Politics Thread: Edge of Seventeen

[Malcador]

There's a statue of Cromwell in Westminster.

They have one of Washington in London as well. The British forgive their traitors. Surprised the IRA never blew that up

[Blarghagh]

We should destroy all greek statues, they got slaves back then!

Probably not your neighbours great-grampappy, though.

[Gfted1]

 

He's one of only two people I've ignored on this forum, or any forum ever for that matter....

Am I number 2?

 

Ive never actually Ignored a poster in all these years. I guess no matter their level of derp I just keep on scrollin'. Now directly communicating with some of them?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ

 

 

[Pidesco]

We should destroy all greek statues, they got slaves back then!

 

What Greek statues are those that were built specifically to support slavery and racism?

[Hurlshort]

Are there a lot of classical Greek statues hanging out in public parks?

 

[Gromnir]

Are there a lot of classical Greek statues hanging out in public parks?

 

image

is kinda funny as we are talking 'bout tennessee.

 

http://www.nashville.gov/Parks-and-Recreation/Parthenon.aspx

 

is a colossal statue inside.

 

is a nonsense argument however.  and as terrible as were ancient practices o' slavery, it weren't based 'pon some kinda notion o' the fundamental inferiority o' a particular people based 'pon the color o' their skin.  such silliness is a relative new rationalization.  regardless, by the time o' the civil war, one cannot serious claim that slavery were such a fundamental and unquestioned part o' society that its existence were beyond question.  

 

also, while we realize gd will no doubt roll his eyes, nathan bedford forrest's villany were not simple slave ownership in a time and place when slave ownership were legal.  nbf directed and carried out the massacre o' prisoners o' war numbering hundreds and he were the founder and first leader o' a domestic terrorist group which has carried out innumerable acts o' cruelty and violence 'gainst civilians, including children, o' for the purpose o' protecting a heritage o' hate.

 

regardless, am thinking the most obvious thing we can take away from all this is tennessee is a strange place with its legislation to protect statutes o' the first grand wizard o' the kkk and full-sized recreations o' the parthenon... not to mention graceland.

 

HA! Good Fun!  

[Chilloutman]

what are you talking about, many ancient phylosophers we considering some people as 'lesser' and we still hold them in high regard. Lol

 

''And concerning the listlessness and cowardice of peoples, the seasons are especially the cause why Asians are less martial than the Europeans and more tame in their character,for making no dramatic shift either to the hot nor to the cold their seasons are temperate. For there are no mental disturbances nor strong change of the body, from which it is more likely that the passion is roused and indulges the senseless and high-spirited rather than when it is in a steady state.  For it is change of everything which wake the disposition of men and do not allow it to rest.  For these aforesaid reasons it seems to me that that the Asian race is weak and yet further so because of their customs.  For much of Asia is ruled by a king.  And where men do not rule themselves nor are autonomous, but are ruled by a despot, there is no reason for them to concern themselves over this.  So that they do not practice the military disciplines, but they work to seem pacifistic'' (Hippocrates, Airs, Waters, Places, XVI). (1)

 

''Therefore the poets say, “It is fitting that the Greeks rule barbarians,” on the grounds that the barbarian and slave are the same in nature'' (Politics 1252b7-9).

 

Aristoteles

Edited April 19, 2018 by Chilloutman

[smjjames]

Might want to put quotation marks around that big paragraph there Chilloutman. It's not apparent at first that it's a quote and not your own words.

[Chilloutman]

Might want to put quotation marks around that big paragraph there Chilloutman. It's not apparent at first that it's a quote and not your own words.

 

done, sorry but do you really would believe that I would say something like that?

[Malcador]

 

Might want to put quotation marks around that big paragraph there Chilloutman. It's not apparent at first that it's a quote and not your own words.

done, sorry but do you really would believe that I would say something like that?

Yup.

[Guard Dog]

Gromnir, you and I have been talking past each other for two pages now. I should probably have the sense to let it go but it annoys me that you seem to think by pointing out NBF was not Hitler or not the Green Goblin I'm defending him. I believe I've also said he wasn't good and there wasn't anything admirable about him and certainly nothing that made him deserving of a statue. Which I have also said a number of time that they (the statues) were there to serve the "lost cause" re-write of history and they are defended by people who know next to nothing about the people the statues are of.

 

OK, so why is NBF evil? Because of the Klan? Sure I'll go along with you there. It was not like that started as a support group for white farmers that got out of hand. It was pretty much the same thing on day one as it is today. Yes he did, years later, renounce and criticize it. You took that as me defending him. I only mention that it happened, something most folks don't know. Was he sincere? Did he mean it? Who knows. I doubt it. You didn't hear me say that made it all ok.

 

The Fort Pillow Massacre for those who don't know came after Ft. Pillow was recaptured by a full corps of cavalry under Forest's command. The fort was manned by an artillery regiment ( all black troops) and a cavalry regiment under a Major named Bradford. IIRC he had overall command. Bradford and Forest exchanged notes asking for surrender of the Fort in return for POW stats, the usual thing for the time. Bradford refused, no surprise. The confederates stormed the fort and after a four hour intense battle took it. Then every man and woman in the fort, black, white, misc, was shot or bayoneted even after they had stopped fighting and tried to surrender. Did Forest order it? Who knows. Opinions vary. Probably I think. "Show them the Black Flag" was what they called it. Meaning take no prisoners. I'd probably be more in a twist about this if it were uncommon. It wasn't. Particularly in the western theater of the war. The North used this as a means to whip up public support for the war which was now in it's third year with no end in sight. That is likely why so much is known about Ft. Pillow while so many others are forgotten. Plus, who writes history? Were the artillery troops killed for being black? I'm sure that didn't help but Bradford's men weren't spared either. It's just one more awful chapter in an awful story that got more attention than others just like it.

 

Let me ask you something Gromnir. Was Crazy Horse evil? The only men at the Little Big Horn that stood and fought to the death were Custer and his staff and whoever else was on the hill with them. The majority of the regiment broke and ran for the river and were ridden down and killed to the last man. Did that make Crazy Horse evil, or the rest of the Lakota, Arapaho, and the others with them that day? I wouldn't think so. I think a little bit of consideration is due to people fighting a bloody war against an invading force on their own soil. A war that had already seen atrocity pile up upon atrocity. Brutality begets brutality.

 

Now, one other thing you said I'd take issue with. Africans were not enslaved because people thought they were inferior. They did think that. But that is not why they were enslaved. They were slaves because either they or their ancestors were sold as such to European traders by rival nations/peoples in Africa. That slavery was the lot of black people because they were "inferior" was just something slave owners convinced themselves of to make it OK for those few who just might wave wondered if the forced imprisonment and mistreatment of other human beings was really the "Christian" thing to be doing.

[Malcador]

Seems a lot like the reason for doing it, even if they bought into marketing and are largely full of crap when it comes to following their religion (Very rare among religious people..)

[Guard Dog]

 

(Very rare among religious people..)

  That WAS sarcasm right?

 

Not the reason, the justification. The reason is nearly free labor > hired labor and they were for sale. Personally I wish I could sit down with Madison and convince him to fix the whole slavery mess right from the get-go.and somehow convince the rest of the delegates to go along. But that would also be problematic. If for no other reason than there are a lot of really decent people living in the US today that never would have existed but for that. You can't undo what's done and no one alive today owes an apology for deeds done before they were ever born. All you can do is find the good that comes with the bad and hope that in the end things worked out the way they were meant to .

[Gromnir]

Might want to put quotation marks around that big paragraph there Chilloutman. It's not apparent at first that it's a quote and not your own words.

is also largely irrelevant seeing as how in practice the greeks enslaved europeans and fellow greeks as well.  "as terrible as were ancient practices o' slavery, it weren't based 'pon some kinda notion o' the fundamental inferiority o' a particular people based 'pon the color o' their skin."  sure, you can find isolated quotes 'bout the inferiority o' other cultures and races, but the institution o' slavery were not actual tied to such silliness.  again, irrelevant.

 

and gd is again resorting to moral relativism while defending nbf.  never suggested you had claimed nbf innocent, but you did reject our characterization o' him and you chided folks for their ignorance o' the man.  am no self-proclaimed pundit or expert, but am thinking gd would hesitate to suggest Gromnir is wholly ignorant o' those notable men who prosecuted war in north america during early-to-mid 1860s, nbf 'mongts 'em.  have us repeat nbf flaws? the men under nbf command slaughtered prisoners o' war.  am feeling the urge to link a scene from a few good men.  however is nice to see you ain't just shrugging off the whole klan thing as you did earlier when discussing the moral turpitude o' nbf.

 

am also unaware o' any tradition o' peaceful prisoner exchange 'tween US soldiers and the lakota during the indian war.  perhaps fleeing soldiers is, as a rule, off limits?  that is news to Gromnir.  many a foolish commander has been suckered in by "fleeing troops."  regardless, one wonders how many US soldiers requested to be taken as prisoners o' war?  the few eyewitness accounts don't support such.  seeing as custer's attack were launched at what he thought were a group o' women, children and old folks, and as the US soldiers under custer's command had made few attempts to take prisoners o' war, one can't help but wonder what the heck you is speaking 'bout. 

 

converse, nbf actions during the civil war violated understood conventions o' war and basic tenets o' humanity as he and his men understood 'em.  can you tell us how you believe longstreet would view nbf actions at the fort pillow massacre?  careful.  nbf actions after the war as a founder and first leader o' the klan is even more damning.  even so, am glad you continue with the moral relativist wackiness as by doing so you will no longer be able to claim people hereabouts don't know nbf.  the more folks hear, the more reason they is gonna have to be shocked and appalled by tennessee's desire to maintain the dignity and status o' monuments dedicated to one o' those folks we hesitate not even a moment to label as evil.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps there were evil done by the indians at the little bighorn.  weren't killing o' soldiers or failure to take prisoners, but were the mutilations.  the indians who mutilated soldier corpses did so as a terrible punishment meant to endure beyond death.  those mutilated soldiers would need endure their mutilated bodies in whatever afterlife they might achieve.  were a shameful and dishonorable act and there is many lakota who claim it never happened, but it did and it were an evil. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Gromnir

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

@Gromnir: I just don't have the energy to get pulled into the cesspool that is conversating with you. My bad.

He's one of only two people I've ignored on this forum, or any forum ever for that matter....

 

Am I number 2?

 

Who does number 2 work for?

 

 

 

Not sure. It's a secret, to me at least, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was ever mentioned somewhere on these forums. Perhaps SASS?

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

[injurai]

http://www.businessinsider.com/finland-to-end-basic-income-experiment-2018-4?r=UK&IR=T

 

Finland is killing its experiment with basic income

[smjjames]

http://www.businessinsider.com/finland-to-end-basic-income-experiment-2018-4?r=UK&IR=T

 

Finland is killing its experiment with basic income

 

I wonder why it didn't work. Just because that failed doesn't mean that the concept is a fail, we'd need to know why they pulled out of it before making any judgement. As with anything, there are ways to do it that work and ways to do it that simply don't, or it could be factors completely unrelated to the concept of basic income.

[injurai]

Honestly I think it's more important to provide a social safety net through as a form of social insurance, and opportunities to take on low-interest loans than it is to provide people with basic income.

 

They're experiment had plenty of problems, but just conceptually I find the whole notion improper given the working and living conditions globally that would go to funding such schemes.

[213374U]

The right-wing strikes again. They aren't just shutting down UBI, they are also modifying their unemployment benefits program to "incentivize" (read: punish) long-term benefits recipients. People need to work! It's just not the state's problem if there is no work to be had, we support small government and small business (but big business is no concern of ours). So pull yourself up by the bootstraps and stop suckling from the state's teat yadda yadda.

 

It would be one thing if they had scrapped the program based on researchers' findings at the test's conclusion, but this is a political decision made by professional good-for-nothings who pocket €6k+/mo of taxpayer money while denying everyone else the same privilege.

[213374U]

Ah, yes. The obligatory deluded small business owner who dreams of becoming the next Amancio Ortega. If I truly contributed nothing to society, it would be different, numb nuts. The catch is that work or not, you are forced to pay taxes. Then one day you are out of work through no fault of your own, tough luck! No "free money" for you, even though you've been supporting the racket for years. F you, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and stop demanding handouts!

 

You're right on one point, though. I can't do what politicians do. I actually have principles—and if I didn't I'd be moving drugs. Gotta have some self-respect.

 

PS. they finally let you off probation sweetie? Hmm. See, I don't approve of censorship, but dummies like you give ammunition to pro-censorship dummies...

[injurai]

The right-wing strikes again. They aren't just shutting down UBI, they are also modifying their unemployment benefits program to "incentivize" (read: punish) long-term benefits recipients. People need to work! It's just not the state's problem if there is no work to be had, we support small government and small business (but big business is no concern of ours). So pull yourself up by the bootstraps and stop suckling from the state's teat yadda yadda.

 

It would be one thing if they had scrapped the program based on researchers' findings at the test's conclusion, but this is a political decision made by professional good-for-nothings who pocket €6k+/mo of taxpayer money while denying everyone else the same privilege.

 

Maybe malice is behind the change, but UBI was not exactly a fully-fledged "thing" to be shut down, it was a 2000 person experiment which was ran more like a variant on unemployment benefits. They aren't getting rid of welfare, just changing they're approach. Social programs have costs. The Nordic countries in general rely not on any particular social-structural magic, but oil tax and partially nationalized banking sectors to prop up the country.

 

In a highly competitive world where capital is fluid, it's very much not clear that UBI can become a permanent commodity without a nation owning rights to revenue streams.

[Blarghagh]

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/finland-to-end-basic-income-experiment-2018-4?r=UK&IR=T

 

Finland is killing its experiment with basic income

I wonder why it didn't work. Just because that failed doesn't mean that the concept is a fail, we'd need to know why they pulled out of it before making any judgement. As with anything, there are ways to do it that work and ways to do it that simply don't, or it could be factors completely unrelated to the concept of basic income.

"Right now, the government is making changes that are taking the system further away from a basic income," Miska Simanainen, a Kela researcher, told the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet.

 

It says right in the article. Enter the bureaucrats. Government workers swooped in and screwed it up.

[213374U]

 

The right-wing strikes again. They aren't just shutting down UBI, they are also modifying their unemployment benefits program to "incentivize" (read: punish) long-term benefits recipients. People need to work! It's just not the state's problem if there is no work to be had, we support small government and small business (but big business is no concern of ours). So pull yourself up by the bootstraps and stop suckling from the state's teat yadda yadda.

 

It would be one thing if they had scrapped the program based on researchers' findings at the test's conclusion, but this is a political decision made by professional good-for-nothings who pocket €6k+/mo of taxpayer money while denying everyone else the same privilege.

 

Maybe malice is behind the change, but UBI was not exactly a fully-fledged "thing" to be shut down, it was a 2000 person experiment which was ran more like a variant on unemployment benefits. They aren't getting rid of welfare, just changing they're approach. Social programs have costs. The Nordic countries in general rely not on any particular social-structural magic, but oil tax and partially nationalized banking sectors to prop up the country.

 

In a highly competitive world where capital is fluid, it's very much not clear that UBI can become a permanent commodity without a nation owning rights to revenue streams.

 

You're thinking of Norway, actually. Neither Finland nor Sweden have any revenues from oil... or production, for that matter.

 

And yes, it's precisely the fact that it's a "highly competitive world where capital (but not people) is fluid" and nations as the collective representation of peoples not really owning anything of worth because everything that's worth a damn has long been subjected to privatization schemes that's the problem.

[injurai]

As an ideal, i very much like the concept of UBI. It's just that wealth is largely a factor access to scarce things, and the production of people. I know that with international markets the west mostly offers services and Africa for example offers resources.

 

I'm just slightly hesitant to think an entire nation being given ownership over certain of the world's production is the right approach. However if it's in the hands of the private few anyways, then I guess distributing it wider amongst people who are going to more socially spend and produce with this new means, then that is indeed a win-win situation.

 

The tendency for the rich not to spend and the implication on trade and cash flows for the average person is very much a concern of mine.

[majestic]

The right-wing strikes again. They aren't just shutting down UBI, they are also modifying their unemployment benefits program to "incentivize" (read: punish) long-term benefits recipients. People need to work! It's just not the state's problem if there is no work to be had, we support small government and small business (but big business is no concern of ours). So pull yourself up by the bootstraps and stop suckling from the state's teat yadda yadda.

 

It would be one thing if they had scrapped the program based on researchers' findings at the test's conclusion, but this is a political decision made by professional good-for-nothings who pocket €6k+/mo of taxpayer money while denying everyone else the same privilege.

 

's been going on here as well. The government wants to push people who would otherwise get long-term benefits into the needs based minimum income system, which at the moment is a seperate thing. Not that it would be a bad idea to streamline and consolidate systems if it weren't that the minimum income system has a 4200€ upper limit on assets per person.

 

Or in other words, unless you literally own nothing you can't get minimum income. It wasn't designed to accomodate people who worked for 30 years and lost their job over being too old (read: expensive), it was meant as a last resort to keep people who already have nothing off the streets. If you needed the benefits you'd have to sell everything you own - including any real estate - and move to an appropriately sized appartment.

 

The idea behind replacing long term benefits with the minimum income system seems to be to force cheap real estate and labor on the market, and that's after Dumbo suggested buying real estate as provision for one's old age to young people who aren't too optimistic regarding the future. Needless to say that the ECB's zero interest policy has jacked up real estate prices something fierce.

 

But hey, that's right wing logic for you. An inheritance tax would be the government getting its greedy fingers on money they don't deserve, but forcing people who lost their jobs to sell off all assets and taxing those sales is perfectly fine. I mean... someone's getting cheap estate out of it.