US Politics: In concept (Not Practice), what are the big changes you want?

[JohnBrown1917]

That is an opinion.

The very importance of egalitarianism and dignity of life is subjective, based on one's accepted mores and taboos.

- - - Updated - - -



My statement does not preclude strong political views.

Show me where I deny the existence of systemic racism.

So why are you argueing about it? The fuck is your point even?

[Kellhound]

So why are you argueing about it? The fuck is your point even?

That it is pretty much normal human behavior, only the deliminator is in question.

[Thekri]

That nothing will change, how is that a good thing?

That isn't what anyone is saying. The point of understanding history is to better inform our decisions today. It gives us a better idea of what works, and what tends to devolve into horrible tragedies.

For instance, the US constitution created a really minimalist form of federal government, that among other things, had no provisions for a standing professional army. That is a very appealing idea, since it saves a huge amount of resources, and completely avoids the risk of a military coup. However, a quick look at history demonstrates that it didn't work very well. We abandoned it almost immediately, because while the idea that a citizen militia could stand up to professional European militaries turned out to be wishful thinking.

Now that doesn't mean you can't theorize a future where we don't have a standing military. It would be great if we could achieve that. However, you REALLY need to factor in the lessons of history to ensure you aren't just making the same mistakes. If you want to try it again, that is fine, just make sure you addressed the reasons it failed, so you aren't just doing the same stupid thing again. Same thing applies to every thing else. Kellhound is (correctly) pointing out that every government in history was oppressing someone. That doesn't mean it is impossible to build one that doesn't, but there are a lot of factors you have to consider in attempting to design one.

[JohnBrown1917]

That isn't what anyone is saying. The point of understanding history is to better inform our decisions today. It gives us a better idea of what works, and what tends to devolve into horrible tragedies.

For instance, the US constitution created a really minimalist form of federal government, that among other things, had no provisions for a standing professional army. That is a very appealing idea, since it saves a huge amount of resources, and completely avoids the risk of a military coup. However, a quick look at history demonstrates that it didn't work very well. We abandoned it almost immediately, because while the idea that a citizen militia could stand up to professional European militaries turned out to be wishful thinking.

Now that doesn't mean you can't theorize a future where we don't have a standing military. It would be great if we could achieve that. However, you REALLY need to factor in the lessons of history to ensure you aren't just making the same mistakes. If you want to try it again, that is fine, just make sure you addressed the reasons it failed, so you aren't just doing the same stupid thing again. Same thing applies to every thing else. Kellhound is (correctly) pointing out that every government in history was oppressing someone. That doesn't mean it is impossible to build one that doesn't, but there are a lot of factors you have to consider in attempting to design one.

Is this a thing now, writing fanfics about the posts of other users?

[Thekri]

Is this a thing now, writing fanfics about the posts of other users?

Care to add some context to that? A counter-argument would be appreciated.

[JohnBrown1917]

Care to add some context to that? A counter-argument would be appreciated.

Nothing you wrote actually had anything to do with what I posted, why should I bother? How a post about racism being bad can lead to whatever the fuck you 2 are on about is the biggest mystery i've ever seen on here.

[Thekri]

Nothing you wrote actually had anything to do with what I posted, why should I bother? How a post about racism being bad can lead to whatever the fuck you 2 are on about is the biggest mystery i've ever seen on here.

Because "Racism bad" is an argument with zero nuance. It isn't a helpful position to explain how to deal with racism going forward. The history of racism is extremely relevant to the current state of racism. It certainly isn't inevitable or anything, and racism is also not a binary proposition. It isn't a "Racist Y/N" type situation, there is a huge spectrum of racism, that has targeted a huge range of people. Example: Look at the history of Anti-Irish racism in the US. Not because it was worse then the current situation, or better, but because it is a full story with a beginning and end. History helps us understand what it is, and helps us move past it.

We are talking about it because it is essential to the topic. Since we don't have a simulation program that allows us to see how our concepts would play out, it is really the lessons of history that we can apply to them to see if they work. "Eliminate Racism" is an amazing policy, but we need to look at history to see how that would play out.

[Elegiac]

That is an opinion.

The very importance of egalitarianism and dignity of life is subjective, based on one's accepted mores and taboos.

Cool, but without getting into the reeds of a moronic nihilistic discussion let's just take that as a given.

[Kellhound]

Cool, but without getting into the reeds of a moronic nihilistic discussion let's just take that as a given.

That its all subjective and opinion? Agreed.

[Elegiac]

That its all subjective and opinion? Agreed.

No, that the inherent equality and dignity of humans is a given.

You're welcome to disagree, just don't get upset when I use the F word as a result. Because that is fundamentally the classification for such viewpoints that do not hold the inherent equality and dignity of humans as a given assumption.

[Kellhound]

No, that the inherent equality and dignity of humans is a given.

You're welcome to disagree, just don't get upset when I use the F word as a result. Because that is fundamentally the classification for such viewpoints that do not hold the inherent equality and dignity of humans as a given assumption.

Except as history clearly shows, that is not the case. It is an opinion, not a fact. Hell, even the meaning of "the inherent equality and dignity of humans" is debatable. There is nothing wrong with believing that your opinion is superior to everyone else's, so long as you are willing to accept it is an opinion.

[Bodakane]

Except as history clearly shows, that is not the case. It is an opinion, not a fact. Hell, even the meaning of "the inherent equality and dignity of humans" is debatable. There is nothing wrong with believing that your opinion is superior to everyone else's, so long as you are willing to accept it is an opinion.

In the US it is fact..."all men are created equal" is in the DoI for a reason.

[Slant]

Plurality instead of the two party system. Stability and cooperation instead of chaos and division. Get rid of the EC and have statisticians redraw voting districts based on population not party alignment. Make changes to those lines only be based on population changes, not arbitrary political tactics. Significantly reduce the powers of the President and the states. Make people understand they're Americans first, not Texans. Homogenize state law into federal law where it makes sense.

[Kellhound]

In the US it is fact..."all men are created equal" is in the DoI for a reason.

You do understand that it only meant "All white males" when it was written, yes?

[Bodakane]

You do understand that it only meant "All white males" when it was written, yes?

Your opinion about what Jefferson meant when he wrote those words means little to me.

Wait, that's not true.....

Your opinion about what Jefferson meant when he wrote those words means nothing to me.

[Kellhound]

Your opinion about what Jefferson meant when he wrote those words means little to me.

Wait, that's not true.....

Your opinion about what Jefferson meant when he wrote those words means nothing to me.

Given he was a landed white male slave owner.... Your rose colored desire for it to mean more means nothing.

[Bodakane]

Given he was a landed white male slave owner.... Your rose colored desire for it to mean more means nothing.

Thank you for reinforcing my earlier take on your opinion about Jefferson.

[Kellhound]

Thank you for reinforcing my earlier take on your opinion about Jefferson.

My opinion is based on the historic facts of his actions and the time period it was written, not some feel good ret-con of history.

[Bodakane]

My opinion is based on the historic facts of his actions and the time period it was written, not some feel good ret-con of history.

No your opinion is based on the smallest most low effort attempt to research a complex person, all because it suits your stupid and bigoted narrative.

[Kellhound]

No your opinion is based on the smallest most low effort attempt to research a complex person, all because it suits your stupid and bigoted narrative.

His actions are very easy to understand, and clearly show his true colors. He could have freed his slaves at any time, but he continued to profit from them his entire life. Words are worthless when your actions fail to back them up. He did not think that blacks and whites could live peacefully together, and that blacks would need to be deported once freed. He even put forth the idea that whites were superior to blacks in his Notes on the State of Virginia.