ridiculous", just a bit off-base given the context of what you were responding to.

 

[metalhead]

Yes, and?

I was having an argument about the convenience / effectiveness of adopting riotous / rebellious tactics. The American Revolution was brought up; I said even though things turned out well it is debatable whether it made life better for the people who rebelled (the colonists). The slaves didn't choose to rebel, and at any rate in average their lives were not really made better. Some were freed by the rebels, some were freed by the British, a lot died. And after the war slavery was kept for almost one century. So the presence of slaves changes nothing of my argument.

But seeing that it was an argument about the wisdom of "rebellion" (in fact rioting), when I replied to a comment about the American independence it was quite obvious that, in context, I was talking about the colonists, who actually chose to rebel. Slaves didn't take part in the Continental Congress.

I am not obliged to mention all groups that existed at the time just to make a simple argument about the impact of the decision to revolt on the people who actually chose to revolt. The colonists. Not slaves, free blacks or Indians. The post to which I replied was also obviously about the actions of colonists, not any other group. So I made an analysis based on that group, as any rational person would.

Considering that thousands of slaves were granted their freedom by volunteering to fight in the Continental Army, I found your analysis of whether people ever gain anything by rioting/rebelling to be incomplete. I'd say they directly benefitted from their individual decisions to revolt against the governing authority.

You're right, you aren't obliged to mention anyone. But if you're going to offer analysis of historical events, a complete perspective is preferable to an incomplete one. In this case, I think the efficacy of "revolt" in the context of what happened yesterday in Baton Rouge is highly relevant. Not because slaves were black and a black man was executed by police, mind you, but because the calculus of what people can gain through revolt or rioting, versus what they have to lose, is highly dependent upon their station in society. So basing anything on the effect on "the average colonist" didn't mean a whole lot.

 

[luiz]

Considering that thousands of slaves were granted their freedom by volunteering to fight in the Continental Army, I found your analysis of whether people ever gain anything by rioting/rebelling to be incomplete. I'd say they directly benefitted from their individual decisions to revolt against the governing authority.

You're right, you aren't obliged to mention anyone. But if you're going to offer analysis of historical events, a complete perspective is preferable to an incomplete one. In this case, I think the efficacy of "revolt" in the context of what happened yesterday in Baton Rouge is highly relevant. Not because slaves were black and a black man was executed by police, mind you, but because the calculus of what people can gain through revolt or rioting, versus what they have to lose, is highly dependent upon their station in society. So basing anything on the effect on "the average colonist" didn't mean a whole lot.

Then mention that as a counter-example, instead of criticizing me for focusing on colonists when replying to a post a about the actions of colonists, on a rebellion that was started and chosen by colonists.

 

[Lexicus]

a complete perspective is preferable to an incomplete one

Isn't it though?

Probably the signal instance in American history of people gaining quite a bit by "rioting" was the General Strike during which hundreds of thousands of slaves ran away and joined the Union army.

 

[metalhead]

Then mention that as a counter-example, instead of criticizing me for focusing on colonists when replying to a post a about the actions of colonists, on a rebellion that was started and chosen by colonists.

Frankly, it makes more sense to criticize when one makes the absolute statement that "Rioting never made life better for anyone," than to offer a counter-example. When you followed that up with a post about late colonial America, it seemed like you were ignoring a large population of people, many of whom clearly benefitted from taking up arms against their governing authority.

Sometimes the only way to get the man to stand up and take notice of injustice is to threaten to burn his house down. There are no doubt thousands of examples of this throughout history.

 

[luiz]

Frankly, it makes more sense to criticize when one makes the absolute statement that "Rioting never made life better for anyone," than to offer a counter-example. When you followed that up with a post about late colonial America, it seemed like you were ignoring a large population of people, many of whom clearly benefitted from taking up arms against their governing authority.

Sometimes the only way to get the man to stand up and take notice of injustice is to threaten to burn his house down. There are no doubt thousands of examples of this throughout history.

Argue your point, then, instead of distorting what I was saying. If you want to argue that rioting can serve a purpose, fine. But your comment about slaves on my post was completely out of line. And I was replying to a post about colonial America (in particular an act by colonists), not making a point about colonial America. Specially because I would distinguish between organized rebellion and plain "rioting". The first can in some circumstances achieve good results (even if it's rarer than commonly thought), while the latter almost universally only makes things worse.

 

[Arakhor]

Once upon a time this was a Brexit thread.

 

[Lillefix]

So why did Nigel Farage step down? He said he wanted his life back, but does anyone believe him?

 

[Takhisis]

Some options:
His life is now meaningless since all he's ever been is a rasist prick. Well, actually he doesn't hold any significant office, does being an MEP even count?

Another is that he genuinely doesn't have a clue what to do because he's a rasist prick and never ever planned for anything beyond making 'Murica Britain great again.

Another is that he's not as utterly clueless as he portrays himself to be and he's realised, just as Boris Johnson did, that he is not capable of anything and never knew what would happen if he took things to their logical conclusion.

 

[Ajidica]

So why did Nigel Farage step down? He said he wanted his life back, but does anyone believe him?

It seems to me that like Johnson and Gove, he didn't really have a plan for what Brexit would entail. It is very easy to rant about immigrants and EU bureaucrats issuing edicts from Brussels, but I think he realized how complex it would be to extract the UK from the Common Market and the rest of the EU. Given he was probably the face of the anti-EU campaign, people would inevitably look to him to champion the invoking of Article 50. When faced with actual responsibility, Brave Brave Sir Farage decided to boldly run away.

 

[Takhisis]

*Sir Nigel.

 

[JohannaK]

To boldly flee in the face of political responsibility where other populist nutjobs ran just before.

 

[Kaitzilla]

It seems to me that like Johnson and Gove, he didn't really have a plan for what Brexit would entail. It is very easy to rant about immigrants and EU bureaucrats issuing edicts from Brussels, but I think he realized how complex it would be to extract the UK from the Common Market and the rest of the EU...

Hmmm, what detailed things are required for Brexit anyway?

Not being part of the EU seems easy to me since my country manages it everyday.
Surely it is a project that could be completed with a trade deal and 15 minutes of additional work.

 

[Takhisis]

Things required? Getting out is easy. Doing so in an orderly way that causes the least damage possible, within acceptable bounds, is obviously beyond the capabilities of the governments on either side.

"The whole system of government and politics needs an urgent overhaul, with more transparency, better record keeping, less departmental defensiveness, less received truth, more challenge to the consensus, and the channels to produce more informed decisions." –Mary Dejevski.

 

[Arakhor]

Then there's the 40 years of accumulated legislation that some Leavers love to dismiss as "EU bureaucracy", but will takes weeks on end just to decide what to repeal, let alone getting the various motions through Parliament in an orderly (yet not remotely timely) manner.

 

[Takhisis]

Speaking of motions, the Commons have passed one today in favour of letting EU nationals stay in the UK, etc. etc.

Of course, it's a non-binding motion.

 

[Akka]

Hmmm, what detailed things are required for Brexit anyway?

Not being part of the EU seems easy to me since my country manages it everyday.
Surely it is a project that could be completed with a trade deal and 15 minutes of additional work.

Please tell me you're trying to be ironic.