Right Wing Discussion Thread XIII: Do the Right thing

[Genivaria]

Whereas your issue is a refusal to take responsibility for what you say.

Where have I denied saying I posted something? Go ahead, do show where by quoting me.

God I miss the face-palm emote.
No that wasn't her point at all, so you really can't accuse anyone of illiteracy.

I didn't accuse anyone of illiteracy, I simply said that's about the only explanation for misconstruing what was said. As for what was said, I said it wasn't a folly and she said it was because of the men who didn't return home; it was pretty blatant. If you need to in order to help you understand it, you can go to the post in question and read it a few times, maybe google some of the words if needed.

I mean this is pretty obvious.

[Fahran]

By this logic then, no warfare in the history of humanity needed to be fought, which is rather ignorant of the way humanity works.

It was foolish because we could not win and realistically had next to no chance of winning given the industrial, infrastructural, and population disparities between the Union and the Confederacy. The Union had a population of 18.5 million people. The Confederacy had a free population of 5.5 million and an enslaved population of 3.5 million. The Union had 3.4 million horses while the Confederacy had 1.7 million. This was complemented by a Union advantage in agriculture with the exception of tobacco, rice, and cotton. The Union had 101,000 factories while the Confederacy had 21,000. The Union had more than twice as many people actually fighting too. Source.

Beyond being a war we were extremely likely to lose, it was somewhat pointless. Lincoln wasn't going to abolish slavery prior to the war. He didn't even have the means to do this except in the long-term. Without the Civil War, the peculiar institution would have survived for at least two more generations and might even have been abolished with a good deal of support in the South as populist movements became more popular.

It's not exactly unprecedented for an individual to be uncomfortable with one aspect or another of their religious doctrine but defend it anyways.

That's accurate. I'd ask you if that was ever the case for you, but I'm loathe to venture into the CDT. I'd be like a unicorn there. And I'm almost a unicorn in the JDT.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

And?

Yo really?

[Diopolis]

No, it's just you not being able to understand basic context. We've went over this before, as well as the fact you have to attempt sarcasm to hide this weakness. Despite my best efforts to guide you on the right path, you persist in this.

Geez, imagine having so much self-grandiose ideas of yourself that you think you can't possibly ever be wrong, even when called out for blatant shittiness.

News flash: it's obvious to everyone that your fellating of the righteousness of the Confederacy is just a thinly-veiled support for slavery.

No, it's not. It's obvious that he takes support for the confederacy a little too far, but I don't read in him that he cares much about slavery, one way or another.

[Diopolis]

By this logic then, no warfare in the history of humanity needed to be fought, which is rather ignorant of the way humanity works.

It was foolish because we could not win and realistically had next to no chance of winning given the industrial, infrastructural, and population disparities between the Union and the Confederacy. The Union had a population of 18.5 million people. The Confederacy had a free population of 5.5 million and an enslaved population of 3.5 million. The Union had 3.4 million horses while the Confederacy had 1.7 million. This was complemented by a Union advantage in agriculture with the exception of tobacco, rice, and cotton. The Union had 101,000 factories while the Confederacy had 21,000. The Union had more than twice as many people actually fighting too. Source.

Beyond being a war we were extremely likely to lose, it was somewhat pointless. Lincoln wasn't going to abolish slavery prior to the war. He didn't even have the means to do this except in the long-term. Without the Civil War, the peculiar institution would have survived for at least two more generations and might even have been abolished with a good deal of support in the South as populist movements became more popular.

It's not exactly unprecedented for an individual to be uncomfortable with one aspect or another of their religious doctrine but defend it anyways.

That's accurate. I'd ask you if that was ever the case for you, but I'm loathe to venture into the CDT. I'd be like a unicorn there. And I'm almost a unicorn in the JDT.

We've had Jews in the CDT before. I'm sure you're welcome.

[Torrocca]

Geez, imagine having so much self-grandiose ideas of yourself that you think you can't possibly ever be wrong, even when called out for blatant shittiness.

News flash: it's obvious to everyone that your fellating of the righteousness of the Confederacy is just a thinly-veiled support for slavery.

No, it's not. It's obvious that he takes support for the confederacy a little too far, but I don't read in him that he cares much about slavery, one way or another.

Considering your own support for slavery, I can see why.

Geez, imagine having so much self-grandiose ideas of yourself that you think you can't possibly ever be wrong, even when called out for blatant shittiness.

I'd be most interested in you pointing out where this was claimed.

Doesn't need to be explicitly claimed to be implicitly implied to the point where everyone could read you like the cover of a book. :^)

News flash: it's obvious to everyone that your fellating of the righteousness of the Confederacy is just a thinly-veiled support for slavery.

And?

Lel, imagine being so cocksure about your love for slavery that you think everyone else is wrong for saying that that's bad.

[Conserative Morality]

By that argument you can claim communism isn't left-wing because many Christian sects' theologies support its aims and goals.

Communism as espoused by Marx isn't right-wing by any realistic definition. Buber's vision, on the other hand, can plausibly be called right-wing given that he's often described as a "romantic traditionalist." A decent slew of right-wing thinkers supported abolition, even if the most prominent abolitionists tended to be more liberal in their sensibilities. Describing Christian fundamentalists as left-wing would be peculiar.

That's pretty desperate considering Communism's entire ethos has very deep traditionalist roots. There's a reason it took root amongst deeply conservative peasantry. And thinking that abolitionism isn't a modernist invention in the West? Christian Fundamentalists can't be left wing?

Is this real?

Am I being filmed? Fucking ridiculous.

[Conserative Morality]

Sorry, you're right, your version is the only true version of Islam and everyone else is just supporting incorrect heresies.

In unrelated news, I have just become an absolute opponent of Islam.

Glad to have you on board. Would you prefer the full crusader outfit or a bottle of our Shari'ah-Away Spray as your free joining gift?

Full crusader pls

[Diopolis]

No, it's not. It's obvious that he takes support for the confederacy a little too far, but I don't read in him that he cares much about slavery, one way or another.

Considering your own support for slavery, I can see why.

It always came off to me like he was a right winger trying to be edgy.

[Fahran]

That's pretty desperate considering Communism's entire ethos has very deep traditionalist roots.

I'm inclined to disagree. The rejection of religion and many other traditional institutions, the adaptation Whig historiography, the lack of concern with great works due to their association with "formalism", and numerous other essential aspects of Marxist, though not necessarily all communist, philosophy were not traditionalist.

There's a reason it took root amongst deeply conservative peasantry.

The appeal to peasants with regard to Marx was almost purely accidental. He intended to speak on behalf of and to the industrial proletariat, not the rural proletariat. The peasants' attitudes towards their own material concerns, distributionism, and self-reliance coincidentally contributed to their support for Marxism-Leninism in Russia.

And thinking that abolitionism isn't a modernist invention in the West? Christian Fundamentalists can't be left wing?

Opposition to slavery dates back to the medieval period, specifically to the concept that enslaving your fellow Christians was a moral wrong. This was a bulwark of Catholic theology and philosophy for centuries. Chattel slavery of the sort practiced in the United States was, of course, an early modern development, but the Christian arguments against it were pretty ancient. And, yes, Christian Fundamentalists can be left-wing, but they very seldom are and plenty of abolitionists were certainly more conservative than liberal.

[Diopolis]

That's pretty desperate considering Communism's entire ethos has very deep traditionalist roots.

I'm inclined to disagree. The rejection of religion and many other traditional institutions, the adaptation Whig historiography, the lack of concern with great works due to their association with "formalism", and numerous other essential aspects of Marxist, though not necessarily all communist, philosophy were not traditionalist.

There's a reason it took root amongst deeply conservative peasantry.

The appeal to peasants with regard to Marx was almost purely accidental. He intended to speak on behalf of and to the industrial proletariat, not the rural proletariat. The peasants' attitudes towards their own material concerns, distributionism, and self-reliance coincidentally contributed to their support for Marxism-Leninism in Russia.

And thinking that abolitionism isn't a modernist invention in the West? Christian Fundamentalists can't be left wing?

Opposition to slavery dates back to the medieval period, specifically to the concept that enslaving your fellow Christians was a moral wrong. This was a bulwark of Catholic theology and philosophy for centuries. Chattel slavery of the sort practiced in the United States was, of course, an early modern development, but the Christian arguments against it were pretty ancient. And, yes, Christian Fundamentalists can be left-wing, but they very seldom are and plenty of abolitionists were certainly more conservative than liberal.

Actually, moral opposition to slavery dates back to Ancient Greece.
As for left wing Christian fundamentalists, that's a contradition in terms. Fundamentalism literally means "right wing traditional protestant". As for left wing theocrats, yes they exist. I think the only place I've ever run into one is NSG though.

[Camelone]

What even is a left wing theocrat? I've always thought that support for theocracy was on the right side of the spectrum, like the reactionary side close to me.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What even is a left wing theocrat? I've always thought that support for theocracy was on the right side of the spectrum, like the reactionary side close to me.

Same, though I wouldn't call it reactionary.

[Diopolis]

What even is a left wing theocrat? I've always thought that support for theocracy was on the right side of the spectrum, like the reactionary side close to me.

They're usually, well, idiosyncratic in their political views. A lot of them support some kind of non-marxist leninism based on a strange kind of left-wing protestant theology. There's also liberation theology, which can be a lot softer.

[Kaggeceria]

What even is a left wing theocrat? I've always thought that support for theocracy was on the right side of the spectrum, like the reactionary side close to me.

They're usually, well, idiosyncratic in their political views. A lot of them support some kind of non-marxist leninism based on a strange kind of left-wing protestant theology. There's also liberation theology, which can be a lot softer.

Closest equivalent I've seen would probably be UMN.

[Oil exporting People]

It was foolish because we could not win and realistically had next to no chance of winning given the industrial, infrastructural, and population disparities between the Union and the Confederacy. The Union had a population of 18.5 million people. The Confederacy had a free population of 5.5 million and an enslaved population of 3.5 million. The Union had 3.4 million horses while the Confederacy had 1.7 million. This was complemented by a Union advantage in agriculture with the exception of tobacco, rice, and cotton. The Union had 101,000 factories while the Confederacy had 21,000. The Union had more than twice as many people actually fighting too. Source.

The South did not have to match the North in order to win; the plan, quite simply, was to outlast their political will to win or bring in outside powers to achieve mediation in favor of independence. In this regard, we came within a hair. For an example, allow me to cite the situation in the Summer of 1864.

By July, Grant had finally managed to force Lee into siege operations around Petersburg but at the cost of nearly 60,000 men; this was roughly half of the Army of the Potomac at the outset. Lincoln was, as a result, having to expend considerable political capital protecting Grant over the immense outcry over the losses. Elsewhere, Breckinridge had beat the hell out of Siegel at New Market and then Early had damn near taken Washington itself by storm. Out West, Johnston had given Sherman such repulses as Kennesaw Mountain and now seemed likely to enforce upon him at Atlanta the same that Lee was doing to Grant; a costly siege unlikely to end soon. For the Northern public, the casualties and years of war were taking their toll and Lincoln himself expected to lose November handily.

The decisive moment came on July 19th, along the Peachtree Creek near Atlanta. Having replaced Johnston and having inherited a battle plan created by the same, General Hood led two corps of the Army of Tennessee to slam into the Army of the Cumberland under George Thomas. The plan was to use the two corps in a v-shape formation, hitting both sides of Thomas and ultimately destroyed him as he would be pinned both by the creek and the larger Chattahoochee river it connected to; without a means of escape and resupply, attacked on all sides with no defensive works, destruction was the only end result to be had for Thomas. With that accomplished, about two miles away was another component of Sherman's host, the Army of the Ohio under General Schofield (Or Schofield Barracks fame) currently held in place by a larger Confederate force, the corps under General Cheatham. Once Thomas was disposed of, the Confederates could then very easily encircle and destroy Schofield; this was especially likely, as Schofield was historically unaware that Thomas was under attack for most of the 19th. With both Schofield and Thomas out of the picture, that would leave just McPherson's command as the only remaining element of Sherman's original force. Critically, however, he was 15 miles away from the fords of the Chattahoochee which was Sherman's line of supply and, if needed, retreat away from Atlanta; the Confederates were much close than him as well. It's not inconceivable the entirety of Sherman's army could've been destroyed over the course of a few days in July of 1864.

If such had occurred, Atlanta would not have fallen and the Federals would've have received close to 90,000 casualties. Without a doubt Lincoln would've lost in November and McClellan would've been elected. Up until it had become clear Atlanta had fallen and victory was now likely, McClellan had refused to reject the Pro-Peace faction of the Democratic Party and in fact his force political act had been to endorse one for Governor of Pennsylvania in 1863. He further was telling other Democrats that he supported the opening of peace talks with no preconditions; in other words, he was entirely open to giving independence to the South.

Beyond being a war we were extremely likely to lose, it was somewhat pointless. Lincoln wasn't going to abolish slavery prior to the war. He didn't even have the means to do this except in the long-term. Without the Civil War, the peculiar institution would have survived for at least two more generations and might even have been abolished with a good deal of support in the South as populist movements became more popular.

Lincoln? Yes, but Lincoln wasn't always going to be around. The GOP had, afterall, nominated Fremont in 1856 and Seward had come close in 1860. The South realized it could no longer take the chance.

I mean this is pretty obvious.

It is not, as nothing in that post supports what you claim.

And?

Yo really?

No, he just has a bad habit of thinking "You support X!" is a valid debating point.

[Diopolis]

They're usually, well, idiosyncratic in their political views. A lot of them support some kind of non-marxist leninism based on a strange kind of left-wing protestant theology. There's also liberation theology, which can be a lot softer.

Closest equivalent I've seen would probably be UMN.

Bluth was pretty close, back in the day, but he was an anarcho-pacifist and thus didn't belong to any of the -crat ideologies.

[Camelone]

What even is a left wing theocrat? I've always thought that support for theocracy was on the right side of the spectrum, like the reactionary side close to me.

Same, though I wouldn't call it reactionary.

How come? Perhaps depending on the theocracy one would want to establish cause for Christians support for a theocracy would definitely be a reactionary stance, right wing definitely if it is just a state sponsored Church. Where would you put theocracy?

What even is a left wing theocrat? I've always thought that support for theocracy was on the right side of the spectrum, like the reactionary side close to me.

They're usually, well, idiosyncratic in their political views. A lot of them support some kind of non-marxist leninism based on a strange kind of left-wing protestant theology. There's also liberation theology, which can be a lot softer.

Definitely odd to conceive, especially reconciling leninism with Christianity. I normally try to forget that liberation theology exists but I can see how that fits into the mold.

They're usually, well, idiosyncratic in their political views. A lot of them support some kind of non-marxist leninism based on a strange kind of left-wing protestant theology. There's also liberation theology, which can be a lot softer.

Closest equivalent I've seen would probably be UMN.

That actually explains a lot.

[Kaggeceria]

Closest equivalent I've seen would probably be UMN.

Bluth was pretty close, back in the day, but he was an anarcho-pacifist and thus didn't belong to any of the -crat ideologies.

I didn't even know Bluth was religious. Honestly I just remember him as being the only one crazy enough to suggest that the US shouldn't have retaliated after Pearl Harbor.

[Diopolis]

Bluth was pretty close, back in the day, but he was an anarcho-pacifist and thus didn't belong to any of the -crat ideologies.

I didn't even know Bluth was religious. Honestly I just remember him as being the only one crazy enough to suggest that the US shouldn't have retaliated after Pearl Harbor.

Every time I interacted with him he always said something along the lines of "x is non-Christian" with no further explanation, usually about how we shouldn't go to war.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm inclined to disagree. The rejection of religion and many other traditional institutions, the adaptation Whig historiography, the lack of concern with great works due to their association with "formalism", and numerous other essential aspects of Marxist, though not necessarily all communist, philosophy were not traditionalist.

Which is why I said communism and not "Marxism".

The appeal to peasants with regard to Marx was almost purely accidental. He intended to speak on behalf of and to the industrial proletariat, not the rural proletariat. The peasants' attitudes towards their own material concerns, distributionism, and self-reliance coincidentally contributed to their support for Marxism-Leninism in Russia.

Again with Marx. Have we forgotten about the SRs? Or the anarchist communist revolutionaries of the late 19th century?

Opposition to slavery dates back to the medieval period, specifically to the concept that enslaving your fellow Christians was a moral wrong.

That's not fucking abolitionism. Unless southerners believing that enslaving your fellow whites is wrong is abolitionism. Not to mention that there were plenty of Catholic thinkers at the time, Popes included, who regarded slavery and the sale of Christian slaves to other Christians to be perfectly permissible. Not to mention that opposition to slavery far predates that.

This was a bulwark of Catholic theology and philosophy for centuries. Chattel slavery of the sort practiced in the United States was, of course, an early modern development, but the Christian arguments against it were pretty ancient.

Really? Have we fucking forgotten so quickly the slave trade in Europe? Your own people were traded as slaves. But now you defend the very thinkers who sat back and said "Oh, that's okay to do to the Christ-killers". What a joke traditionalists have become. Defending tradition, not traditions.

And, yes, Christian Fundamentalists can be left-wing, but they very seldom are and plenty of abolitionists were certainly more conservative than liberal.

Before the Red Scare? Not really. And after the Red Scare plenty became classic liberals. "Plenty of abolitionists" what an empty phrase. "Plenty" can mean nearly anything.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

No, he just has a bad habit of thinking "You support X!" is a valid debating point.

Ok, but do you actually support or are neutral on (conventional) slavery?

Same, though I wouldn't call it reactionary.

How come? Perhaps depending on the theocracy one would want to establish cause for Christians support for a theocracy would definitely be a reactionary stance, right wing definitely if it is just a state sponsored Church. Where would you put theocracy?

I'd think it's pretty far to the right (pls be untrue, pls be untrue!), but just like any other right-wing ideology, or any political ideology for that matter.

[Herskerstad]

Glad to have you on board. Would you prefer the full crusader outfit or a bottle of our Shari'ah-Away Spray as your free joining gift?

Full crusader pls

The only true Sharia-away is based in Christian Jurisprudence.

'Censors out any mentions of Tribonian.'

[Joohan]

I've got a question: Should Nelson Mandela have been awarded his peace prize for ending apartheid?

I say no.

Mind you, I am wholly opposed to the segregation of a people in their own homeland, but what Mandela did I think was still inexcusable. In 1961, following the Sharpesville Massacre, he would go on to form Umkhonto we Sizwe - a terrorist organization which would go on to kill around 130 people, dozens of which would be civilians.

Mandela would be intrinsic in ending apartheid - but he was also one of it's worst, and deadliest actors. The man literally founded a terrorist organization which killed hundreds of people.

For this reason, I don't think he deserved his Nobel prize, or his reputation as a humanitarian for that matter.

[Trumptonium1]

I suppose nowadays if you apply for a college scholarship and don't identify as trans or "an Ally" you're rejected?

In other news a university took down a poster of Albert Einstein in a physics department because he's white and male.

Often I stop and I wonder - will future generations see us as complete idiots, or will they be even worse?