The Real problem with cancel culture

[HisMajestyBOB]

He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.

And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.

  First Rule of Holes applies.

I've always wanted to ask: what's the Second Rule of Holes?

[Josquius]

He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.

And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.

  First Rule of Holes applies.

I've always wanted to ask: what's the Second Rule of Holes?

When you're at the bottom of a hole, don't shit in it?

[The Brain]

He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.

And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.

  First Rule of Holes applies.

I've always wanted to ask: what's the Second Rule of Holes?

When you're at the bottom of a hole, don't shit in it?

How else will you get out of it?

[PDH]

I thought it was a commie thing - "Proles Before Holes"

[viper37]

Where do these ideas come from?  What histories are you reading?

Was there an election or not in 1860?

Berkut, and others, say the Southern States weren't a democracy because Black men weren't allowed to votes.  Why was the US a democracy in 1860 without universal voting rights for Blacks?  Why were the Southern States allowed to hold Federal elections under the same rules they used to separate, why was one election totally valid and the others after that totally invalid?

It seems to me the South's practices were pretty well entrenched in many US States at the time.  Many States had property (land) requirements for voters, North and South.

I do not understand why one is supposedly democratic and the other is not.

All I have is Berkut shouting "THE SOUTH WAS NOT A DEMOCRACY WHEN IT SECEDED".  Which is utter bullocks since it was considered a democracy when they voted for the previous elections, and all their laws were recognized as valid as any other State.  I imagine some were struck down by the courts between 1783-1860, just as some Northern States got their laws overturned.

It seems to me Berkut and Valmy are moving the goal posts in what constitutes a democracy to specifically exclude the States who would form the Confederacy.  What was acceptable before the 1860 election suddenly isn't.  What was acceptable in Union States that were democratic is not acceptable for Southern States and makes them undemocratic.

I find this reasoning extremely weird.  As weird as my 21st century view of restricting voting rights based on one's skin color.  Everyone knows you should only remove voting rights based on political opinions, the ones in the opposite camp, duh!

[grumbler]

I've always wanted to ask: what's the Second Rule of Holes?

"If you find yourself in a hole and are still digging, see The First Rule of Holes."

[viper37]

You realize that the implication of this claim is that the CSA representatives accepted and agreed with the concept that the forts were federal property?  Right? 

And thus the decision to fire on Ft Sumter, regardless of any imaginary trickery by that scurrilous Lincoln fellow, was . . .

Federal property is collective state property.  If you own a house with your wife, in many places, she would be owed half of it when you divorce. If she denies you the right to enter the house, refuses to sell her share or buy yours, she is in total illegality.


The proper procedure would be to go to court.


But if she hires a squad of armed men to protect the house from you, you would go to the police and have them removed.  But if its the police occupying your house, is she still acting in good faith?  Is the State acting in good faith? 


You know as well as I do that Federal buildings are paid by revenues collected in the name of, and from all citizens of all States.  People pay taxes to build and maintain the infrastructures.  If one party leaves, it is owed a part of that building.  Since buildings can't be moved, you usually negotiate a settlement.


The Feds were unwilling to negotiate.  Going to court wasn't an option because a Supreme Court with only Northerners would never have agreed to cede a Federal property to individual States.


When the Americans seceded from the UK, they took all the buildings that was in the territory.  Despite Great's Britain objections.  If the British troops didn't vacate the property, it was attacked.  This is the same as the South did.  They declared independence, the North refused to recognize it and negotiate in good faith to surrender the Forts, so they fired on it to expel the intruders.


It was as wrong as any war is any war is wrong.  But occupying the Forts was just as wrong.


It's not like wars are defined by an extremely complex set of rules that all parties agree to under the supervision of a neutral arbiter.

[PDH]

Where do these ideas come from?  What histories are you reading?

Was there an election or not in 1860?

At the risk of quoting wikipedia:  "There were no ballots distributed for Lincoln in ten of the Southern states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. "

Some democracy - you can't call yourself a democracy and leave major party candidates off the ballot because you don't like them...

[viper37]

Wait, do I read this correctly that viper is defending states that attempted to secede because they were worried that slavery would be banned and saw secession as the only way to preserve it? 

They were justified to leave the Union for whatever reason they wanted.
They could have said it was because they wanted the new territories for themselves after a Federal government had decided to set aside some lands for First Nations.
The reason is irrelevant.


States that were considered democratic just before decided to hold discussions on their future.  Some decided to break away right now.  Some others joined them once it was clear the Federal government would try to beat them into submission.

They could have joined because they thought Abraham Lincoln was a secret Satan worshipper under the guise of a religious man.  They could have all separated because they thought a President should always be shaved. They could have decided to secede because they thought all Congressmen should have dyed their hair blue.

The reason is irrelevant.  Point.


It can be reasonable, it can be stupid, it can be evil, it can be selfish, it can be justified by historical abuse, it can be racist, it does not matter.

If a State, any State, wants to democratically declare its independence, or wishes to join another territory, by the same standards it usually uses, it should be allowed.


The US fired in British troops because they wanted the lands set aside for French Catholics and Indians for themselves. They didn't want to pay as much taxes as the Crown was asking, and they wanted to decide locally what they should pay to the central authority.


When you think about it, it's a pretty stupid reason to fire on your countrymen, hang your neighbors, seize their property and expel them from the country they grew up in.


By the standards of the time, they were pretty much allowed to secede.  Invading them to force them into the Union against their will was equally evil as seceding to protect slavery.


If the North had emancipated the slaves then invaded the South, it would have been a war about slavery for both sides.  But that's not what happened.

[viper37]

John C. Fremont was pretty anti-slavery before the Civil War...

And when he freed the slaves in his territory, he was reprimanded.

If the war had been about the abolition of slavery, Lincoln would not have reprimanded him for his work.

[Razgovory]

And...?

[viper37]

He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.

And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.

How many citizens of the 13 colonies voted directly for secession?  How many citizens of Texas voted for secession from Mexico?


They elected representatives who voted on different matters, including secession or attachment to another country.  That's how things were done back then. You are again changing the rules specifically to exclude the Southern States.

[Razgovory]

He has no coherent argument here - he is just bouncing around from one silly thing to another because he really, really, really needs to believe that rebellion is awesome.

And btw viper, not a single southern state got 50%+1 votes for secession from the people who lives in those states. Not one.

  First Rule of Holes applies.

I've always wanted to ask: what's the Second Rule of Holes?

The second rule of holas is also "hi!".

[viper37]

Not sure why we should be stuck to repeating the mistakes of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Agreed.  The mistakes were to not let States gain their independence.  That always brings conflicts.


How many dead because Russia wouldn't let Tchetchnia go?  How many dead in Sudan?  How many Kurds killed by Saddam and the Turk's regime?


Was it really worth it to fight independence of a nation to the bitter end to simply try and preserve the country's unity?  Is it really worth the amount of dead to keep people in a State against their will?

[HVC]

Where do these ideas come from?  What histories are you reading?

Was there an election or not in 1860?

At the risk of quoting wikipedia:  "There were no ballots distributed for Lincoln in ten of the Southern states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. "

Some democracy - you can't call yourself a democracy and leave major party candidates off the ballot because you don't like them...

Giving the vote to people who don't want separatism is anti-separatist and should not be tolerated.