|
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 October 25 2017 06:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 04:31 Plansix wrote:On October 25 2017 04:24 kollin wrote:On October 25 2017 04:16 Plansix wrote:On October 25 2017 04:09 chocorush wrote:
Slavery allowed population to be turned into raw production at a much higher level than there would have been had resources been allocated more naturally.
There is a chance that some of those slaves could have been scientists. On average though, most people don't really have the skill to be scientists, and they really would produce more value with more unskilled labor. This is especially more true in the less technologically advanced time periods when a unit of physical human labor was more valuable than technical labor. And for the low low price of the largest civil war in human history and two centuries of civil strife. Wasn't the Chinese civil war in the 20th century bigger? I'm just being pedantic but I'm wondering if there's some reason that that's not considered or something. They are likely equal in scope. The Chinese civil war lasted longer and had twice the number of casualties. But the US civil war was also fought before the industrial revolution, which makes the nearly 1 million casualties grimly impressive. This is all wrong and what Kollin said is all right. The American Civil War is impressive by Eurocentric standards, but like so many other parts of history, it suffers once you remember that China is a real place. 30m dead is the high estimate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
Oh wow this wasn't even the war I was referring to - I meant the war in the 20th century between the KMT and CPC in which 'only' 7 or 8 million people died. American exceptionalism strikes again
|
|
|
On October 25 2017 07:00 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 06:54 Plansix wrote:On October 25 2017 06:48 Mohdoo wrote:On October 25 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On October 25 2017 01:53 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing I've been wondering: Based on everything I know about social programs intended to empower poor communities so that lowly people are able to go to college and have jobs that generate a lot of tax revenue, wouldn't that mean slavery actually hurt us? It isn't that the US was able to siphon productivity from slaves, right? What really happened is that we lost productive members of society by only allowing them a limited scope of contribution.
If we taught the slaves to be scientists, engineers, agricultural designers and shit like that, wouldn't the US have actually benefitted more than by using slaves? If so, wouldn't that mean that "built on slavery" actually set us back? Surely you understand that the using a human as a source of muscle power, similar to an oxen, is a worse economic decision today than it was in the 1700s. And likewise, that investing resources in educating a human is an economic decision likely to yield dividends today in a way that it wasn't in the malarial plantations. It's also probably somewhat harder for slaveowners to compel a group of factory owners, scientists, engineers and so forth to work to death creating value for the slaveowner than it is to compel them to pick cotton. Honestly the starting assumptions you have to make for that comparison to even make sense are really fucking weird but basically it comes down to different conditions and externalized costs. All of the investment in creating fully grown humans to be consumed as a resource by the plantation was externalized to Africa, treating people like coal being fed into a furnace is a net loss to the species, but a net positive for the slavers themselves. The species would have been better off had they been left to be productive members of their own societies, but the slavers wouldn't have been, I understand that manual labor was a greater benefit or more competitive or more valuable or whatever you wanna call it in the 1700s. I just assumed that while this is true, there were still members of society who were generating significantly more value than slaves. But maybe I'm totally wrong. You are right to point out that slaves were forced to work very hard and treated like poo. This likely squeezed a lot of extra value out of them. And just like we see today, lower class whites are often not willing to do the grueling work on farms that current day illegals do. Even modern day farms would get some serious value out of slavery. It is a pretty short term plan that will yield terrible results. Sure, you get free labor and can work them to death. You also get violence, followed by war and likely the death of the slave owners. The vast majority of slave owners throughout history were not murdered in an uprising by their own slaves. Instead, they enjoyed economic prosperity and a quality of life that they could never have experienced any other way. It is an unfortunate historical fact, but it is true.
You are not wrong. I'm just trouble by the metrics based discussion of slave labor, even if hypothetical. All history points to gross oppression ended in violence, normally through riots or uprising. Our modern America has no analogue for these events, since our last major riot was in the 1990s. There is this disconnect between the 1 million dead as the result of the Civil war and the slavery that caused us to fight that war.
|
On October 25 2017 06:45 LegalLord wrote:
The reason they're getting called out is because they're not standing up for human decency, they're standing up for establishment orthodoxy. They see that the general mood of the country is not really on board with more of the same, and rather than be an opposition for just four more years before the shitty president is almost certain to be removed, they have to walk away.
Being anti-Trump isn't surprising, or shameful in the slightest. Not as a Democrat, not as a Republican. But if you stand for what these folk stand for, and you remember who these folks were throughout the years, you start to wonder if maybe, just maybe, it's not that they oppose Trump "on principle," but more so that they perceive his presence and more importantly, the presence of the base of support that elected him, as a threat to their goals. And you know what, it's actually kind of alright to see two people (or groups of people) that I really don't like eat each other through a very unusual form of infighting.
I saw the same variety of "it just can't work that way, we can't do it that way, I'm jumping ship if we get that guy" with Sanders. Less aggressive, but aggressive enough, and that loose cannon is far less toxic. So I'm not buying the idea that the guys that have been hypocrites consistently throughout their careers took a level in morality rather than just use that as a cover for opportunism.
I know, it's so opportunistic. They are just pandering in the most obvious fashion to get reelected, while telling everyone that they aren't running for reelection. But instead they are all secretly going to run again (yes, even zombie McCain's cancer riddled corpse) after getting a large chunk of their base pissed off at them! McCain, Corker, and Flake think they've got everyone fooled with their genius plan, but you and I see the truth!
|
On October 25 2017 04:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 04:07 ticklishmusic wrote:
jeff flake is not running for re election. wonder how many other senators are gonna decide that this shit aint worth it. Another RINO bites the dust.
Bring on the Trump wing of the party.
|
On October 25 2017 07:14 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 04:28 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2017 04:07 ticklishmusic wrote:
jeff flake is not running for re election. wonder how many other senators are gonna decide that this shit aint worth it. Another RINO bites the dust. Bring on the Trump wing of the party.
They will all fly on private jets and charge their honey moon to the tax payer.
|
I always thought people meant demographics % wise that the Civil War was quite deadly. (The US population was only 31 million at the start of the war, meaning a death toll between 1-2 million was something like 3-6% of the total population. This isn't counting severely wounded, etc. , or that most of those numbers would have been young men). Not sure how it compares to Chinese wars on that count.
The major advancement in war before the civil war was the invention of rifling barrels, meaning that accuracy was much higher than in previous wars.
|
Huh, well then. I don't think this was illegal in the strict sense, but maybe we should frown on hiring spies to do opposition research. Then again, no one really knows about Trump's business dealings, which was the focus of the research.
|
Norway28873 Posts
On October 25 2017 07:22 Nevuk wrote:
I always thought people meant demographics % wise that the Civil War was quite deadly. (The US population was only 31 million at the start of the war, meaning a death toll between 1-2 million was something like 3-6% of the total population. This isn't counting severely wounded, etc. , or that most of those numbers would have been young men). Not sure how it compares to Chinese wars on that count.
The major advancement in war before the civil war was the invention of rifling barrels, meaning that accuracy was much higher than in previous wars.
The An Lushan rebellion had death tolls between 5% and 15% of the world's total population.  The 15% figure seems highly untrustworthy, though.
|
As political pressure mounts on social media companies to say where ads are coming from, Twitter will reveal more information about political advertising on its platform.
Twitter said in a blog post on Tuesday it would clearly label political electioneering ads, which the Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines as an ad used to promote a specific candidate for elected office or affiliated party posted within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. Electioneering ads can also include any ad clearly promoting a political candidate at any time.
The ads will have some sort of visual marker, likely a purple dot next to the user handle, and a purple box with the text "Promoted by" and the name of the sponsor.
In addition, the company will limit which criteria can be used to target people and will introduce a "stronger" penalty on those who do not abide by the new rules. The company did not say what the tougher standards or penalties will be.
Twitter, along with Facebook and Google, are sending their lawyers to Congress to testify as lawmakers investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 election through online political ad buying. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have introduced the "Honest Ads Act" as a way to get platforms to disclose more about paid online political ads. The legislation would require platforms with 50 million or more monthly unique visitors to have a public database of political ads and records for anyone who bought more than $500 worth of political ads in the previous 12 months.
Twitter's move to provide more information on political ads lines up with most of what Congress is asking for.
The company will also launch a "transparency center," which will show all ads — political or not — currently running on Twitter, and how long the ads have been running. The database will show users which ads have been targeted toward them and the personal criteria used to target them.
Political ads specifically will have additional information in the center, including all associated campaign ads currently running or that have run on the platform. It will show who funded the campaign, how much they spent on this specific campaign, and how much they spent on the platform in total. There will be information on the criteria used to place the ad, such as age, gender and geography.
The new ad policies will first be enforced in the U.S. but will expand globally eventually.
Source
|
Congress needs to make them keep physical, public files on who orders political ads, just like TV and news papers. And make the targeting information public.
|
On October 25 2017 07:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 07:22 Nevuk wrote:
I always thought people meant demographics % wise that the Civil War was quite deadly. (The US population was only 31 million at the start of the war, meaning a death toll between 1-2 million was something like 3-6% of the total population. This isn't counting severely wounded, etc. , or that most of those numbers would have been young men). Not sure how it compares to Chinese wars on that count.
The major advancement in war before the civil war was the invention of rifling barrels, meaning that accuracy was much higher than in previous wars. The An Lushan rebellion had death tolls between 5% and 15% of the world's total population. The 15% figure seems highly untrustworthy, though.
the 15% number is based on comparing the census numbers from before/ after the rebellion. the post-rebellion census is generally considered to be pretty unreliable due to the instability, and also not a wholly 1:1 comparison because of the loss of various tang territories (the western regions, ie the silk road) as well as some of the northern provinces lost to nomadic tribes.
however, 10m+ casualties is generally agreed to be a good lower bound (with the world population estimated at 500m). it's probably important to mention that this was over the course of some time. it took a couple emperors to finally end the rebellion, and it was still not exactly a clean victory.
|
On October 25 2017 05:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 04:28 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2017 04:07 ticklishmusic wrote:
jeff flake is not running for re election. wonder how many other senators are gonna decide that this shit aint worth it. Another RINO bites the dust. Flake voted 100% Conservative in the Senate and voted with Trump/McConnell every time a vote came up But Flake wouldn't go along with the daily lies and Kulturkampf, so he is a RINO! I am glad you are so transparent that you have no ideology and actual voting records don't matter. Kulturkampf was always your underlying value system, and by extension Kulturkampf has always been the true value system of supposed 'conservatives'.
He’s an F score on any conservative vote audit site you pick. Gang of eight member too. Thanks for the laugh though.
You’re right on the Trump/McConnell line. A prominent public Trump critic who voted with Trump. He definitely didn’t have a solid home outside the conservative faction.
|
On October 25 2017 07:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 05:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 25 2017 04:28 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2017 04:07 ticklishmusic wrote:
jeff flake is not running for re election. wonder how many other senators are gonna decide that this shit aint worth it. Another RINO bites the dust. Flake voted 100% Conservative in the Senate and voted with Trump/McConnell every time a vote came up But Flake wouldn't go along with the daily lies and Kulturkampf, so he is a RINO! I am glad you are so transparent that you have no ideology and actual voting records don't matter. Kulturkampf was always your underlying value system, and by extension Kulturkampf has always been the true value system of supposed 'conservatives'. He’s an F score on any conservative vote audit site you pick. Gang of eight member too. Thanks for the laugh though. You’re right on the Trump/McConnell line. A prominent public Trump critic who voted with Trump. He definitely didn’t have a solid home outside the conservative faction.
If you are a data person, Flake is a Trumpist. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/jeff-flake/
Trump score
How often Flake votes in line with Trump's position
91.7%
If you are a Kulturkampf footsoldier in Dear Leader's glorious war against Libs being untriggered, Flake is a lib.
|
|
|
They are gearing up for something, that is for sure.
|
|
|
On October 25 2017 07:00 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 06:54 Plansix wrote:On October 25 2017 06:48 Mohdoo wrote:On October 25 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:On October 25 2017 01:53 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing I've been wondering: Based on everything I know about social programs intended to empower poor communities so that lowly people are able to go to college and have jobs that generate a lot of tax revenue, wouldn't that mean slavery actually hurt us? It isn't that the US was able to siphon productivity from slaves, right? What really happened is that we lost productive members of society by only allowing them a limited scope of contribution.
If we taught the slaves to be scientists, engineers, agricultural designers and shit like that, wouldn't the US have actually benefitted more than by using slaves? If so, wouldn't that mean that "built on slavery" actually set us back? Surely you understand that the using a human as a source of muscle power, similar to an oxen, is a worse economic decision today than it was in the 1700s. And likewise, that investing resources in educating a human is an economic decision likely to yield dividends today in a way that it wasn't in the malarial plantations. It's also probably somewhat harder for slaveowners to compel a group of factory owners, scientists, engineers and so forth to work to death creating value for the slaveowner than it is to compel them to pick cotton. Honestly the starting assumptions you have to make for that comparison to even make sense are really fucking weird but basically it comes down to different conditions and externalized costs. All of the investment in creating fully grown humans to be consumed as a resource by the plantation was externalized to Africa, treating people like coal being fed into a furnace is a net loss to the species, but a net positive for the slavers themselves. The species would have been better off had they been left to be productive members of their own societies, but the slavers wouldn't have been, I understand that manual labor was a greater benefit or more competitive or more valuable or whatever you wanna call it in the 1700s. I just assumed that while this is true, there were still members of society who were generating significantly more value than slaves. But maybe I'm totally wrong. You are right to point out that slaves were forced to work very hard and treated like poo. This likely squeezed a lot of extra value out of them. And just like we see today, lower class whites are often not willing to do the grueling work on farms that current day illegals do. Even modern day farms would get some serious value out of slavery. It is a pretty short term plan that will yield terrible results. Sure, you get free labor and can work them to death. You also get violence, followed by war and likely the death of the slave owners. The vast majority of slave owners throughout history were not murdered in an uprising by their own slaves. Instead, they enjoyed economic prosperity and a quality of life that they could never have experienced any other way. It is an unfortunate historical fact, but it is true.
would they really have done taht much better than if they were say, local landowners with a bunch of tenant farmers/serfs, or minor nobility? or if they were merchants employing some freemen? Quite a lot of those other people also lived quite relatively well for their times.
|
wasn't it already known last year that after the GOP funder backed out that the DNC stepped up to fund the firm?
|
On October 25 2017 09:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
wasn't it already known last year that after the GOP funder backed out that the DNC stepped up to fund the firm?
Yes. But the RNC's lying by omission about who started the funding is a new wrinkle.
EDIT: nevermind. Someone else reads Josh Marshall I can see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
