|
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. |
Or just build a series of Museums in each state that focuses on that state's role during the war. Then one in Washington, D.C. as the overall one.
|
On August 17 2017 21:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Or just build a series of Museums in each state that focuses on that state's role during the war. Then one in Washington, D.C. as the overall one.
Only if the people who want the museum pays for it, will I be down for that. That's a lot of museums chronicling the fall of the confederacy. Might as well do the same with native americans, the way that you glamorize/celebrate the trail of tears of the genocide placed upon them by early settlers of america. They don't need some fancy marble palace holding the horror and tragedy of their past. They want the museums, they pay for them.
EDIT: fixed the hostile tone.
|
On August 17 2017 21:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 21:51 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 21:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Huh. So is there going to be some massive confederate states of america museum built for all of these statues at some point? Or are they planning to mothball all of them? I would like them to put the statues someplace else and provide context for the history of the statue and why it was removed. I would rather have an honest discussion about the reconstruction and Jim Crow era than simply moth balling it. For all the talk about heritage, we should put our full history on display and explain why people built statues of Americans who fought against America. So a massive confederate museum. Cool. I hope they build it right next to the newly opened black american museum. Can't get any more contextual than that.
A civil war, reconstruction and jim crow era museum would be a good place. Or they can set one up per state.
|
On August 17 2017 22:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 21:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 21:51 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Huh. So is there going to be some massive confederate states of america museum built for all of these statues at some point? Or are they planning to mothball all of them? I would like them to put the statues someplace else and provide context for the history of the statue and why it was removed. I would rather have an honest discussion about the reconstruction and Jim Crow era than simply moth balling it. For all the talk about heritage, we should put our full history on display and explain why people built statues of Americans who fought against America. So a massive confederate museum. Cool. I hope they build it right next to the newly opened black american museum. Can't get any more contextual than that. A civil war, reconstruction and jim crow era museum would be a good place. Or they can set one up per state.
I can't get behind that. It's like Germany putting up Nazi museums, or Mao museums, or Imperial Japan museums. The bad side lost and should be forgotten. Written about, but not physically celebrated where people can draw energy from and try to recreate that nonsense. It does nothing but appease them.
|
On August 17 2017 21:54 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 21:33 Ghostcom wrote:On August 17 2017 21:24 farvacola wrote:
The data in the study is fine, its conclusions are the problem given the study's reliance on a very small snapshot of one state's prison numbers and the unexplained contemporaneous rise in non-violent incarceration going on throughout the country. Further, the study plays games with what counts as "serious" and couches its findings in accord with a mix of current and clearly out of date studies. No where does it discount its "looks like it can't be racism" against the utter lack of available data, differentiation across states, nor its reliance on violent index crimes in lieu of a wider snapshot of what is putting minorities in jail.
You are welcome to do so if you actually back up your claims with some solid arguments and not just a "hurrr read this wiki which doesn't actually relate to the study at hand". This is the closest you have come so far to formulating an argument and it took you 3 posts prior to succeeding. At least here you are almost specific enough in your critique for me to actually know what your gripe with the study is and how respond to it. But as I said, I would rather we got the GH statement verified first before diving into the next discussion. edited out unnecessary cheap shot in response to the hostility. EDIT: I am honestly really just curious where GH got the notion that whites commit crime at a higher rate than blacks from. I would appreciate if we could start this discussion again in a better tone from both of us (and thank you for your edit - I have deleted it from the quote as you can see). I would like to be informed, but I'm not going to accept something on the premise of a random guy on the internet saying so. Give me a credible source and I'll believe more or less anything. My hostility came from knowing that police unions and DAs still fight tooth and nail against the release of arrest/charging data that we desperately need in order to show people what's going on. So while I appreciate your pull towards sound proof of claims, there's a lot of extra baggage here and folks likely culpable in all this are still getting in the way.
I appreciate that. On that note I would like to emphasize that I have also earlier argued for much better data collection (mandated ideally) - I have worked with insurance based health data from the US (it's shit) so I can appreciate the issues connected with poor data.
I would wish that we were all better at being more curious, ask more questions, and simply lend each other some measure of doubt of good intentions.
EDIT: I will say that apparently we've (you've) set a good precedence.
|
On August 17 2017 22:07 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 21:54 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 21:33 Ghostcom wrote:On August 17 2017 21:24 farvacola wrote:
The data in the study is fine, its conclusions are the problem given the study's reliance on a very small snapshot of one state's prison numbers and the unexplained contemporaneous rise in non-violent incarceration going on throughout the country. Further, the study plays games with what counts as "serious" and couches its findings in accord with a mix of current and clearly out of date studies. No where does it discount its "looks like it can't be racism" against the utter lack of available data, differentiation across states, nor its reliance on violent index crimes in lieu of a wider snapshot of what is putting minorities in jail.
You are welcome to do so if you actually back up your claims with some solid arguments and not just a "hurrr read this wiki which doesn't actually relate to the study at hand". This is the closest you have come so far to formulating an argument and it took you 3 posts prior to succeeding. At least here you are almost specific enough in your critique for me to actually know what your gripe with the study is and how respond to it. But as I said, I would rather we got the GH statement verified first before diving into the next discussion. edited out unnecessary cheap shot in response to the hostility. EDIT: I am honestly really just curious where GH got the notion that whites commit crime at a higher rate than blacks from. I would appreciate if we could start this discussion again in a better tone from both of us (and thank you for your edit - I have deleted it from the quote as you can see). I would like to be informed, but I'm not going to accept something on the premise of a random guy on the internet saying so. Give me a credible source and I'll believe more or less anything. My hostility came from knowing that police unions and DAs still fight tooth and nail against the release of arrest/charging data that we desperately need in order to show people what's going on. So while I appreciate your pull towards sound proof of claims, there's a lot of extra baggage here and folks likely culpable in all this are still getting in the way. I appreciate that. On that note I would like to emphasize that I have also earlier argued for much better data collection (mandated ideally) - I have worked with insurance based health data from the US (it's shit) so I can appreciate the issues connected with poor data. I would wish that we were all better at being more curious, ask more questions, and simply lend each other some measure of doubt of good intentions.
It's just reasonably common knowledge that the data is trash, particularly after the numbers often cited for how many people police killed turned out to be less than 1/3 of the actual number of people they were killing.
Any incriminating data surrounding these topics has to get through several layers of screening and obfuscation. So when someone does what you're doing in America (particularly someone well informed like yourself) it's just being a contrarian dill hole in an effort to mask their current belief that it's probably less bad than it's being portrayed (which is a convenient perspective for those at little to no risk). But they still want to maintain that their position is one of intellectual curiosity and rigorousness, not latent white supremacist notions ingrained by American imperialism.
EDIT: Put another way, you're asking, "where is the thoroughly incriminating data voluntarily provided by the very police departments it would incriminate?"
I mean they have an IQ cap on police officers, but they aren't that dumb.
|
On August 17 2017 21:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 20:38 Ghostcom wrote:On August 17 2017 19:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 18:16 Ghostcom wrote:On August 17 2017 18:02 Acrofales wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Ghostcom wrote:On August 17 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:
[quote]
I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier:
Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong?
Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent.
Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad.
This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above. You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that. But the concept of statistical populations and the differences between them aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skillsets. For reasons that are likely at least partially due to historical injustices, crime rates among African Americans from the South Side of Chicago are x times higher than they are among the general US population. If I'm sitting on a train car with 5 African Americans from the South Side of Chicago, I can observe that I'm x times more likely to be the victim of a crime than if I were sitting among five random members of the general US population. Therefore, I feel more threatened on this train car. It's literally the same example as Mahjong, but now it's politically sensitive. No, it's not fair to the African Americans on the train. And I would be irrational to assume I'll likely be the victim of a crime on that train, since base crime rates are very low. But I'm still logically and mathematically justified in feeling more threatened on that train car than I would with 5 other random US citizens. Now does that mean we should treat African Americans differently? Again, that's a judgment between utility and fairness. Mathematically, I would be maximizing utility for myself in terms of safety by choosing the random train car passengers. It's irrational in terms of utility to choose the African American train car. On the other hand, I'm aware that the base probability of being a victim of a crime is still low, even on that train car, so I as a human being I don't mind being on the train car because I'm willing to sacrifice infinitesimal utility in the interest of avoiding a lot of unfairness. Where people fall on the scale of utility vs fairness is an individual issue that doesn't really jive with black and white morality. ----------- I'd like to highlight that I'm making a very technical argument out here. A lot of people who are accused of racism are just racists and are "deplorable." I don't think this argument applies to a lot of people that are accused of being racists. But, when you call someone racist for e.g. making the analysis that I just did, you begin to dilute the term racist imo. The analysis is racist though. It completely neglects that arrest and conviction rates are NOT crime commission rates. We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. If you're on a train with 100 random Americans, there will be more white criminals on the train than black ones. Do you have some sources or do we just have to take your word for it? It's called statistics. Even if black people are twice as likely to be criminals as white people (which they're not), demographics still make it far far far more likely that there's more white criminals on that train than black criminals. The thing I was interested in getting a source for was this: We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. Thanks for the clarification on how basic sampling works though - but to spare you the trouble in the future: I have a PhD in pharmacoepidemiology and I teach statistical methods at the university. Drug use is the most frequently sampled, but loitering, trespassing, disorderly conduct, and similar offenses show the same patterns. NEWARK – Black people were 9.6 times more likely to be arrested than White people in Jersey City in 2013 for low-level offenses such as loitering, possession of small amounts of marijuana, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, according to a study (PDF) released today by the ACLU of New Jersey.
This extreme racial disparity was not unique to the state’s second largest city. Data for the most recent years available revealed disparities in low-level arrests in the three other municipalities studied – Millville, where Blacks were 6.3 times more likely to be arrested; Elizabeth, 3.4 times; and New Brunswick, 2.6 times. Disparities in the number of arrests between Hispanics/Latinos and Whites also were significant, where data were available. Not all of the departments tracked ethnicity in their arrest data. Source This does not support your initial statement that: We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. Or at least I'm missing it in the linked - could you indicate which part specifically you think supports your statement? I'm not really sure how far into the can of worms I want to go with regards to this new claim before we have finished with the initial, but you might find this article interesting: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4111266/The problem of racial and ethnic disproportionality in imprisonment appears to be less about criminal justice practitioner racism but rather societal inequities that foster higher rates of serious, especially violent, crime among blacks and to a lesser extent, Hispanics. These inequities include racial segregation and isolation and the resulting concentration of disadvantage in black and Hispanic communities. Such structural disadvantage, in turn, has long been linked to higher rates of violent crime (Peterson and Krivo 2005). Thus, it is arguable that valuable research and policy resources would be better allocated toward addressing the complex of criminogenic social and environmental factors that push minorities toward violent or criminal conduct (see Tracy 2005). In short, the sources of black and (to a lesser extent) Hispanic disproportionality in imprisonment appear to reside mostly outside the purview of the criminal justice system, and have more to do with societal disadvantages that place minority peoples, especially African Americans, at much greater risk of being both offenders and victims of violent crime. So, while there is a need for continued concern with possible racial discrimination in justice system processing, this concern should not distract scholarly or policy attention from what arguably is the more important matter—explaining and ameliorating disproportionate minority (especially black) involvement in violent crime. The quoted is the last paragraph of the paper - they also compare arrest rates with conviction rates in the study (arguably a proxy measure for rightful arrests, although likely a rather weak one at that). I'm not sure what you're not familiar with/expecting to see? Show nested quote +The report also finds that, on average, a Black person is 3.73 times more likely to be
arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though Blacks and whites
use marijuana at similar rates. Such racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests
exist in all regions of the country, in counties large and small, urban and rural, wealthy
and poor, and with large and small Black populations. Indeed, in over 96% of counties
with more than 30,000 people in which at least 2% of the residents are Black, Blacks are
arrested at higher rates than whites for marijuana possession. Source
Thank you for this. I was largely interested in whether you meant whites have a similar or higher crime rate than blacks (i.e. as an average rate of all criminal actions) or whether you meant whites have a similar or higher crime rate than blacks (for specific types of crimes). Based on this I think you are talking about the latter?
EDIT2: Just to be crystal clear: I do not in any way shape or form believe that race has anything causative to do with crime rates.
EDIT: While the data overall is obviously shit, I think one should be very careful about generalizing any findings to the entirety of the US. Heck, much of my research is a question of biology and I still would be careful in extrapolating my findings (directly) to patient groups not included in my study population. When it comes to question which is undoubtedly tied to societal and cultural variance I think the only reasonable method is stratified analysis - or rather region specific analysis. I have little doubts that the US penal system is flawed (read: shit) and does more harm than good. But I would still like data when people make claims because it makes it easier to see what specifically people are talking about.
|
On August 17 2017 22:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 22:02 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 21:51 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Huh. So is there going to be some massive confederate states of america museum built for all of these statues at some point? Or are they planning to mothball all of them? I would like them to put the statues someplace else and provide context for the history of the statue and why it was removed. I would rather have an honest discussion about the reconstruction and Jim Crow era than simply moth balling it. For all the talk about heritage, we should put our full history on display and explain why people built statues of Americans who fought against America. So a massive confederate museum. Cool. I hope they build it right next to the newly opened black american museum. Can't get any more contextual than that. A civil war, reconstruction and jim crow era museum would be a good place. Or they can set one up per state. I can't get behind that. It's like Germany putting up Nazi museums, or Mao museums, or Imperial Japan museums. The bad side lost and should be forgotten. Written about, but not physically celebrated where people can draw energy from and try to recreate that nonsense. It does nothing but appease them.
Do neo-nazi's go to Auschwitz to see where it happened? I'm sure they do. But that doesn't mean that we should close it and keep it to the history books.
Seeing something has a very different effect then reading about it in a book while your bored, staring at the clock waiting for school to end so you can go home and play on your Xbox.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
|
On August 17 2017 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 22:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 22:02 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 21:51 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Huh. So is there going to be some massive confederate states of america museum built for all of these statues at some point? Or are they planning to mothball all of them? I would like them to put the statues someplace else and provide context for the history of the statue and why it was removed. I would rather have an honest discussion about the reconstruction and Jim Crow era than simply moth balling it. For all the talk about heritage, we should put our full history on display and explain why people built statues of Americans who fought against America. So a massive confederate museum. Cool. I hope they build it right next to the newly opened black american museum. Can't get any more contextual than that. A civil war, reconstruction and jim crow era museum would be a good place. Or they can set one up per state. I can't get behind that. It's like Germany putting up Nazi museums, or Mao museums, or Imperial Japan museums. The bad side lost and should be forgotten. Written about, but not physically celebrated where people can draw energy from and try to recreate that nonsense. It does nothing but appease them. Do neo-nazi's go to Auschwitz to see where it happened? I'm sure they do. But that doesn't mean that we should close it and keep it to the history books. Seeing something has a very different effect then reading about it in a book while your bored, staring at the clock waiting for school to end so you can go home and play on your Xbox. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Auschwitz was already built. They shuttered that and opened it up for the world to see. That's different than constructing a new place for them to have their atrocities shared to the world at large.
We already have enough museums where these places can be stored and contextualized, throw them in there. But I don't think they need to build new museums to hold all of this stuff. There's a reason why there are multiple holocaust museums and why there is the new black american museum. To bring to light the plight these people faced. We have them, no need to continue building them throughout the world.
|
On August 17 2017 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 22:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 22:02 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 21:51 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Huh. So is there going to be some massive confederate states of america museum built for all of these statues at some point? Or are they planning to mothball all of them? I would like them to put the statues someplace else and provide context for the history of the statue and why it was removed. I would rather have an honest discussion about the reconstruction and Jim Crow era than simply moth balling it. For all the talk about heritage, we should put our full history on display and explain why people built statues of Americans who fought against America. So a massive confederate museum. Cool. I hope they build it right next to the newly opened black american museum. Can't get any more contextual than that. A civil war, reconstruction and jim crow era museum would be a good place. Or they can set one up per state. I can't get behind that. It's like Germany putting up Nazi museums, or Mao museums, or Imperial Japan museums. The bad side lost and should be forgotten. Written about, but not physically celebrated where people can draw energy from and try to recreate that nonsense. It does nothing but appease them. Do neo-nazi's go to Auschwitz to see where it happened? I'm sure they do. But that doesn't mean that we should close it and keep it to the history books. Seeing something has a very different effect then reading about it in a book while your bored, staring at the clock waiting for school to end so you can go home and play on your Xbox. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Germany has world war 2 museums, but they have a clear message and do not glorify the war. Given the history of the southern states glorifying the civil war and writing some revisionist history(states rights), there is merit to have a more centralized museum in DC.
|
On August 17 2017 22:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 22:02 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 21:51 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Huh. So is there going to be some massive confederate states of america museum built for all of these statues at some point? Or are they planning to mothball all of them? I would like them to put the statues someplace else and provide context for the history of the statue and why it was removed. I would rather have an honest discussion about the reconstruction and Jim Crow era than simply moth balling it. For all the talk about heritage, we should put our full history on display and explain why people built statues of Americans who fought against America. So a massive confederate museum. Cool. I hope they build it right next to the newly opened black american museum. Can't get any more contextual than that. A civil war, reconstruction and jim crow era museum would be a good place. Or they can set one up per state. I can't get behind that. It's like Germany putting up Nazi museums, or Mao museums, or Imperial Japan museums. The bad side lost and should be forgotten. Written about, but not physically celebrated where people can draw energy from and try to recreate that nonsense. It does nothing but appease them.
We have Nazi museums in Germany. It is all about tone. A few months back, i was in a concentration camp museum in Dachau. Trust me, that was not a fun or glorifying experience, and I doubt that anyone would be walking away from that one thinking "yeah, holocaust was a good idea, we should do more of that".
Forgetting history is not smart, it takes away your chance of learning from it. Have accurate museums about the bad parts of your history. Show how horrific the bad parts really were. How they impacted people. Don't let other people glorify them, just show the truth about it.
|
Ah nvm. You get it. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
|
On August 17 2017 22:25 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 22:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 22:02 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 21:51 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Huh. So is there going to be some massive confederate states of america museum built for all of these statues at some point? Or are they planning to mothball all of them? I would like them to put the statues someplace else and provide context for the history of the statue and why it was removed. I would rather have an honest discussion about the reconstruction and Jim Crow era than simply moth balling it. For all the talk about heritage, we should put our full history on display and explain why people built statues of Americans who fought against America. So a massive confederate museum. Cool. I hope they build it right next to the newly opened black american museum. Can't get any more contextual than that. A civil war, reconstruction and jim crow era museum would be a good place. Or they can set one up per state. I can't get behind that. It's like Germany putting up Nazi museums, or Mao museums, or Imperial Japan museums. The bad side lost and should be forgotten. Written about, but not physically celebrated where people can draw energy from and try to recreate that nonsense. It does nothing but appease them. We have Nazi museums in Germany. It is all about tone. A few months back, i was in a concentration camp museum in Dachau. Trust me, that was not a fun or glorifying experience, and I doubt that anyone would be walking away from that one thinking "yeah, holocaust was a good idea, we should do more of that". Forgetting history is not smart, it takes away your chance of learning from it. Have accurate museums about the bad parts of your history. Show how horrific the bad parts really were. How they impacted people. Don't let other people glorify them, just show the truth about it.
Agreed. I'm saying I don't think we should build a museum dedicated to the confederacy. We have enough museums where a lot of these statues can be placed and curated. They don't need their own newly built museum is what I'm stressing. Expending monies to build a museum solely to contextualize the south is, imo, a dumb idea. You'll have people advocating for what they're advocating for now; saving their heritage and glorifying their shitty past.
I'm not trying to whitewash away history and say these things never happened. I'm saying it would serve no good purpose to declare "The Grand Opening of the Museum of Southern Heritage Post Civil War America." What good comes of that? Place a couple in the Smithsonian and a couple in state museums already built and curate it.
|
|
|
On August 17 2017 22:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On August 17 2017 22:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 22:02 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 21:51 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 21:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Huh. So is there going to be some massive confederate states of america museum built for all of these statues at some point? Or are they planning to mothball all of them? I would like them to put the statues someplace else and provide context for the history of the statue and why it was removed. I would rather have an honest discussion about the reconstruction and Jim Crow era than simply moth balling it. For all the talk about heritage, we should put our full history on display and explain why people built statues of Americans who fought against America. So a massive confederate museum. Cool. I hope they build it right next to the newly opened black american museum. Can't get any more contextual than that. A civil war, reconstruction and jim crow era museum would be a good place. Or they can set one up per state. I can't get behind that. It's like Germany putting up Nazi museums, or Mao museums, or Imperial Japan museums. The bad side lost and should be forgotten. Written about, but not physically celebrated where people can draw energy from and try to recreate that nonsense. It does nothing but appease them. Do neo-nazi's go to Auschwitz to see where it happened? I'm sure they do. But that doesn't mean that we should close it and keep it to the history books. Seeing something has a very different effect then reading about it in a book while your bored, staring at the clock waiting for school to end so you can go home and play on your Xbox. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Auschwitz was already built. They shuttered that and opened it up for the world to see. That's different than constructing a new place for them to have their atrocities shared to the world at large. We already have enough museums where these places can be stored and contextualized, throw them in there. But I don't think they need to build new museums to hold all of this stuff. There's a reason why there are multiple holocaust museums and why there is the new black american museum. To bring to light the plight these people faced. We have them, no need to continue building them throughout the world.
Slightly unrelated, but this conversation reminds me of the Museum visit that changed my life. Seeing the lifelike wax representations of the atrocities committed during the slave era at the age of 13 is not something easily forgotten.
http://greatblacksinwax.org/
|
Apple today has joined the chorus of companies taking a firmer stand against white nationalists and hate groups. According to a new report from BuzzFeed, Apple has disabled Apple Pay support on a handful of websites selling goods pertaining to such groups.
The report explains that Apple has dropped Apple Pay from websites selling items such as sweaters with Nazi logos, t-shirts emblazoned with “White Pride,” and a bumper sticker depicting a car crashing into a crowd of protestors.
Apple hasn’t provided an official comment on its decision, only confirming the move. Instead, the company pointed towards its existing Apple Pay guidelines which state that the payment platform can not be used on any site that “promotes hate, violence, or intolerance based on race, age, gender, gender identity, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.”
Tim Cook addressed the recent string of white supremacy and racist violence on Twitter earlier this week, calling it a moral issue and encouraging people to stand against it:
“We’ve seen the terror of white supremacy & racist violence before,” Cook wrote. “It’s a moral issue – an affront to America. We must all stand against it.”
In a separate tweet, Cook condemned the violent scene in Charlottesville over the weekend, saying that violence and racism have no place in America:
Heartbreaking scenes in #Charlottesville. Violence and racism have no place in America.
PayPal has taken a similar stance against such sites, saying that it was working to block “sites that accept payments or raise funds to promote hate, violence and intolerance.” The payment platform has blocked a handful of such sites over the last six months.
The three sites from which Apple removed Apple Pay have not commented on the decision. The decision on Apple’s part is putting an increased focus on credit card companies to put their foot down, as BuzzFeed notes that Discover has done:
Discover said in a statement to BuzzFeed News, “In light of recent events, we are terminating merchant agreements with hate groups, given the violence incited by their extremist views.”
We’ll update this post if Apple provides an official comment on this decision.
Source
|
On August 17 2017 21:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 21:45 On_Slaught wrote:On August 17 2017 20:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Whoa.
He is coming to Phoenix next week for another ego-boosting rally. Expect him to attack both Flake and McCain. Are these on the same page as the ones Obama did while in office? Or is this considered something entirely different? What I recall Obama mostly doing, were town hall meetings and policy tours, trying to get the people involved in the process and to understand what he was hoping would pass through congress. Am I off?.
They are different in tone and purpose. Tone is obvious. Purpose wise, they serve both to boost Trumps dangerous need for adoration and they are him trying to get re-elected since he did the rare (unprecedented?) thing of applying for re-election on like day one of office. Other Presidents at least wait until after the midterms
|
On August 17 2017 19:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:24 xDaunt wrote:So let me start by addressing why Vox Day's 14th Point ("The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.") is not about white supremacy. And let me preface this by saying now that some of you are going to feel really retarded by the time that I'm done, because everything that I'm about to say is right in the 16 Points. Point 15 is the first big hint: The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. Just in case there's any ambiguity here, let's look at Points 10 and 16, respectively: The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation. Here, Vox Day is clearly advocating for peaceful coexistence among peoples and advocating directly against the supremacy/imperialism of one people over another. Not exactly the typical skinhead dribble, right? So now let's talk about his reasoning for ethnostates. We see it stated right in Point 11: The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war. Now, unlike the previous points, I am willing to cut people a little bit of slack for not fully understanding the significance of what Vox Day is communicating here given the terseness of the statement and the fact that most probably have not had the opportunity to read or hear Vox Day elaborate on this point. But his argument is basically as follows: history shows that conflict -- often violent conflict -- occurs when different cultures either a) exist in close proximity to each other, or b) find themselves in a situation whether they otherwise have to compete with each other over the same resources. Stated another way, multiculturalism breeds strife that is not easily repressed and eliminated until there is some degree of convergence between the cultures because people tend to be assholes to "the other." It's just who we are and what we do. Vox Day's solution to this human condition is to keep everyone separated and allow each people the right to national self-determination. This is stated in Point 5: The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration. Accordingly, securing the future of white people is merely the logical extension of this principle. The goal, is the preservation of Western Culture, of which Vox Day writes in Point 4: The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy. For the numerous posters who struggle with reading, let me make the following abundantly clear: All of what I have said so far is what Vox Day thinks. Not necessarily what I think. Ok. I'm cool with arguing with Vox Day through you. He's still advocating South African apartheid. He literally echoes every single one of their ideas. It also hearkens back to the Jim Crow "separate but equal" bullshit. But yeah, not racist at all. Show nested quote +Like I have said many times before, my primary disagreement with the Alt Right lies in its preoccupation with race. And this is where I deviate from Vox Day as well. Here is what he writes in the summary section of his 16 Points: TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.
The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: "The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."
This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change. While I am willing to entertain the idea that there is some genetic variation between races, I do not accept the idea that this variation is significant enough to affect the ability of members of a given race to be able to embrace, or assimilate into, a certain culture, particularly if we are to assume tabula rasa immersion into that culture (ie taking a baby from one race/culture and raising it in another race/culture). Stated another way, Vox Day thinks that race and culture are largely inseparable. I don't. Now, for practical purposes, I can see why race might be a useful proxy for culture given that every culture is the product of predominantly one race, but it doesn't change the basic point that a member of any race can, in theory, adopt any culture. I'm glad you disagree with this. I'm a bit horrified that you don't disavow it more thoroughly. If I follow your thought process to the end, it's not the "black race" you have a problem with, but the "black culture". Or, if black people could just behave a bit more like white people, all would be well with the world? Show nested quote +So let's turn to IgnE's post: On August 17 2017 08:52 IgnE wrote:
you mentioned "pluralism" as one of the pillars of western civilization so im just hoping that one of your major disagreements with the alt right is this fixation on "homeland" and "ethnic" homogeneity. unless you meant pluralism in the strictly narrow sense of division of governmental powers.
cultural homogeneity seems more like the xdaunt brand of fascism. properly oedipal but enlightened enough to not worry about the fiction of race First, I mentioned that "political pluralism" is a pillar of western civilization, referring mostly to the idea that we value truly democratic and representative rule, as opposed to some form of autocratic or even single party rule. As for cultural pluralism, it really boils down to a matter of degree. While I reject outright multiculturalism, I do think that there is some room for variation within a culture. Or using IgnE's terminology, the xDaunt brand of fascism does require a certain level of cultural homogeneity within the nation. I'll just say right now that I don't know exactly where the line is as it pertains to the US. However, and per my previous posts addressing this matter, I do think it critical that everyone within the US, at a minimum, accept and embrace the most important traditions of Western culture: individual liberty, inalienable rights, political plurality, rationalism, and the rule of law. And I will be first to say that we have not done a good job of imprinting these values upon our own people (as is amply evidenced by some of the posters around here), thus this isn't even strictly an issue of insider vs outsider. We can see a nice little microcosm as to why cultural homogeneity matters just by looking at what has been going on over at Google. How was the internal reaction to Damore's memo any different than a cultural conflict? As with cultural conflicts between nations or peoples, conflicting values were the issue. And as we with so many cultural conflicts, one side is clearly working to eliminate the other. As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. So... you are back to "separate but equal"? Three huzzahs for Hendrik Verwoerd!
Not to mention the extreme hypocrisy of point 10... That alone should make enough of a statement.
|
Got some more background info on that? What did the Sherrif do?
|
On August 17 2017 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:Got some more background info on that? What did the Sherrif do?
Here it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
