1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Man Murders Nine in Charleston Church

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Cheezy the Wiz, Jun 18, 2015.

  1. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,750
    Indoctrination can happen at any level, but when you centralize it you eliminate the dissenting viewpoints. I don't see why the US should repeat mistakes of the Ming dynasty with an effort to avoid regional problems as the goal.

    Mostly agreed, but I would like to point out that the laws created via religious backings in practice are not arbitrary. They tend to have a very real and targeted purpose. It's not a purpose you want to see from people who run a country, but unlike some of the justifications within the religious texts themselves the laws are quite powerfully focused. It would probably be easier to deal with that garbage if it WAS arbitrary.

    No need to bring in hindsight bias. Were any of the northern states seriously considering abolishing slavery at the time? I don't think this was credibly on the southern states' threat radar in 1776, but maybe there is evidence of that I missed. Massachusetts doesn't look a whole lot better than the others in the examples you've given.
     
  2. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    That may very well be true in an incredibly authoritarian or totalitarian society. But how possible is it in a modern democracy?

    The real problem is the Christians who want to force us all to live as they desire know they can't do so on religious grounds anymore. So they come up with secular excuses to support their meddling on others' lives. But who are they really fooling? Aren't the drug and abortion laws in many states extremely "arbitrary"? Why should any woman be forced to see a sonogram of a fetus and meet with a doctor twice before having a simple procedure which should really be far more widespread than it currently is?

    I'd hardly call it "hindsight bias" instead of critically examining what occurred and coming to a quite logical and rational conclusion.

    Besides it is well-documented this is the primary reason why so many compromises had to be made regarding so-called "states' rights". By 1776, it was obvious that slavery would eventually be abolished, much less by the time that the Constitution was finally ratified.

    In fact, one of the very first things the new Congress did was this:

    It was only a matter of time, and the wealthy slave owners in the Southern states knew it all too well. Eventually, they too would be forced to become rational human beings, despite how much they didn't wish to do so.

    "States' rights" was always about slavery to a great extent. That is until slavery was finally abolished. Then it largely became about how to still oppress blacks and other minorities, as well has how to continue to secure the right to tell others how to live their own lives.
     
  3. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,750
    I don't have enough knowledge to give you an evidence-based probability weight. Non-zero, and higher if we're not deliberate to avoid it, with devastating consequences if it happens worth making the effort to avoid it.

    As I said, these laws serve a purpose, just not a good one. You've even stated the purpose; to force others to conform to behavior that is not grounded in evidence. In doing so, you gain control. It's not as extreme in the USA as Islamic law under extremists who are in power, but it's conceptually similar. Even the exact stipulations can be viewed as "the most extreme inconveniences we can still get away with that shape behavior".

    As for the rest, I am disappointed that this was not a point of emphasis in my history classes, but not surprised. I doubt it was the sole motivating factor for leaders of the south, but given that timetable it would be hard to believe that it wasn't at least a major consideration.

    Interesting that Russia let the Crimean Khanate out so early. Like basically any large empire ever, Russia had some pretty impressive atrocities through its history (not inordinate, unfortunately, looking at how the Europeans and USA treated populations in North/South America and numerous historical examples before that) and the khanates made quite a few raids on Russian territory, captured its populace, and sold them to slavery. To see a pre-1800's abolishment there is interesting to me.
     
  4. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    19,451
    What in the hell, I actually managed to forget I was disagreeing with somebody who commonly espouses that the major victory over crime to be had is in convincing the poor and undesired to abort their pregnancies.
     
  5. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,750
    Arguments are separate from the people who make them. Even if the greatest fool imaginable claims that gravity will make you fall, you're not going to start floating all of a sudden, nor will a false statement from a brilliant mind become true. To that end, it's best to address each argument directly. Veiled ad hominem (through implication of a person's position on another matter being ridiculous) isn't going to help things much, and that holds even if the person's position is exactly as stated and every bit as ridiculous as you believe.
     
  6. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    What example(s) do you have of it occurring in any democracy, much less a modern one?

    I just don't worry much about tyranny breaking out in the US, or any other modern democracy for that matter. I think that is almost at the bottom of concerns I have, at least at present. But if we have more reactionary authoritarians appointed to the Supreme Court, and a few more presidents like the Republicans we have elected into office in the last 50 years, I reserve the right to change my mind.

    Most history teachers apparently whitewash the hell out of the subject based on my own experiences.

    I was incredibly fortunate to have a "rebel" American History teacher in the 8th grade who didn't. Instead, he spent much of the time teaching us how to think critically. How to read between the lines of what we read in the paper. Most of all, how to think for ourselves instead of how other teachers and our parents wanted us to think. It is difficult to imagine he wasn't eventually outed, fired, and banned from teaching.

    So in that regard, what you are describing is already occurring to an incredibly great extent. Much of what we learn in our schools is how to become good obedient citizens who always obey and believe the designated authority figures. To not even question what they tell you. But again, the real problem is now due to so-called "states' rights". Local and state school boards set the curriculum in the US. There is little power at the federal level. They can't even really monitor what the more backward states are teaching their children, much less intervene.

    Let me take this opportunity to do it one more time, just in case there is anybody who doesn't know to what you are specifically referring.


    Link to video.

    Of course, I wouldn't couch it in such terms to try to make me out to be some sort of terrible monster, which is the all-too-typical reaction towards any abortion proponents. That being "poor" clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    Instead, I would simply state that unwanted children is a huge and pervasive problem. And it always has been.
     
  7. .Shane.

    .Shane. Take it like a voter Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,233
    Location:
    NorCal
    Slavery is not a "side issue". It is "the" issue. The "Northern economic dominance" you talk about is Neo-Confederate code for the South being a'fraid that with Lincoln elected the "Black" Republicans would try to end slavery.

    It's written into almost every secession document of every Confederate state. It's in the speeches and words of their highest leader at every turn.

    It is obvious and inherent that as the South continued to cling to slavery while the North abandoned it (and it never had deep roots in the North anyway, contrary to what some Neo-Confederates will argue) clearly they developed differing economies.

    Of course, this doesn't excuse Northern complicity. Tons of Northerners benefited from slavery: shipping concerns, insurance, banking, textile manufacturers, and consumers.

    The North had no dominating interest in destroying the Southern economy. That is the paranoid viewpoint that Confederates and that their defenders have clung to, post-war.

    In 1860 the North was still primarily agrarian. The difference was that the North was diversifying and industrializing (ironically, Northern industrialization moved ahead by leaps and bounds due to the Civil War).

    Again, the North didn't control the Southern economy. The National govt, to which the South belonged, set policy, which back then primarily dealt w/ tariffs. For DECADES the South, in spite of being very much in the population minority, was able to get the Fed govt to produce tariffs and other policies favorable to them.

    In fact the North had been reducing tariffs in the years leading up to the War to placate Southerners. But, as we know, it wasn't about the tariff.

    It's no coincidence they left the Union once a Republican was elected.

    Not true in 1860. But that's largely why the seceded. They had long lost parity in the House, due to population. They finally lost balance in the Senate following the Compromises of 1850. But, they had managed to hold onto the Presidency via dough-faced Northern Dems (Pierce and Buchanan).

    So, once Lincoln won, they didn't even wait to see what would happen or how he would govern. They started seceding immediately following the election.

    When the Constitution was written in the late 1780s, the idea of the future of slavery was on their minds. They understood that they had fought and won a revolution based on radical ideas of liberty, freedom, rights, and democray yet knew they held millions in bondage.

    Slavery did still exist in many (most, if not almost all) Northern states, but, even w/ the Southern states, there was a perception it was a dying institution. And, since it was very possible it would die there was no need to risk creating a Constitution to argue w/ Southerners about it in 1787.

    The most telling fact supporting this is that in the Constitution they allowed the legal importation of slaves for 20 years and which point they would allow Congress to ban importation if they wanted. Guess what happened in 1807?

    What changed everything was the Cotton Gin. That invention allowed slavery to become an extremely viable model for Cotton. Cotton became the dominant NATIONAL (not just southern) export. By the 1850s iirc, it represented 50% of national exports.

    So, this development revived the dying institution and largely shifted course in the national trend with slavery.
     
  8. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,750
    You gave an example for me. Given that this already occurs at the state level, what makes you think it suddenly will not occur at the federal level, absent state influence? Schools are organizations run by human beings. They operate on incentives like everyone else. A federal government with an interest in perpetuating will create incentives for schools to act in a way that is beneficial to it. You want to create a situation where we could in theory (and given enough separate teaching points, likely in practice) have a nation-wide version of the Texas approach in some subjects. Texas still teaches its students math, English, and so on and by and large it teaches them the same way as other states. But then we hit a snag...and have a large number of frames of reference against that snag elsewhere.

    If you create one system, you have the potential to get the equivalent of fundamentalist creationism in several disciplines, or more emphasis on always obeying authority figures than we get now (after all, states seeking to preserve their rights will push against the authority figure of the federal government, creating dissonance that an intelligent student can see, noting that such is not necessarily a sufficient justification of the state as an institution).

    Once upon a time, you couldn't monitor what someone was doing a good distance away, and large nations were extremely difficult to administer due in part to long travel times and communication delays forcing autonomy in distant regions out of necessity. Then we got telephones, combustion engines, and the internet and a person can get to Australia from the eastern US in two days or less. An assumption of an inability to monitor is dangerous and the evidence we have now (recording ability, small computers, cameras everywhere, chips inside patients monitoring their vitals to make sure they don't die) lead me to believe that a continued inability...or even cost-prohibitive block to such monitoring isn't something on which to rely.
     
  9. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    I wasn't referring to indoctrination at any level. I was referring to any democratic country, much less a modern one, which had become tyrannical as a result of federal indoctrination.

    I really don't think it is much of an issue, much less one that is solved by having strong states' rights. The US is not going to become a tyranny. That is unless the states' rights / authoritarian crowd assumes even more power than they currently have.

    The problem isn't at the national level. It is at the regional level in only some parts of this country. Continuing to give them far too much power will only increase the chances of it possibly occurring in the distant future.

    We have had the technological ability to monitor every single classroom for decades now. It's likely not going to happen. But even if it does, the states' rights /authoritarian crowd will assure that data never reaches Washington. Instead, they will use it themselves to assure each and every single teacher is properly indoctrinating children as they desire.
     
  10. Oruc

    Oruc Reactionary

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    Messages:
    8,655
    Location:
    It's like I'm really in Revleft
    It's not subject changing, we're talking about the US, US flags and what they represent. The fact that it is a current national flag does not absolve it or the country it represents, because the country itself should be torn apart it is wantonly and disgusting imperialist.
    It has brought death and destruction across the globe with greater reach then any before, hopefully one day every American will judged for what they brought to the world.
     
  11. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    19,451
    Veiled? Credit where it's due, please. When the measuring contest breaks down to rough cultural lines, value judgements of subjective inputs drawn along those lines, then all you've got are the people involved and how they decide to take things. And frankly, if you're an old fossil raised in a culture of hate it's probably too much to try and set it aside. It's probably additionally intolerable if it looks like people are slowly and surely getting over what you find so terrible. That makes it urgent to act on your value judgments, to whip up the herd. If you're so completely terrible you don't have much of a heard to bleat with, then you probably acquire weapons and make plans to use them.
     
  12. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    I really don't understand why some conservatives think abortion is so terrible, and even murder in many cases. Why it is so terrible to not have a child you don't want. Why it isn't actually the sole decision of the woman directly involved. That it is none of their business what she does or doesn't do regarding her own pregnancy involving a fetus she doesn't want.

    "Justice means minding one's own business and not meddling with other men's concerns." Plato

    It invariably boils down to the absurd notion that any child born can find a good home, no matter how many unwanted children there are. Yet the orphanages and Foster homes are still overcrowded with all sorts of children who would love to be adopted. Much less what would happen if there were no more abortions in the world.

    Anyway, this isn't the topic of this thread unless it turns out the shooter was an unwanted child.
     
  13. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,750
    That's a goalpost a bit further off than the one I was trying to set. I'm referring to garden variety deliberate bias indoctrination, not a democratic nation schooling its children into hate crimes or something. Picture a scenario where the creationism teaching wins out by popular vote at the federal scale. If it does, it will perpetuate a long, long time. I consider that specific example to be unlikely, but conceptually similar things to be significantly more so.

    Like I said, I don't think this concern justifies states rights, it's just a concern to pay attention when making a large systemic shift. This is the type of thing that could probably get away with being something carried by whatever local bodies would theoretically replace states, perhaps alongside a functional overhaul of education in general.

    I believe you are far too much demonizing state bodies as government actors and not affording the federal level the same level of scrutiny. The main difference between the two is scale, not incentive structure or cross-issue track record (Texas didn't invade Iraq, but the USA did). You're running way too much halo effect favoring federal governance.

    It has been a comparatively long time since the USA has annexed territory into its borders. Your expressed distaste would be better-represented by another term or phrase.

    Hyperbole. Spain, Great Britain, Portugal, and even the Netherlands had a similar "reach". Russia, Germany, Spain, Mongol Empire caused pretty comparable death and destruction if you're talking about scale relative to their respective time periods.

    This is where the term "conservative" really seems to go off the deep end. Conservative of...religion perhaps? Historically, nobody would have given a care about living people dying off or being killed for any number of simple reasons. The ethics in question here are astounding. Are you going to chastise that woman's potential sin of abortion...or stone her to death as per scripture because she isn't Christian and/or abandoned the faith? Or are we just going to ignore that literal interpretation of the stoning bit and apply what is liked selectively? But if we're doing that, why stop there?

    I wish a more descriptive/useful term setup wound up co-opted ^_^.
     
  14. civvver

    civvver Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,854
    So how's this for overreactions?

    http://toucharcade.com/2015/06/25/apple-removes-confederate-flag/

    Bye bye civil war games. What's next, banning all CoD games that aren't modern warfare versions cus you might see a swastika in them?

    Is it fine now to make a civil war game as long as you make the south's flag something else like plain gray?
     
  15. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    I might even agree given different circumstances than what we have seen historically. But the only example I can think of where the states are better than the feds is the legalization of marijuana. And that is only in 3 states so far. I can only sincerely hope that the feds will get their act together long before a majority of the states have legalized state laws.

    Just look at how many states would invade ISIS-held territory tomorrow if they only had a military and a mandate to do so, much less Iraq long before Bush did.

    Have you lived in the South? It is difficult to imagine how bad it still is today if you haven't, much less how bad it was back in the 60s.

    I have no real problem with blue states with the exception of some of California more inane PC laws (which are basically harmless for the most part so no real harm). The blue states are quite rational for the most part and don't engage in anything but rational acts much of the time. If all the states were that way, I wouldn't even think it was important to strip them of nearly all their important powers because they generally don't misuse them. I still think it should be a goal to have uniform criminal and rights laws just to simplify matters though.

    But a day doesn't seem to go by without a Southern state legislature or governor doing something really stupid. A good recent example was Florida passing a new anti-abortion law that demands not only a sonogram, but two separate trips to the doctor performing the abortion in hopes someone can talk some sense into the clearly muddled mind of the prospective baby murderer. This sort of stuff needed to stop the day after Roe v Wade, never mind nearly 45 years later.

    It is much more understandable when you consider that nowadays conservative also means authoritarian almost without exception. It isn't their conservatism so much that is making them want to control everything everybody does around them. It is the rampant authoritarianism that makes them think they have the right to enact whatever laws they want to control the behavior of others. They seem to think that only they and people who think exactly the same way should have rights. And watch out if they only perceive someone might have possibly stepped on their own rights.

    It used to be that only the Southern states did this sort of thing, and you could count on the Supreme Court coming along in relatively short order to remind them that such ludicrous laws are unconstitutional. But now you are starting to even see it at the national level a lot more, especially now that the Supremes have shown they could go either way on a lot of these wacky laws in 5-4 decisions.

    You got my vote on that one. How pathetic. It reminds me of Germany banning Return to Castle Wolfenstein because the graphics contained a few Nazi emblems. What else are the Nazis supposed to display on their buildings and flags?
     
  16. Phrossack

    Phrossack Armored Fish and Armored Men

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,045
    Really, Orc? What have I, Phrossack, done? Committed the crime of being born in a piece of land claimed by an entity which has had many of its members do bad things?
     
  17. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I'll sit with you

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    19,326
    Location:
    On the one spin
    Again, subject changing mis-direction, exactly as I said...

    We most certainly are NOT talking about US flags. The Confederate flag is not and was not ever a US flag. I understand that you want to discuss your greivances with the USA and the US flag, but the US flag is irrelevant to this issue. The flag we are discussing is the Confederate States of America flag, not the United States flag. The CSA was its own, completely sovereign country, and the CSA flag is not the US flag.

    Trying to say the CS flag is a US flag is like saying the US flag is a UK flag.
     
  18. MagisterCultuum

    MagisterCultuum Great Sage

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    16,307
    Location:
    Kael's head
    The Confederate Constitution did not protect State's rights even as well as the US Constitution did.

    The Confederate government also acted quickly to levy protectionist tariffs.

    Most of those who invoked "states' rights" during the decades before the war were northerners who did not want the Federal government to require them to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts.

    You are confusing the Civil War and secession.

    Preserving and hopefully expanding slavery was the only issue that led the the elites who dominated the state legislatures to secede.

    The cause of the war was not however their secession, but Lincoln's response to it. He did not have to fight to keep the union intact. He could have just let them go. He could have taken advantage of their absence to make the rest of the union a free country like England or Canada, granting freedom to any slave who set foot in the country. He could have pushed to repeal the Fugitive Slave Acts, but instead chose to keep enforcing them during most of the war.

    The Underground Railroad would work a lot better if it did not need to go all the way to Canada. It would have made it much harder to maintain slavery in border states, which would encourage the slavers to sell more of them down south. It might have led to such a dense population of slaves that the deep south could easily have fallen to slave revolts (especially with covert northern backing), establishing black dominated governments like Haiti (which would likely have turned out much better were it not for the US embargo).

    While some poor southerners did hope that they or their children could become slaveholders some day, most of them did not care about slavery enough to ever fight for it. They were however attached to their home states by a strong sense of patriotism, and were eager to fight to defend it from invasion.

    Many Confederates reacted to the Union invasion in the same way that Iranian dissidents would if the US invaded Iran, by rallying behind leaders they would otherwise have never supported.

    The Union was the aggressor in this conflict. The Confederacy did not intend to invade and lay waste to the north. Of course, they did want to so that to Mexico, so there would have been another major war on their other border had they been let go. They were a monstrous regime and I am quite glad they failed, but I think they would have failed anyway without nearly as many American lives lost had Lincoln acted differently.

    (Yes, the Confederates technically fired the first shots, but only because Union troops had been deployed through their territorial waters to reinforce federal forts. Sending such reinforcements was a very sketchy action, bearing a strong resemblance to the actions of Polk which Lincoln has become famous for criticizing in his Spot Resolutions. If Lincoln had cared more about peace than unity, he could have agreed to enter into negotiations over what do with such such federal property.)
     
  19. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,747
    Letting them go wasn't really an option. A lot of the "industrialization" in the north was dependent on the resources produced in the south. Restrictions on international trade meant those resources did come to the north. Had they let the confederacy go they would have become just another international trading partner, and without benefit of those resources they wouldn't have been competitive with other nations that were industrializing at the same time.
     
  20. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    46,825
    Location:
    US of A

    So you agree that Russia should be destroyed.
     

Share This Page