|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 23 2016 00:12 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On January 22 2016 23:43 Deathstar wrote:On January 22 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote:
Deathstar, I really don’t see your argument? Like what is the point you are trying to make? Because every post you make on this subject comes off as a slaver apologist saying “it wasn’t as bad as people make it out to be.”
I don’t know if it is a miscommunication or that is the argument you are trying to make.
Look at GH's posts against me. He is obsessed over a sentence I made on another point. If you're going to say I'm wrong then have the proper evidence. I don't agree with a lot of GH's post, but you try to use the fact that some slave owners are not completely evil arseholes as somehow a mitigation factor is pretty insulting to everyone's intelligence. Also where did you even getting this from? I'm not talking about morality or slave owners. You're literally just making things up about my posts.
I have problem getting anything else from:
On January 22 2016 23:14 Deathstar wrote:American slaves had many avenues to derive extra cash, so the notion of a slave getting paid for their labor isn't beyond imagination. I have been patient with you but your posts are just "I am black and I am outraged!" Do you want a discussion or do you want to play the outrage game? Show nested quote +Generally speaking, slaves enjoyed few material benefits beyond crude lodgings, basic foods and cotton clothing. Still, some plantation slaves were able to earn small amounts of cash by telling fortunes or playing the fiddle at dances. Others sold poultry, meats and liquor or peddled handicrafts. In some cases, slaves could earn money from their master if they performed tasks with particular skill.
The masters, for their part, saw small cash incentives as a way to encourage productive work habits. In the towns, cities and manufacturing areas of the Upper South, slaves were able to earn money thanks to another way to manage labour: the hiring-out system. Contracts differed in terms of food, conditions and treatment, but most slaves hired out to work for others could expect to earn wages for working beyond what was considered a working day. In the tobacco factories of Richmond, Virginia, for example, they would complete their daily quota of work and receive ‘bonus pay’ for anything after that.
Some were also allowed to hire themselves out. Brokering their own deals, they paid their masters a monthly fee and kept anything they earned above the amount. Wages varied across time and place but self-hire slaves could command between $100 a year (for unskilled labour in the early 19th century) to as much as $500 (for skilled work in the Lower South in the late 1850s). Skilled cabinetmakers and joiners could sometimes earn as much as white workers; a select few could even afford to buy themselves out of bondage.
http://www.historyextra.com/qa/slave-labour
|
On January 23 2016 00:24 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 23:28 ragz_gt wrote:
I have to say I find that Reps are aiding Trump because they absolutely hate Cruz is funniest thing in this primary so far (and by god there are a lot of funny things). Payback for years of antagonizing the leadership and kicking off a great deal of the tea party bullshit.
yeah. among all the top tier career politicians on public display, and by good there are a lot of sleazy and opportunistic ones surely, cruz just takes the cake.
he must be one of the top slimiest, most unlikeable asshats in all of washington.
and it shows, even rupert murdoch mentioned it in a tweet(after the latest debate) that likability is key, not just political talent and debate skills.
|
On January 23 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 19:17 zeo wrote:On January 22 2016 13:14 Souma wrote:
Scapegoated?
Get Snyder out of theeeeeeeeere. I don't know why anyone would blame Snyder for this. The city had a democrat mayor and an all democrat council that bankrupted the city with 'programs' over the course of a decade while at the same time spiking taxes. They appointed a democrat emergency manager to fix things. Democrat mayor and council severed ties with the water company and cuts large costs by getting water from a river.... They blame the republican governor for the consequences? edit: It's like Democrat and Republican voters are physically incapable of blaming their elected leaders for anything. How did these incompetent people even get voted into office? It's like their voters will always vote democrat because if they didnt they would lose their only defining character trait. It's not the end of the world if you actually look who you're voting for, this is also a huge problem in my country. People don't even look who they are voting for in local elections, just what party they come from. edit2: I would say both parties are wrong here, but with stories like these people just jump to the conclusion who the bad guy is depending on what party they are affiliated with. Snyder took the city over and installed his own man who made the decision to fuck the water as a cost saving measure. The water was fine under the democratic council and mayor.
Didn't the democrat council bankrupt the town, forcing the state to take over?
|
Well I gave you the context of my post. Read the first sentence over again.
the notion of a slave getting paid for their labor isn't beyond imagination
Considering that slaves were able to buy their freedom, slaves having cash isn't unimaginable. Where did they get the money from? They did other jobs, either for their master or otherwise, to raise the money.
Here is GH's full post
On January 22 2016 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 10:27 Deathstar wrote:On January 22 2016 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2016 10:09 Deathstar wrote:
GH is a touchy person.
The federal government did, at some point in its history, use slave labor. The only example google shows is the capitol, in which the documentation shows that the government paid the slaves for their labor. So, strictly speaking, am I wrong? Yes. It's safe to assume that most slaves were working on plantations in private hands. And sometimes, very sporadically, the government would rent their labor. It was not the federal government holding onto slaves and using them (which was what I was getting at).
"documentation shows that the government paid the slaves for their labor"... Really...? At some point ignorance and opinion become so obscene, it's ridicule is not excessive, but necessary. Payment to slave owners. My bad. But the task force did find plenty of evidence of slave involvement in the Capitol's construction. Perhaps the most compelling evidence were records of payments from the commissioners for the District of Columbia — the three men appointed by George Washington to oversee the construction of the Capitol and the rest of the city of Washington — to slave owners for the rental of slaves to work on the Capitol. The records reflect 385 payments between 1795 and 1801 for "Negro hire," a euphemism for the yearly rental of slaves. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/19/nancy-pelosi/legend-slaves-building-capitol-correct/ Think about for a moment how distorted your perception of slavery has to be that you actually thought that slaves got paid to do work, and you managed to make a post about it without it ever triggering in your brain that slaves are slaves in part because they don't get paid (among other things). They were property according to the US government. If the US government called black people "people" slavery would of been the greatest crime in US history. The US government has more than enough culpability regarding the institution of slavery.
And in the broader context of reparations which started this discussion, to what extent should the federal government be responsible for slavery? The government did not own slaves. The government did at times rent out slave labor though. In addition, the north abolished slavery many decades before the south. What is the distribution of responsibility?
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 23 2016 00:35 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2016 19:17 zeo wrote:On January 22 2016 13:14 Souma wrote:
Scapegoated?
Get Snyder out of theeeeeeeeere. I don't know why anyone would blame Snyder for this. The city had a democrat mayor and an all democrat council that bankrupted the city with 'programs' over the course of a decade while at the same time spiking taxes. They appointed a democrat emergency manager to fix things. Democrat mayor and council severed ties with the water company and cuts large costs by getting water from a river.... They blame the republican governor for the consequences? edit: It's like Democrat and Republican voters are physically incapable of blaming their elected leaders for anything. How did these incompetent people even get voted into office? It's like their voters will always vote democrat because if they didnt they would lose their only defining character trait. It's not the end of the world if you actually look who you're voting for, this is also a huge problem in my country. People don't even look who they are voting for in local elections, just what party they come from. edit2: I would say both parties are wrong here, but with stories like these people just jump to the conclusion who the bad guy is depending on what party they are affiliated with. Snyder took the city over and installed his own man who made the decision to fuck the water as a cost saving measure. The water was fine under the democratic council and mayor. Didn't the democrat council bankrupt the town, forcing the state to take over?
Ah, there's the Fox News spin on this.
Democrats broke the city, which forced a Republican state government to take over and make more bad decisions and lie to citizens and the EPA.
|
On January 23 2016 00:29 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:12 Deathstar wrote:On January 23 2016 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On January 22 2016 23:43 Deathstar wrote:On January 22 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote:
Deathstar, I really don’t see your argument? Like what is the point you are trying to make? Because every post you make on this subject comes off as a slaver apologist saying “it wasn’t as bad as people make it out to be.”
I don’t know if it is a miscommunication or that is the argument you are trying to make.
Look at GH's posts against me. He is obsessed over a sentence I made on another point. If you're going to say I'm wrong then have the proper evidence. I don't agree with a lot of GH's post, but you try to use the fact that some slave owners are not completely evil arseholes as somehow a mitigation factor is pretty insulting to everyone's intelligence. Also where did you even getting this from? I'm not talking about morality or slave owners. You're literally just making things up about my posts. I have problem getting anything else from: Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 23:14 Deathstar wrote:American slaves had many avenues to derive extra cash, so the notion of a slave getting paid for their labor isn't beyond imagination. I have been patient with you but your posts are just "I am black and I am outraged!" Do you want a discussion or do you want to play the outrage game? Generally speaking, slaves enjoyed few material benefits beyond crude lodgings, basic foods and cotton clothing. Still, some plantation slaves were able to earn small amounts of cash by telling fortunes or playing the fiddle at dances. Others sold poultry, meats and liquor or peddled handicrafts. In some cases, slaves could earn money from their master if they performed tasks with particular skill.
The masters, for their part, saw small cash incentives as a way to encourage productive work habits. In the towns, cities and manufacturing areas of the Upper South, slaves were able to earn money thanks to another way to manage labour: the hiring-out system. Contracts differed in terms of food, conditions and treatment, but most slaves hired out to work for others could expect to earn wages for working beyond what was considered a working day. In the tobacco factories of Richmond, Virginia, for example, they would complete their daily quota of work and receive ‘bonus pay’ for anything after that.
Some were also allowed to hire themselves out. Brokering their own deals, they paid their masters a monthly fee and kept anything they earned above the amount. Wages varied across time and place but self-hire slaves could command between $100 a year (for unskilled labour in the early 19th century) to as much as $500 (for skilled work in the Lower South in the late 1850s). Skilled cabinetmakers and joiners could sometimes earn as much as white workers; a select few could even afford to buy themselves out of bondage.
http://www.historyextra.com/qa/slave-labour
Summation of the argument:
Deathstar wrote a post in which he claimed that the slaves building the capitol were paid, which turned out to be incorrect.
GH reacted very aggressively, in the process of the discussion stating that Deathstars perception of slavery is utterly sugarcoated because he had the idea that it would be possible that slaves could be paid.
Deathstar reacted to that claim by posting a piece of evidence that slaves did, in fact, get paid for services quite often, thus proving that that idea is not as absurd as GH made it look like.
Other people take that out of context as Deathstar saying "slavery wasn't really all that bad".
People should really try to communicate more effectively and actually read what other people write, that could solve a lot of problems.
|
I get that, problem is that some of the slave got paid isn't a general or well spread practice. There are outlier in any situation and using them to make argument is poorly conceived at best and often intentionally misleading. Anecdotal evidence is only used when person making it have no good argument and have no intention to continue in a meaningful way. Granted, GH has used this many times as well, but it's insulting in both cases.
On January 23 2016 00:37 Deathstar wrote:Well I gave you the context of my post. Read the first sentence over again. the notion of a slave getting paid for their labor isn't beyond imagination
You are correct in that it's not beyond imagination, but it's a dumb point to start with. A few cases where this exist and slaves were treated decently does not mean "slaves getting paid" is meaningful in any discussion beyond the actual character of the owner. Focusing on such cases only serves to distract from the actual issue. Like Plansix said, you are not making an argument, you are stating something that's technically correct but has no relevancy to the discussion and basically turning it into a deadend.
|
The main issue with Deathstar’s post is he keeps coming back to the discussion of reparations in the context of money being issued and responsibility for said money. But most of the thread had agreed that it was not possible or viable to expect the money be paid and the discussion was more about the “cost of slavery” put into tangible terms. I spend like 5 posts trying to explain that to him and why people talk about it. That the discussion isn’t about blame, but about cost, after effects and viable solutions. But here we are again, talking about how the government didn’t directly own slaves and who responsible for the check that we already agreed will never be issues.
The tunnel vision and refusal to move on from points people already agreed on is part of the annoyance.
|
On January 23 2016 00:44 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:29 ragz_gt wrote:On January 23 2016 00:12 Deathstar wrote:On January 23 2016 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On January 22 2016 23:43 Deathstar wrote:On January 22 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote:
Deathstar, I really don’t see your argument? Like what is the point you are trying to make? Because every post you make on this subject comes off as a slaver apologist saying “it wasn’t as bad as people make it out to be.”
I don’t know if it is a miscommunication or that is the argument you are trying to make.
Look at GH's posts against me. He is obsessed over a sentence I made on another point. If you're going to say I'm wrong then have the proper evidence. I don't agree with a lot of GH's post, but you try to use the fact that some slave owners are not completely evil arseholes as somehow a mitigation factor is pretty insulting to everyone's intelligence. Also where did you even getting this from? I'm not talking about morality or slave owners. You're literally just making things up about my posts. I have problem getting anything else from: On January 22 2016 23:14 Deathstar wrote:American slaves had many avenues to derive extra cash, so the notion of a slave getting paid for their labor isn't beyond imagination. I have been patient with you but your posts are just "I am black and I am outraged!" Do you want a discussion or do you want to play the outrage game? Generally speaking, slaves enjoyed few material benefits beyond crude lodgings, basic foods and cotton clothing. Still, some plantation slaves were able to earn small amounts of cash by telling fortunes or playing the fiddle at dances. Others sold poultry, meats and liquor or peddled handicrafts. In some cases, slaves could earn money from their master if they performed tasks with particular skill.
The masters, for their part, saw small cash incentives as a way to encourage productive work habits. In the towns, cities and manufacturing areas of the Upper South, slaves were able to earn money thanks to another way to manage labour: the hiring-out system. Contracts differed in terms of food, conditions and treatment, but most slaves hired out to work for others could expect to earn wages for working beyond what was considered a working day. In the tobacco factories of Richmond, Virginia, for example, they would complete their daily quota of work and receive ‘bonus pay’ for anything after that.
Some were also allowed to hire themselves out. Brokering their own deals, they paid their masters a monthly fee and kept anything they earned above the amount. Wages varied across time and place but self-hire slaves could command between $100 a year (for unskilled labour in the early 19th century) to as much as $500 (for skilled work in the Lower South in the late 1850s). Skilled cabinetmakers and joiners could sometimes earn as much as white workers; a select few could even afford to buy themselves out of bondage.
http://www.historyextra.com/qa/slave-labour Summation of the argument: Deathstar wrote a post in which he claimed that the slaves building the capitol were paid, which turned out to be incorrect. GH reacted very aggressively, in the process of the discussion stating that Deathstars perception of slavery is utterly sugarcoated because he had the idea that it would be possible that slaves could be paid. Deathstar reacted to that claim by posting a piece of evidence that slaves did, in fact, get paid for services quite often, thus proving that that idea is not as absurd as GH made it look like. Other people take that out of context as Deathstar saying "slavery wasn't really all that bad". People should really try to communicate more effectively and actually read what other people write, that could solve a lot of problems.
I see where this went wrong:
Deathstar wrote a post arguing that reparations is unfeasable and morally dubious (why should the government be held responsible for the actions of the slave owners).
GH reacted as he usually does and along the way pointed out that the government did also employ slaves and that these slaves were by nature of being slaves according to GH obviously not paid (despite there being an example of a paid slave (Philip Reid) in his very own source which he ironically has edited out of his post now, but not to worry, it is here: www.politifact.com - GJ GH, never admit a mistake).
Deathstar corrected GHs error (slaves never being paid for their work) at which point we have Plansix and ragz_gt accusing Deathstar for whitewashing history and being a slave owner apologist.
Deathstar points out that his original point was never about whether or not slaves were paid but about why reparations is a silly notion and that no one has actually adressed this point.
EDIT: I think you would be a lot less annoyed if you simply directed people to where the previous discussion took place Plansix, or actually pointed out that no money was expected. That would have taken a single line.
|
United States43674 Posts
On January 23 2016 00:35 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2016 19:17 zeo wrote:On January 22 2016 13:14 Souma wrote:
Scapegoated?
Get Snyder out of theeeeeeeeere. I don't know why anyone would blame Snyder for this. The city had a democrat mayor and an all democrat council that bankrupted the city with 'programs' over the course of a decade while at the same time spiking taxes. They appointed a democrat emergency manager to fix things. Democrat mayor and council severed ties with the water company and cuts large costs by getting water from a river.... They blame the republican governor for the consequences? edit: It's like Democrat and Republican voters are physically incapable of blaming their elected leaders for anything. How did these incompetent people even get voted into office? It's like their voters will always vote democrat because if they didnt they would lose their only defining character trait. It's not the end of the world if you actually look who you're voting for, this is also a huge problem in my country. People don't even look who they are voting for in local elections, just what party they come from. edit2: I would say both parties are wrong here, but with stories like these people just jump to the conclusion who the bad guy is depending on what party they are affiliated with. Snyder took the city over and installed his own man who made the decision to fuck the water as a cost saving measure. The water was fine under the democratic council and mayor. Didn't the democrat council bankrupt the town, forcing the state to take over?
Yes, but that isn't in any way related to the decision to pump unsafe water into the taps and then downplay the risk after they found out they were poisoning people.
The Democrats were unable to run a balanced budget. The Republicans poisoned kids. I reject the argument that the failure of the Democrats somehow forced the Republicans to start poisoning kids. The Democrats had been fucking up for years without deciding to start poisoning kids.
|
On January 23 2016 01:19 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:44 Simberto wrote:On January 23 2016 00:29 ragz_gt wrote:On January 23 2016 00:12 Deathstar wrote:On January 23 2016 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On January 22 2016 23:43 Deathstar wrote:On January 22 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote:
Deathstar, I really don’t see your argument? Like what is the point you are trying to make? Because every post you make on this subject comes off as a slaver apologist saying “it wasn’t as bad as people make it out to be.”
I don’t know if it is a miscommunication or that is the argument you are trying to make.
Look at GH's posts against me. He is obsessed over a sentence I made on another point. If you're going to say I'm wrong then have the proper evidence. I don't agree with a lot of GH's post, but you try to use the fact that some slave owners are not completely evil arseholes as somehow a mitigation factor is pretty insulting to everyone's intelligence. Also where did you even getting this from? I'm not talking about morality or slave owners. You're literally just making things up about my posts. I have problem getting anything else from: On January 22 2016 23:14 Deathstar wrote:American slaves had many avenues to derive extra cash, so the notion of a slave getting paid for their labor isn't beyond imagination. I have been patient with you but your posts are just "I am black and I am outraged!" Do you want a discussion or do you want to play the outrage game? Generally speaking, slaves enjoyed few material benefits beyond crude lodgings, basic foods and cotton clothing. Still, some plantation slaves were able to earn small amounts of cash by telling fortunes or playing the fiddle at dances. Others sold poultry, meats and liquor or peddled handicrafts. In some cases, slaves could earn money from their master if they performed tasks with particular skill.
The masters, for their part, saw small cash incentives as a way to encourage productive work habits. In the towns, cities and manufacturing areas of the Upper South, slaves were able to earn money thanks to another way to manage labour: the hiring-out system. Contracts differed in terms of food, conditions and treatment, but most slaves hired out to work for others could expect to earn wages for working beyond what was considered a working day. In the tobacco factories of Richmond, Virginia, for example, they would complete their daily quota of work and receive ‘bonus pay’ for anything after that.
Some were also allowed to hire themselves out. Brokering their own deals, they paid their masters a monthly fee and kept anything they earned above the amount. Wages varied across time and place but self-hire slaves could command between $100 a year (for unskilled labour in the early 19th century) to as much as $500 (for skilled work in the Lower South in the late 1850s). Skilled cabinetmakers and joiners could sometimes earn as much as white workers; a select few could even afford to buy themselves out of bondage.
http://www.historyextra.com/qa/slave-labour Summation of the argument: Deathstar wrote a post in which he claimed that the slaves building the capitol were paid, which turned out to be incorrect. GH reacted very aggressively, in the process of the discussion stating that Deathstars perception of slavery is utterly sugarcoated because he had the idea that it would be possible that slaves could be paid. Deathstar reacted to that claim by posting a piece of evidence that slaves did, in fact, get paid for services quite often, thus proving that that idea is not as absurd as GH made it look like. Other people take that out of context as Deathstar saying "slavery wasn't really all that bad". People should really try to communicate more effectively and actually read what other people write, that could solve a lot of problems. I see where this went wrong: Deathstar wrote a post arguing that reparations is unfeasable and morally dubious (why should the government be held responsible for the actions of the slave owners). GH reacted as he usually does and along the way pointed out that the government did also employ slaves and that these slaves were by nature of being slaves according to GH obviously not paid (despite there being an example of a paid slave (Philip Reid) in his very own source which he ironically has edited out of his post now, but not to worry, it is here: www.politifact.com - GJ GH, never admit a mistake). Deathstar corrected GHs error (slaves never being paid for their work) at which point we have Plansix and ragz_gt accusing Deathstar for whitewashing history and being a slave owner apologist. Deathstar points out that his original point was never about whether or not slaves were paid but about why reparations is a silly notion and that no one has actually adressed this point. EDIT: I think you would be a lot less annoyed if you simply directed people to where the previous discussion took place Plansix, or actually pointed out that no money was expected. That would have taken a single line.
I'm not accusing him as being a apologist, I'm accusing him using a irrelevant fact (and he seems to know this perfectly well from his response) as it has actual meaning to the discussion as being intellectually insulting.
|
On January 23 2016 00:53 ragz_gt wrote:I get that, problem is that some of the slave got paid isn't a general or well spread practice. There are outlier in any situation and using them to make argument is poorly conceived at best and often intentionally misleading. Anecdotal evidence is only used when person making it have no good argument and have no intention to continue in a meaningful way. Granted, GH has used this many times as well, but it's insulting in both cases. Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:37 Deathstar wrote:Well I gave you the context of my post. Read the first sentence over again. the notion of a slave getting paid for their labor isn't beyond imagination You are correct in that it's not beyond imagination, but it's a dumb point to start with. A few cases where this exist and slaves were treated decently does not mean "slaves getting paid" is meaningful in any discussion beyond the actual character of the owner. Focusing on such cases only serves to distract from the actual issue. Like Plansix said, you are not making an argument, you are stating something that's technically correct but has no relevancy to the discussion and basically turning it into a deadend.
Yes, he's not making an argument, or at least not the one you think, that's why it's probably extremely frustrating for him when you and others keep putting words in his mouth like he's a slavery apologist, or that he's saying it wasn't that bad, or telling him he doesn't even understand what slavery means. He means exactly what he's saying. His post was also the only one in pages on this topic that I actually learned anything from
Edit: I looked above:
On January 23 2016 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 23:43 Deathstar wrote:On January 22 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote:
Deathstar, I really don’t see your argument? Like what is the point you are trying to make? Because every post you make on this subject comes off as a slaver apologist saying “it wasn’t as bad as people make it out to be.”
I don’t know if it is a miscommunication or that is the argument you are trying to make.
Look at GH's posts against me. He is obsessed over a sentence I made on another point. If you're going to say I'm wrong then have the proper evidence. I don't agree with a lot of GH's post, but you try to use the fact that some slave owners are not completely evil arseholes as somehow a mitigation factor is pretty insulting to everyone's intelligence.
|
That's not what I'm accusing him of though, look above.
On January 23 2016 01:30 oBlade wrote:Edit: I looked above: Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On January 22 2016 23:43 Deathstar wrote:On January 22 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote:
Deathstar, I really don’t see your argument? Like what is the point you are trying to make? Because every post you make on this subject comes off as a slaver apologist saying “it wasn’t as bad as people make it out to be.”
I don’t know if it is a miscommunication or that is the argument you are trying to make.
Look at GH's posts against me. He is obsessed over a sentence I made on another point. If you're going to say I'm wrong then have the proper evidence. I don't agree with a lot of GH's post, but you try to use the fact that some slave owners are not completely evil arseholes as somehow a mitigation factor is pretty insulting to everyone's intelligence.
On January 23 2016 01:30 ragz_gt wrote:
I'm not accusing him as being a apologist, I'm accusing him using a irrelevant fact (and he seems to know this perfectly well from his response) as it has actual meaning to the discussion as being intellectually insulting.
??? He is using something that's not really a factor as it has meaning is insulting to intelligence? Nowhere did I ever comment on the morality or "rightness" of his comment, in fact I repeatedly said that he is factually correct.
|
|
|
On January 23 2016 01:30 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 01:19 Ghostcom wrote:On January 23 2016 00:44 Simberto wrote:On January 23 2016 00:29 ragz_gt wrote:On January 23 2016 00:12 Deathstar wrote:On January 23 2016 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On January 22 2016 23:43 Deathstar wrote:On January 22 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote:
Deathstar, I really don’t see your argument? Like what is the point you are trying to make? Because every post you make on this subject comes off as a slaver apologist saying “it wasn’t as bad as people make it out to be.”
I don’t know if it is a miscommunication or that is the argument you are trying to make.
Look at GH's posts against me. He is obsessed over a sentence I made on another point. If you're going to say I'm wrong then have the proper evidence. I don't agree with a lot of GH's post, but you try to use the fact that some slave owners are not completely evil arseholes as somehow a mitigation factor is pretty insulting to everyone's intelligence. Also where did you even getting this from? I'm not talking about morality or slave owners. You're literally just making things up about my posts. I have problem getting anything else from: On January 22 2016 23:14 Deathstar wrote:American slaves had many avenues to derive extra cash, so the notion of a slave getting paid for their labor isn't beyond imagination. I have been patient with you but your posts are just "I am black and I am outraged!" Do you want a discussion or do you want to play the outrage game? Generally speaking, slaves enjoyed few material benefits beyond crude lodgings, basic foods and cotton clothing. Still, some plantation slaves were able to earn small amounts of cash by telling fortunes or playing the fiddle at dances. Others sold poultry, meats and liquor or peddled handicrafts. In some cases, slaves could earn money from their master if they performed tasks with particular skill.
The masters, for their part, saw small cash incentives as a way to encourage productive work habits. In the towns, cities and manufacturing areas of the Upper South, slaves were able to earn money thanks to another way to manage labour: the hiring-out system. Contracts differed in terms of food, conditions and treatment, but most slaves hired out to work for others could expect to earn wages for working beyond what was considered a working day. In the tobacco factories of Richmond, Virginia, for example, they would complete their daily quota of work and receive ‘bonus pay’ for anything after that.
Some were also allowed to hire themselves out. Brokering their own deals, they paid their masters a monthly fee and kept anything they earned above the amount. Wages varied across time and place but self-hire slaves could command between $100 a year (for unskilled labour in the early 19th century) to as much as $500 (for skilled work in the Lower South in the late 1850s). Skilled cabinetmakers and joiners could sometimes earn as much as white workers; a select few could even afford to buy themselves out of bondage.
http://www.historyextra.com/qa/slave-labour Summation of the argument: Deathstar wrote a post in which he claimed that the slaves building the capitol were paid, which turned out to be incorrect. GH reacted very aggressively, in the process of the discussion stating that Deathstars perception of slavery is utterly sugarcoated because he had the idea that it would be possible that slaves could be paid. Deathstar reacted to that claim by posting a piece of evidence that slaves did, in fact, get paid for services quite often, thus proving that that idea is not as absurd as GH made it look like. Other people take that out of context as Deathstar saying "slavery wasn't really all that bad". People should really try to communicate more effectively and actually read what other people write, that could solve a lot of problems. I see where this went wrong: Deathstar wrote a post arguing that reparations is unfeasable and morally dubious (why should the government be held responsible for the actions of the slave owners). GH reacted as he usually does and along the way pointed out that the government did also employ slaves and that these slaves were by nature of being slaves according to GH obviously not paid (despite there being an example of a paid slave (Philip Reid) in his very own source which he ironically has edited out of his post now, but not to worry, it is here: www.politifact.com - GJ GH, never admit a mistake). Deathstar corrected GHs error (slaves never being paid for their work) at which point we have Plansix and ragz_gt accusing Deathstar for whitewashing history and being a slave owner apologist. Deathstar points out that his original point was never about whether or not slaves were paid but about why reparations is a silly notion and that no one has actually adressed this point. EDIT: I think you would be a lot less annoyed if you simply directed people to where the previous discussion took place Plansix, or actually pointed out that no money was expected. That would have taken a single line. I'm not accusing him as being a apologist, I'm accusing him using a irrelevant fact (and he seems to know this perfectly well from his response) as it has actual meaning to the discussion as being intellectually insulting.
It was very relevant to the "discussion" he was having with GH. In the initial post by Deathstar there is NO mention of slaves being paid - it only got brought up after GH had insulted him twice. And only because the insult GH went with the second time around was factually wrong (which was what GH had mocked Deathstar for originally).
This thread would in general really benefit from giving posters the benefit of the doubt when it is unclear what they are arguing. The past 3 pages could've been completely avoided.
EDIT:
On January 23 2016 01:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
And we could all just post without being massive dicks, which was my original point kthnx.
Yes please!
|
And we could all just post without being massive dicks, which was my original point kthnx.
|
On January 23 2016 01:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
And we could all just post without being massive dicks, which was my original point kthnx.
this 
If you can convey a thought without an insult, please do so.
|
United States43674 Posts
On an unrelated but much more topical note, Rand Paul did an AMA on reddit last night and had some really disappointing answers.
One question was posed by a student who claimed to work a few hours over the weekend for beer money and said that his Federal taxes were too high. Now obviously this is someone who makes so little he doesn't even need to file taxes. You need to make about $20k before you owe any taxes at all and we're talking about $2k or so of income here. Rand Paul, as a presumably adult who has presumably paid taxes before, ought to know this. There is only one acceptable answer to this question and that is
"Hi, you actually tell the IRS how much of your paycheck to take in taxes using a form called W-4. Based on what you just wrote you shouldn't owe the IRS anything. Right now that means they're mistakenly taking your money in taxes and then giving it back at the end of the year when they realize the mistake. If you fill out a W-4 they'll stop. You're not paying any taxes either way though."
He could maybe have added on "I think that education about how taxes work and how to balance a budget and complete a W-4 should be part of our high school program".
Instead he went with
I'm the only candidate with both a flat tax cut that gets rid of the IRS and a 5 year budget plan. We should be able to do both, cut taxes and reform spending. randpaul.com/issue/taxes
Shit like that just pisses me off. If I walk up to politician in a desert on a hot summer day while wearing an overcoat, hat, gloves and scarf and say "Jesus it's hot out today, what do you plan to do about global warming?" the answer should be "Dude, dress appropriately for the weather and context. I have a lot of thoughts about global warming but none of those are relevant to the problem you're experiencing."
He did absolutely nothing to address the problem the guy was actually describing and if Rand Paul became president the guy would still find money withheld from his paycheck. Rather than combat ignorance he instead chose to exploit it to try and score political points with the idiot demographic.
/rant
|
did you call him out for that sweet reddit karma? (jokes his supporters would probably just downvote you)
this may be me being dumb, but isn't the personal deduction like 4k and the standard deduction like 6.3? where's the 20K coming from (because i'd like to be able to claim it...  )
|
On January 23 2016 01:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 00:35 zeo wrote:On January 23 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On January 22 2016 19:17 zeo wrote:On January 22 2016 13:14 Souma wrote:
Scapegoated?
Get Snyder out of theeeeeeeeere. I don't know why anyone would blame Snyder for this. The city had a democrat mayor and an all democrat council that bankrupted the city with 'programs' over the course of a decade while at the same time spiking taxes. They appointed a democrat emergency manager to fix things. Democrat mayor and council severed ties with the water company and cuts large costs by getting water from a river.... They blame the republican governor for the consequences? edit: It's like Democrat and Republican voters are physically incapable of blaming their elected leaders for anything. How did these incompetent people even get voted into office? It's like their voters will always vote democrat because if they didnt they would lose their only defining character trait. It's not the end of the world if you actually look who you're voting for, this is also a huge problem in my country. People don't even look who they are voting for in local elections, just what party they come from. edit2: I would say both parties are wrong here, but with stories like these people just jump to the conclusion who the bad guy is depending on what party they are affiliated with. Snyder took the city over and installed his own man who made the decision to fuck the water as a cost saving measure. The water was fine under the democratic council and mayor. Didn't the democrat council bankrupt the town, forcing the state to take over? Yes, but that isn't in any way related to the decision to pump unsafe water into the taps and then downplay the risk after they found out they were poisoning people. The Democrats were unable to run a balanced budget. The Republicans poisoned kids. I reject the argument that the failure of the Democrats somehow forced the Republicans to start poisoning kids. The Democrats had been fucking up for years without deciding to start poisoning kids.
Just for reference your story is missing a couple of key components.
1. Flint both before and after bankruptcy paid Detroit municipal for water services, they were charged very high rates.
2. After bankruptcy the high rates prompted Flint officials to join a municipal co-op that would circumvent Detroit and get them water at vastly reduced prices.
3. Detroit, angry at her vassal state of Flint for the acts retaliated by raising rates and resfusing to extend the contract until the co-op was ready.
4. Poison water. Although, the real question is whether Snydee has the power to dictatorially force Detroit to not be dicks to Flint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
