Random Thoughts IV: the Abyss Gazes Back

[Snerk]

I think he's just trying to break it to himself and to us that he's about to turn forty.

Then we throw him a surprise party!

edit: a Morrowind themed one!!

 

[Dachs]

Do you think that the when West Virginia seceded from Virginia, they were hoping that the rest of the state would politely rename itself "East Virginia"? Can we maybe help them start some sort of petition?

hi

not just "no", but [REDACTED] no

---

Let's be slightly more serious, though.

The other States of the Union that got themselves split into multiple states of the same name were split on more or less an even basis. The Province of Carolina was huge and unwieldy and impossible for the colonial government to manage effectively and so got itself split into more or less coequal chunks. The Dakota Territory also got itself split into basically coequal chunks.

What became West Virginia in 1863 was not more-or-less half of Virginia. It was always the "different" part - different terrain, different population numbers, different population type and density, vastly different history, and so on. Most of what became WV was west of the Proclamation of 1763 line, and thus didn't really participate in Virginian colonial history until very late in the game. It remained the "different" part of the state long after the Revolution. Ideally, this would have been reflected by a name appropriate to its status as "not really Virginia", just like how Vermont was named, well, Vermont rather than rejoicing in the horrifically absurd mouthful of Northeast New York. And so, when the Unionist counties of western Virginia aggregated under federal military protection in 1861, they first organized under the name of the State of Kanawha, an exceedingly appropriate name due to the prominence of the Kanawha River in western Virginian geography. (It would also have made for a good litmus test to see who's from the state and who isn't; to this day, well over 99% of people from outside WV cannot correctly pronounce "Kanawha".)

Unfortunately, the 44 idiot delegates to the state's first constitutional convention in December 1861 abandoned the name of Kanawha and settled on West Virginia, explicitly to acknowledge the new state's heritage as formerly being part of Virginia. The new name is brainless in most respects, but it does get one thing right: West Virginia is basically, in Virginians' eyes, the crappy offshoot of Real (tm) Virginia. They may very well have been politely hoping for a rename! But it ain't gonna happen unless something apocalyptic changes.

The most important reason, in most Virginians' eyes, is that their state has all the history and WV's doesn't, and changing the name would be like abandoning that history. Related to that reason is the second reason, which is that populous and wealthy Virginia is not going to change its name just because thirty men in Charleston in 1861 decided they wanted the hick part of the Commonwealth to have a different name. West and East Virginia implies some sort of coequality. West Virginia is clearly inferior in the real world - say the Virginians - in basically every way and therefore "proper" Virginia ought not stoop to their level. Now, sure, you could happily argue that Virginia lost any right to its old name by rebelling, and frankly I would agree, but the fact of the matter is that nothing was done about it back in the 1860s when it might have actually made sense and changing it now would be absolutely bonkers, especially since nowadays Virginia is way more Unionist than West Virginia is.

There's also the geographic argument. "East" Virginia extends further west than does West Virginia, due to Lee, Wise, and Scott Counties. North and South Virginia would be slightly more accurate, because the northernmost point of WV in Hancock County is way further north than Loudoun and Frederick Counties in VA while the southernmost point in VA (too many counties to name) is south of the southernmost point in WV. But it would still never ever happen. Also, anyone who seriously touts Northwest and Southeast is just kidding himself.

For what it's worth, West Virginia has a long history of flirting with cool names (like Vandalia) and appropriate ones (like Appalachia) but ultimately settling on terrible ones (like Westsylvania). Frankly, at this point, they thoroughly deserve their terrible name even if it confuses geographically illiterate foreigners.

Whitey Bulger was killed in prison this morning. Better late than never?

nah it was just a cover-up for Nick Valentine getting revenge

 

[Cutlass]

hi

not just "no", but [REDACTED] no

---

Let's be slightly more serious, though.

The other States of the Union that got themselves split into multiple states of the same name were split on more or less an even basis. The Province of Carolina was huge and unwieldy and impossible for the colonial government to manage effectively and so got itself split into more or less coequal chunks. The Dakota Territory also got itself split into basically coequal chunks.

What became West Virginia in 1863 was not more-or-less half of Virginia. It was always the "different" part - different terrain, different population numbers, different population type and density, vastly different history, and so on. Most of what became WV was west of the Proclamation of 1763 line, and thus didn't really participate in Virginian colonial history until very late in the game. It remained the "different" part of the state long after the Revolution. Ideally, this would have been reflected by a name appropriate to its status as "not really Virginia", just like how Vermont was named, well, Vermont rather than rejoicing in the horrifically absurd mouthful of Northeast New York. And so, when the Unionist counties of western Virginia aggregated under federal military protection in 1861, they first organized under the name of the State of Kanawha, an exceedingly appropriate name due to the prominence of the Kanawha River in western Virginian geography. (It would also have made for a good litmus test to see who's from the state and who isn't; to this day, well over 99% of people from outside WV cannot correctly pronounce "Kanawha".)

Unfortunately, the 44 idiot delegates to the state's first constitutional convention in December 1861 abandoned the name of Kanawha and settled on West Virginia, explicitly to acknowledge the new state's heritage as formerly being part of Virginia. The new name is brainless in most respects, but it does get one thing right: West Virginia is basically, in Virginians' eyes, the crappy offshoot of Real (tm) Virginia. They may very well have been politely hoping for a rename! But it ain't gonna happen unless something apocalyptic changes.

The most important reason, in most Virginians' eyes, is that their state has all the history and WV's doesn't, and changing the name would be like abandoning that history. Related to that reason is the second reason, which is that populous and wealthy Virginia is not going to change its name just because thirty men in Charleston in 1861 decided they wanted the hick part of the Commonwealth to have a different name. West and East Virginia implies some sort of coequality. West Virginia is clearly inferior in the real world - say the Virginians - in basically every way and therefore "proper" Virginia ought not stoop to their level. Now, sure, you could happily argue that Virginia lost any right to its old name by rebelling, and frankly I would agree, but the fact of the matter is that nothing was done about it back in the 1860s when it might have actually made sense and changing it now would be absolutely bonkers, especially since nowadays Virginia is way more Unionist than West Virginia is.

There's also the geographic argument. "East" Virginia extends further west than does West Virginia, due to Lee, Wise, and Scott Counties. North and South Virginia would be slightly more accurate, because the northernmost point of WV in Hancock County is way further north than Loudoun and Frederick Counties in VA while the southernmost point in VA (too many counties to name) is south of the southernmost point in WV. But it would still never ever happen. Also, anyone who seriously touts Northwest and Southeast is just kidding himself.

For what it's worth, West Virginia has a long history of flirting with cool names (like Vandalia) and appropriate ones (like Appalachia) but ultimately settling on terrible ones (like Westsylvania). Frankly, at this point, they thoroughly deserve their terrible name even if it confuses geographically illiterate foreigners.

nah it was just a cover-up for Nick Valentine getting revenge

The way to settle this is to force Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, to unite as one state forever after known as Traitorland.

 

[Takhisis]

You're leaving Alabama out, which means you're being discriminatory.

 

[Cutlass]

We'll combine Alabama and Mississippi with Louisiana and call it West Traitorland.

 

[Ajidica]

You're leaving Alabama out, which means you're being discriminatory.

Nobody deserves the ignominy of having to live in Alabama or Mississippi.

 

[cardgame]

But where do you live, Ajidica?

 

[Ajidica]

Minnesota, the first state to pledge troops to fight the traitors.
(And gave us two of the best almost-presidents in Humphrey and Mondale.)

 

[cardgame]

For some reason I was under the impression that you were Australian.

Not to discount the plight of Alabama and Mississippi, but every single day, 25 million people suffer from being Australian.

 

[Takhisis]

For some reason I was under the impression that you were Australian.

You need more fiftychattin'.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm honestly curious what made you think I came from a land where you have to fight off baby-eating dingos.

 

[Dachs]

The way to settle this is to force Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, to unite as one state forever after known as Traitorland.

you could just combine NC, SC, and GA so you don't lose two Dem senators

 

[Cutlass]

you could just combine NC, SC, and GA so you don't lose two Dem senators

If you do it your way, best case, 2 and 2. But it might fall out 1-3 or 0-4. If we do it my way, it could fall out 2-0, 1-1, 0-2. The smaller numbers favor the not-traitor states having the overall advantage.

 

[Arakhor]

I think he's just trying to break it to himself and to us that he's about to turn forty.

I've probably mentioned it before, you know.

Then we throw him a surprise party!

edit: a Morrowind themed one!!

That sounds like a capital idea.

 

[Dachs]

If you do it your way, best case, 2 and 2. But it might fall out 1-3 or 0-4. If we do it my way, it could fall out 2-0, 1-1, 0-2. The smaller numbers favor the not-traitor states having the overall advantage.

Nah, it couldn't fall out 2-0 or 1-1. NoVA + Richmond is enough to win Senate elections for VA but it ain't enough population to overpower GOP voters in the Carolinas and Georgia, especially when NC and GA both have higher populations than VA. We do it your way, best case is 0 Dem 2 GOP.

Plus, borders for VA + NC together look terrible.

 

[Cutlass]

Nah, it couldn't fall out 2-0 or 1-1. NoVA + Richmond is enough to win Senate elections for VA but it ain't enough population to overpower GOP voters in the Carolinas and Georgia, especially when NC and GA both have higher populations than VA. We do it your way, best case is 0 Dem 2 GOP.

Plus, borders for VA + NC together look terrible.

OK. So we rename Virginia to North Traitorland. Add Tennessee and Arkansas to West Traitorland. And combine Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas into West West Traitorland. We can even rename Florida into South Traitorland. Then just because we're in the process, we can combine the Dakotas, and then make Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming into one state.

All of this should improve the politics in the US for generations to come.

 

[Broken_Erika]

...Then just because we're in the process, we can combine the Dakotas, and then make Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming into one state.

Mondaming?

 

[Ryika]

After having had a very long discussion with a sort-of radical feminist, I still don't understand how a person can hold these two beliefs at the same time:

- One of the reasons why women still aren't fully emancipated, is that society has expectations about how women are supposed to act.
- The Hijab is not a symbol of oppression in the West because no woman is forced to wear it.

Even if I take the premise of the second statement at face value, then the first statement still completely invalidates it. If it is true that societal expectations towards women imply some form of oppression - and it very well may (depending on the exact definition that is being used), given that going against societal standards has negative consequences - then surely Muslim culture in the West still very much pushes women towards wearing the Hijab, even if they are not forced directly.

So in my opinion, a person who thinks that a society that has expectations towards a group of people, is oppressing that group of people, must also apply this to the wearing of the Hijab. If they don't want to do that, then they have to get rid of the idea that having expectations towards a group of people implies oppression. Both are, I would say, valid ways of looking at society, but one has to decide which one one wants to follow, not pick and choose the one that suits ones agenda best.

 

[Birdjaguar]

People are quite capable of holding opposing and contradictory positions in their heads at the same time and being perfectly happy with the situation.

 

[Ryika]

Sure. What I mean people can't hold these positions and have a consistent world view when it comes to what constitutes oppression and what doesn't. They are contradictory positions, is what I'm trying to say.