Politics - Jason X

[Pidesco]

 

That's just utterly insane.

[Ben No.3]

 

https://youtu.be/sSnJSUU_7q0

That's just utterly insane.

Really is

[Ben No.3]

 

https://youtu.be/sSnJSUU_7q0

 

Like that time they build concentration camps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War

 

Or the time they created famines in India?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

Well it's like saying that if you were saved from hypothermia you can thank Dr Mengele. Almost all we know about hypothermia comes from Nazies experiments on people.

Sometimes some good comes out of the bad. Like some of the most crucial elements of modern court rules were invented by Spanish inquisition and such.

You need to acknowledge some things that are factual but don't sit well with you morally.

This is different though... you point out an existing correlation. The video, however, wants to point out a causation. It says that all of these great things existed strictly because of the British Empire and it's ideology. But thins like infrastructure and the import of western ideology are more of a byproduct of colonialism. The essence of it is still the domination and exploitation of other people for your own benefits. Pointing to the US as an example of positive British influence is flawed as well, since the Americans we are talking about are of British descent; therefore equal in terms of race.

 

Ignoring atrocities carried out by any imperial power, be it coups, famines, shootings or bombardments and be they carried out under the Union Jack, the Star Spangled or the Red Banner, is to deny them. And that is exactly what this video is doing.

 

See I'm not denying that the British build roads. I'm just pointing out that they have done horrible things that we can not and must not ignore. And this video is at best ignoring them and at worst trying to cover them up; which has to be and should be criticised.

 

Hitler also did a great deal for the German economy, especially in his early years. Stalin pushed the USSR forward decades. Mao united China. But we have to judge people primarily by their most significant actions; and for any of these that is mass killings. Pointing out their achievements is not wrong and historically interesting; but reducing them to their achievements is morally highly wrong and historically very misleading.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Eumaios]

I don't think it hurts to keep in mind the ulterior motives. The video serves as a springboard for debate which Ben Number 3 carries out here. However, In many ways, his position reminds me of the scene from Life of Brian. What have the British ever done for us?

I personally believe that the British empire was on the balance a force for good in the world and I've been hoping the population has started to have some pride in itself again. A little bounce in it's step and a move away from the hang-dog mope a dope attitude that it developed over the past couple of decades. "Self-love, my liege, is not so vile a sin, as self-neglecting."

 

​I hope no one points out the French connection of that quote.

[Hurlshort]

One of the documents I show my students is an account of a former Roman citizen who lives in lands conquered by the Huns, and he talks about how his tax rates are better under the Huns, and the law and order system is less corrupt. That video made me think of that.  

[ShadySands]

Thanks, now I have that song about Huns from Mulan stuck in my head

[Orogun01]

 

 

That's just utterly insane.

 

If you live in a country that has a terrible national debt and calls it freedom thank the Rothchilds.

[Hurlshort]

Good old Prager University propaganda.

[Eumaios]

Yeah, that's social media. Not that I blame them for promoting their own agenda. Hell, I even agree with it most of the time, but I still call it for what it is.

[injurai]

Good old Prager University propaganda.

 

I've noticed they shovel a lot of ****, they're like the opposite of one of those post-modern liberal arts colleges.

[Hurlshort]

 

Good old Prager University propaganda.

 

I've noticed they shovel a lot of ****, they're like the opposite of one of those post-modern liberal arts colleges.

 

 

Yep, although it is much easier to spot the crazy hippy colleges. Prager works pretty hard to conceal the fact it is just a shill for some conservative rich people. Also it's not a university in any actual sense of the word.

[Ben No.3]

I don't think it hurts to keep in mind the ulterior motives. The video serves as a springboard for debate which Ben Number 3 carries out here. However, In many ways, his position reminds me of the scene from Life of Brian. What have the British ever done for us?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo

 

I personally believe that the British empire was on the balance a force for good in the world and I've been hoping the population has started to have some pride in itself again. A little bounce in it's step and a move away from the hang-dog mope a dope attitude that it developed over the past couple of decades. "Self-love, my liege, is not so vile a sin, as self-neglecting."

 

​I hope no one points out the French connection of that quote.

I can see how someone looks at all the good and all the bad that a system produced and then decided to either like it or dislike it. But, and this is true for both sides, one sides views are a problem. If you say "this is the good, this is the evil; I think this side outweighs the other because of these reasons" that's fine. I may disagree, but that's fine.

The problem just arises if we have "British Empire good cause pride" or "British Empire bad cause genocide". And honestly, if it comes down to choosing the lesser evil here, I'd say one should go with "bad".

But it is a choice of lesser evil, and I think we can agree that it would be highly preferable if people were informed.

[Bartimaeus]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/the_supreme_court_s_conservatives_just_ensured_that_latino_votes_still_won.html (garbage site, but whatever)

 

Looks like the conservative Supreme Court (or, in other words, Anthony Kennedy) will likely rule gerrymandering to be well and fine.

[Eumaios]

Yeah, I've read about the redistricting decision also.  I think the argument isn't really about racism.  If you're a Republican and a certain segment of the population voted a certain way, you'd likewise try to mitigate that deficit.  It only matters that Latinos are the primary population subject to the gerrymandering because they're easily distinguishable as an ethnic group.  Trust me, if those Latinos voted en masse for Republicans, it would be the Democrats trying to find some way to diminish their electoral impact.  It makes for great politics for some Democrats to call Republicans crazy, but I think that tactic has started to become an albatross for the Democrats in most statewide (and certainly presidential) elections.

 

I personally detest gerrymandering, but I don't see how we can get away from it.  It makes a mess of things, but both parties have done it and will continue to do so.  Granted, I would probably be less sanguine about it if it were republicans who were screwed.  Double Granted, I live in California, and I'm still pretty sanguine.

[redneckdevil]

Gerrymandering needs to go

[ShadySands]

I personally detest gerrymandering, but I don't see how we can get away from it.  It makes a mess of things, but both parties have done it and will continue to do so.  Granted, I would probably be less sanguine about it if it were republicans who were screwed.  Double Granted, I live in California, and I'm still pretty sanguine.

 

Just take it out of partisan hands. Some places already do this with non partisan commissions and computer modelling.

 

Edit - Pretty sure Cali already does something similar to this

 

Edit2 - You're right about people wanting to be the exploiters of the system vice stopping the exploitation though

Edited September 13, 2017 by ShadySands

[Eumaios]

We *did* vote for this in California, but I'm not sure it's really the answer.  Someone will always win and making a commission just so someone else can pack it full of clandestine partisans seems iffy too.  I mean, at least when the Republicans or Democrats screw you over with redistricting, you know who did it.  On the other hand, while I'm not as confident about commissions and the court, I don't mind the idea of using computer models.  That's open to abuse, but I'm not sure it would be as bad.  People have been trying to use the courts, commissions, and all manner of other methods to rein in Gerrymandering for years.

 

...But, I don't want to be the guy who whispers that there's nothing you can do so do nothing at all.  Satan has used no more powerful argument than that.  Even if it is in vain, we should still try to create better policy.  Like redneckdevil said, it's gotta go.

[Guard Dog]

[injurai]

Is that supposed to mean isolationism? Because America would die.

[Guard Dog]

Is that supposed to mean isolationism? Because America would die.

 

Non-interventionism and isolationism are not the same thing. 

[injurai]

Non-interventionism is irresponsible to maintain as an ultimate policy.

[smjjames]

Well, the debate is how much non-intervention should be done. Also, I notice how North America, Central America, and the Carribean are left out on the libertarian one, heh.

 

The thing though is that back in the days (19th century mostly) when you'd mostly be fine with ignoring most things on the other side of the ocean and it'd be no problem, things were a heck of a LOT less globally interconneced as we are now, so, it's literally impossible to not be completely non-interventionist.

 

Not to mention that we're freaking the biggest and strongest military (okay, China has us beat in sheer manpower, but manpower isn't everything) and practically one of the primary engines of the world. I get being less interventionist military wise, which I'd agree with.

 

Also, here's something I read on why Democrats have such problems with foriegn policy ideas and how come Republican policy has dominated for so long. https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/5/16220054/democrats-foreign-policy-think-tanks

Edited September 14, 2017 by smjjames

[injurai]

Libertarians love their bananas.

[Eumaios]

I take it that you're a libertarian, Guard Dog.  Most of the libertarians I know are disgruntled Republicans who grew tired of various aspects of the Republican party.

 

I sympathize with the libertarian ideals, but I've come to view them in the same way I view communism.  Sure, one worships equality while the other venerates freedom, but neither are workable.  If men were perfect, we wouldn't need communism or liberarianism.  Communism and libertarianism rely on the perfection of men.  It's kind of backwards, though.  Communism relies on men forgoing the primary benefit of their own efforts in order to maintain a balanced society.  Libertarianism relies on lesser men not being jealous of their more able (or affluent or simply luckier) neighbors.  As individuals, some men might be able to put aside their baser instincts for the purpose of creating a perfect society, but humanity as a whole cannot rely on people acting contrary to human nature.  Society can tame human nature in the bulk for a time, but it's like keeping a tiger in a cage.  The tiger might appear docile in its cage, but it always look out at you and sees dinner.

 

I think I read that on the bathroom stall at the local tavern.  'Course the same stall suggested nuking 'em all until they glow.  How's that for non-intervention?

[smjjames]

He's not 'L as in Looney' Libertarian though I don't think.