News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

The Real problem with cancel culture

Started by viper37, July 12, 2020, 10:24:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

viper37

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 23, 2021, 10:10:58 AM
Virtually no white person in the North believed in racial equality in 1860 (Lincoln included) and yet a majority opposed slavery.  Matters stood quite differently in the South.
Yes.  It is surprising how people born and raised in a given situation, mixed with religion that gives them inalienable rights over other people, can be resistant to change.

Quote
The argument seems to be that because the North was not perfect, and was a morally flawed society, therefore one can not make any moral judgments at all between the two causes...
The argument is that the Southern States had the right to declare independence, as per the rules of the time generally used to decide any other matter.  The causes are irrelevant.  Be it the protection of slavery, the deportation of French Catholics, the conquest of Indian lands, it all amounts to the same.

The secondary argument is that once your nation has seceded and war is upon you, you can either do your patriotic duty and fight, even if you disagree, or leave or betray your nation.

Lots of people here have hinted that they would gladly have betrayed their friends, neighbors, families in order to pursue a 21st century ideal in the mid 19th century.  I am expressing doubts about that.

The difference between the Government of London passing laws to tax its colonies and set aside lands for Indians and Catholics over the objection of local assemblies is minimally more unjust than the Government of Washington passing laws to decide the future of slavery over the objection of local assemblies.  The most populous part of the Empire simply decides what is right and what is wrong.

In one case, they are heroes, patriots.  Even if they are slavers.  Even if they wanted to expand without constraints, over the objections of the neighboring nations who had treaties with the colonial empire.

On the other case, they want to keep on using slave labor to maintain their economy, but they are reviled as traitors.

Square in the middle, you got a bunch of white dudes rebelling against an encroaching central government whose main gripe was that they couldn't bring their slaves with them in the new land.  And the US annexing this territory and a bunch of other.  Specifically so slaves could grow crops over there.

I don't see much difference between the Confederacy or that.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

Josquius

It is interesting with the confederacy that so many of the arguments focus on "secession bad! " and "how dare they betray us!" and the like rather than the simple undemocratic nature of their secession in support of  cementing the most anti-democratic cause going.

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
The CSA of course wasn't.
██████
██████
██████

garbon

Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Berkut

viper, the claim that everyone in the South mostly went along is just simply false. The idea that the only options are whole hearted buying into the cause of "betrayal" is false as well. Many simply refused to serve what they saw as a bad cause. Many did serve even though it was a shitty cause because they were drafted, and simply deserted as soon as able, or refused to fight particularly hard. There is not binary here in how individuals chose to serve.

And your claim that Germany was not a democracy? WTF????

Who are you to say it wasn't a democracy in 1933-45? I bet the Nazi's would claim to have the popular support of the people. And you are actively arguing that you cannot judge the validity of a "democracy" just because they didn't let their black people vote! You are arguing that the Confederacy has a *moral* legitimacy based on it being a "democracy", while claiming that the Nazi's do not have such legitimacy because....wait for it....they did not have elections after the one were the democratic people elected the fascist to lead them? (And yes, I know THAT election was utter bullshit as well, but YOU don't get to make that argument).

The Nazi's were not a legitimate democractic government. And neither was the Confederacy. The Confederacy did not have the will of the people behind it. It was not a democracy in any sense of the word. It was not a bad democracy, it was not a democracy at all.

You can argue, for better or for worse, that if they colonies had truly had a "perfect democracy" they may very well have all voted to rebel against the Crown in an effort to get government that better represents them. Maybe true, maybe not - but at least the argument can be made. After all, the initial rebellion was not even an attempt at independence, but just an attempt at local governance.

You cannot argue at all that if the South in 1861 had perfect democracy where everyone who ought to get to vote gets to vote, that they would have voted to secede in order to protect slavery. I think it is rather safe to say that 100% of the slaves are probably voting no on that one.

Hence the Confederacy cannot possibly be called democratic, anymore then Nazi German was democratic. The will of the people had no bearing on the political choices of its leaders in either case.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

grumbler

Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2021, 11:06:50 AM
Yes.  It is surprising how people born and raised in a given situation, mixed with religion that gives them inalienable rights over other people, can be resistant to change.

What religion was that?

QuoteThe argument is that the Southern States had the right to declare independence, as per the rules of the time generally used to decide any other matter.  The causes are irrelevant.  Be it the protection of slavery, the deportation of French Catholics, the conquest of Indian lands, it all amounts to the same.

No rules of the at time, or any other time, gave states the "right" to secede.  The political structure of the time gave them the power to secede, but not the economic and military power to secede successfully.

The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Josquius

Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.
██████
██████
██████

grumbler

Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

All democracies are flawed.  As are all non-democracies.  Only children believe in perfect governments.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2021, 11:06:50 AM
The argument is that the Southern States had the right to declare independence, as per the rules of the time generally used to decide any other matter. 

There was no rule of the time that permitted the southern states to secede; the well understood rule of the time was that they could not.  The Constitution created a union of the people of the states, not a union of separate states (as with the earlier confederation).  the constitution did not permit states to withdraw.  This was well understood at the time - as there has been at least two earlier episodes where the question of secession of a state had been raised and then rejected for the reasons summarized in Jackson's proclamation

The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

PDH

As has been beaten to death a million times, the Civil Wars moved the USA from "These United States" to "The United States" and basically set that a member state cannot just take their toys and leave without consent of the rest of the federal state.
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.
-Umberto Eco

-------
"I'm pretty sure my level of depression has nothing to do with how much of a fucking asshole you are."

-CdM

The Brain

Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

I am not aware of any mechanism in US law for secession. Is there such a mechanism? If not, then accepting secession would mean throwing the Rule of Law out the window.

I wouldn't be surprised if secession would require that you first amend the constitution. If so, then that's the logical first step for secessionists.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

The Brain

From a more practical standpoint, of course, if you get parts of the nuclear weapons forces on your side as a secessionist the chances of the US accepting your secession increase. Nukes were not available to the Confederacy, horrible fanfiction notwithstanding.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Sheilbh

Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2021, 12:06:17 PM
I am not aware of any mechanism in US law for secession. Is there such a mechanism? If not, then accepting secession would mean throwing the Rule of Law out the window.

I wouldn't be surprised if secession would require that you first amend the constitution. If so, then that's the logical first step for secessionists.
I don't think that necessarily follows. You can create a lawful mechanism for secession having accepted it - and practically speaking if Congress and the other states accept a secession, what does a Supreme Court ruling saying that's unlawful actually mean? You know what divisions do they have to enforce that?

Although I think practically secession normally comes in a "constitutional moment" when the rules are in flux and things are being settled so I think it would just be part of that.
Let's bomb Russia!

garbon

Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Josquius

Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 02:27:23 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.
It's a huge flaw.
A country that only exists by force is no democracy.
Letting random secessionists get just one 50%+1 vote isn't the way either. But a clear majority of the electorate? There's just no excuse for forcing them to remain part of the country.
██████
██████
██████

garbon

Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 02:27:23 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2021, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2021, 11:09:16 AM

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?
I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.
It's a huge flaw.
A country that only exists by force is no democracy.
Letting random secessionists get just one 50%+1 vote isn't the way either. But a clear majority of the electorate? There's just no excuse for forcing them to remain part of the country.

The UK doesn't seem concerned about clear majorities, if Brexit and talk around Scottish independence are any indication.

And force? Why are you positing soldiers in the streets?
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.