Right Wing Discussion Thread XIII: Do the Right thing

[Oil exporting People]

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

(Image)

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

(Image)

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

They asked that for my housing application, but the only time I've seen it on scholarships was those specific to that category of people.

[Trumptonium1]

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

(Image)

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

(Image)

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

They asked that for my housing application, but the only time I've seen it on scholarships was those specific to that category of people.

I mean specifically "ally" - is that normal? It seems rather insane to ask a question like that which is nothing else but political. Very Orwellian. You're either LGBT or you're not, what does being "an ally" have to do with it.

Next we'll have 'Are you non-white?' to which the correct answer will be 'No but I checked my privilege and identify as an Ally of the oppressed.'

[Salus Maior]

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

(Image)

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

(Image)

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

Lovely.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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

(Image)

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

(Image)

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

You describing those incorrectly.
The 1st part does not say that you'll be rejected for not being trans nor being an ally.
The 2nd part says nothing about removing Einstein. It doesn't even talk about removing him for the reasons you said.

[Oil exporting People]

They asked that for my housing application, but the only time I've seen it on scholarships was those specific to that category of people.

I mean specifically "ally" - is that normal? It seems rather insane to ask a question like that which is nothing else but political. Very Orwellian. You're either LGBT or you're not, what does being "an ally" have to do with it.

Next we'll have 'Are you non-white?' to which the correct answer will be 'No but I checked my privilege and identify as an Ally of the oppressed.'

On the Housing application I think it makes sense; if they can't pair a Gay man up with another Gay man, the next best option is someone who doesn't care or supports Homosexuals. It also avoids pairing them up with dudes like me, which would create conflict. As far as scholarships go, it would depend on if your school offers scholarships with that requirement. My school doesn't, but I am aware of some at the State and National level that can be applied for. I once saw a $10,000 one you could apply for it as long as you were an "ally"; didn't even need to do an essay or have a GPA requirement.

[Salus Maior]

I mean specifically "ally" - is that normal? It seems rather insane to ask a question like that which is nothing else but political. Very Orwellian. You're either LGBT or you're not, what does being "an ally" have to do with it.

Next we'll have 'Are you non-white?' to which the correct answer will be 'No but I checked my privilege and identify as an Ally of the oppressed.'

On the Housing application I think it makes sense; if they can't pair a Gay man up with another Gay man, the next best option is someone who doesn't care or supports Homosexuals. It also avoids pairing them up with dudes like me, which would create conflict. As far as scholarships go, it would depend on if your school offers scholarships with that requirement. My school doesn't, but I am aware of some at the State and National level that can be applied for. I once saw a $10,000 one you could apply for it as long as you were an "ally"; didn't even need to do an essay or have a GPA requirement.

I know some gay people. I'll check that off for $10,000.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I mean specifically "ally" - is that normal? It seems rather insane to ask a question like that which is nothing else but political. Very Orwellian. You're either LGBT or you're not, what does being "an ally" have to do with it.

Next we'll have 'Are you non-white?' to which the correct answer will be 'No but I checked my privilege and identify as an Ally of the oppressed.'

On the Housing application I think it makes sense; if they can't pair a Gay man up with another Gay man, the next best option is someone who doesn't care or supports Homosexuals. It also avoids pairing them up with dudes like me, which would create conflict. As far as scholarships go, it would depend on if your school offers scholarships with that requirement. My school doesn't, but I am aware of some at the State and National level that can be applied for. I once saw a $10,000 one you could apply for it as long as you were an "ally"; didn't even need to do an essay or have a GPA requirement.

Yeah, there's scholarships for p much everything at this point.

[Oil exporting People]

On the Housing application I think it makes sense; if they can't pair a Gay man up with another Gay man, the next best option is someone who doesn't care or supports Homosexuals. It also avoids pairing them up with dudes like me, which would create conflict. As far as scholarships go, it would depend on if your school offers scholarships with that requirement. My school doesn't, but I am aware of some at the State and National level that can be applied for. I once saw a $10,000 one you could apply for it as long as you were an "ally"; didn't even need to do an essay or have a GPA requirement.

I know some gay people. I'll check that off for $10,000.

Hell, I about applied for it; no essay or GPA requirement and how the hell would they know my actual thoughts on Homosexuality? Decided not to because I didn't want to lie nor did I feel right accepting it given my personal views on the matter.

[Salus Maior]

I know some gay people. I'll check that off for $10,000.

Hell, I about applied for it; no essay or GPA requirement and how the hell would they know my actual thoughts on Homosexuality? Decided not to because I didn't want to lie nor did I feel right accepting it given my personal views on the matter.

Well, I would side with homosexuals sooner than...say, ISIS, or the Nazi party. Or Turks.

So in that respect I'm totally an ally

[Loben]

i have a scholarship for scratching my ass. got a PHD, opened up a academy on how to scratch your ass. really helps the kids.

my Brother in law also has a a degree in "respecting women but not really because the 1st thing you do after a fine piece of ass turns from you, you stare at her as if she's the fucking abyss"

[Luminesa]

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

(Image)

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

(Image)

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

“I am uncomfortable seeing Albert Einstein as a physicist because he’s white and male!” “Did you know he was also chased out of Germany due to being Jewish?” See how fast that shuts them up.

Or of course you could print copies of him sticking his tongue out and post them all over the building. XD

[Second Empire of America]

How long should they have stayed? And how long should the former slave owners been imprisoned? And hell, if slavery is so evil, why not kill the slave owners?

Federal troops should have stayed until local governments started actually enforcing all the federal civil rights laws passed during Reconstruction. Slave owners should have been imprisoned for ten years per person enslaved, which is the same punishment I support for murder and rape. I oppose the death penalty for any reason, and even though slave owners are awful, awful people, causing unnecessary death and suffering is evil no matter the moral character of the victims.

[Fahran]

Snip.

The South came far closer to winning than might have been expected, but, given the logistics, the vast differences in man-power, and the relatively weak industrial capacity of the Confederacy relative to the Union, it was always going to be an uphill battle. Snatching victory from that situation would have made General Lee and the other Confederate officers the equals of Alexander, Caesar, or Napoleon. And don't even get me started on General Hood.

"You may talk of Stonewall Jackson and sing of Bobby Lee,
But the 'gallant' Hood of Texas played Hell in Tennessee!"

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.

On the eve of the Civil War, there were 34 constituent states of the United States. 15 (44.1%) of them were slave states whereas 19 (55.9%) of them were free states. It would have taken the admission of 11 more free states to pass an amendment abolishing slavery at the national level or a complete change in the composition of the courts and state legislatures to effectively confer personhood onto slaves. Assuming all new states/territories admitted into the US were free states - and that's a big assumption, this would have occurred in 1896 with the admission of Utah into the Union. If we're more realistic and exclude Oklahoma, the admission of Arizona in 1912 becomes the earliest possible date for the amendment of the Constitution to forbid slavery. That's about fifty years removed from the Civil War, and not quite so destructive to the South in the long-term.

[Fahran]

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

Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, and the other varieties of communism that experienced the most widespread support and that came to prominence as the governing philosophies of states were not traditionalist or conservative in their inspiration. Most of them represented a robust rejection of tradition and the status quo. People like Tolstoy and Buber might constitute arguable exceptions, but the notion that communism on the whole was motivated by a sense of traditionalism is false. Marxism even animates and inspires much of modern Christian Communist ideology.

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

The SR's were guided by Marxism-Leninism. The extent to which they retained prior social structures and institutions is more evidence of a failure to impose the ideology rather than of the ideology's conservative character. And the Paris Commune was definitely a left-wing thing. Pretty much any French turmoil, especially that tied to Paris, after the big revolution is going to be left-wing.

That's not fucking abolitionism. Unless southerners believing that enslaving your fellow whites is wrong is abolitionism.

The vast majority of slaves in the United States had converted to Christianity over the generations, albeit occasionally retaining traces of older belief systems. Many of the Christian arguments made in favor of abolition essentially appealed to the same sentiments as those espoused by medieval theologians.

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.

Yes, but there were plenty on the other side as well. The Christians who argued for the abolition of slavery were not necessarily as liberal as you're making them out to be.

Really? Have we fucking forgotten so quickly the slave trade in Europe?

Chattel slavery on the scale we're discussing was not present in the more established Christian polities of Europe. It was largely something imported from neighboring Muslim polities as in Spain, Italy, and Southern France, something done by pagan Vikings, or something done to pagan Slavs and Turks. The overall demographic flow of slaves was towards North Africa and the Middle East, likely due to wealth disparities and theological differences over the issue of slavery.

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.

I'm not defending Antisemitism. I'm arguing that Christian arguments in favor of abolition were an inheritance from older thinkers - and they were. Beyond that, my people were subjected to all manner of persecutions and humiliations. I have not forgotten that and will not forget it. It's why I don't trust half the arguments I see in this thread, especially as they concern Jews, Judaism, and Israel.

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.

Protestant movements in the US, many of them spawned by the Second Great Awakening, were one of the more robust factions at work in the abolitionist camp. I would not consider such people liberal even by the definitions of their time. Again, my goal here is to refute the argument that conservatives and traditionalists were never abolitionists and that abolition was an exclusively liberal policy position.

[Salus Maior]

I'm not defending Antisemitism. I'm arguing that Christian arguments in favor of abolition were an inheritance from older thinkers - and they were. Beyond that, my people were subjected to all manner of persecutions and humiliations. I have not forgotten that and will not forget it. It's why I don't trust half the arguments I see in this thread, especially as they concern Jews, Judaism, and Israel.

Not every criticism of Israel is born from hatred of Jews. Hell, I know Jews who are very critical of Israel even as a concept.

[Oil exporting People]

I'm not defending Antisemitism. I'm arguing that Christian arguments in favor of abolition were an inheritance from older thinkers - and they were. Beyond that, my people were subjected to all manner of persecutions and humiliations. I have not forgotten that and will not forget it. It's why I don't trust half the arguments I see in this thread, especially as they concern Jews, Judaism, and Israel.

It takes a special kind of stupid to accuse one of our Jews of being an Anti-Semite.

[Fahran]

Not every criticism of Israel is born from hatred of Jews. Hell, I know Jews who are very critical of Israel even as a concept.

Oh, I'm aware. I'm personally criticize the policies of the Israeli government on a regular basis. That said, anyone should be suspicious when a person argues against nationalism for Jews while supporting it for everyone else.

It takes a special kind of stupid to accuse one of our Jews of being an Anti-Semite.

I don't believe that was intentional, but I admittedly took it that way a little bit.

[Oil exporting People]

Snip.

The South came far closer to winning than might have been expected, but, given the logistics, the vast differences in man-power, and the relatively weak industrial capacity of the Confederacy relative to the Union, it was always going to be an uphill battle. Snatching victory from that situation would have made General Lee and the other Confederate officers the equals of Alexander, Caesar, or Napoleon. And don't even get me started on General Hood.

"You may talk of Stonewall Jackson and sing of Bobby Lee,
But the 'gallant' Hood of Texas played Hell in Tennessee!"

Again, not really. The British were preparing to intervene in the aftermath of Second Manassas, and the French would've surely followed.

On the eve of the Civil War, there were 34 constituent states of the United States. 15 (44.1%) of them were slave states whereas 19 (55.9%) of them were free states. It would have taken the admission of 11 more free states to pass an amendment abolishing slavery at the national level or a complete change in the composition of the courts and state legislatures to effectively confer personhood onto slaves. Assuming all new states/territories admitted into the US were free states - and that's a big assumption, this would have occurred in 1896 with the admission of Utah into the Union. If we're more realistic and exclude Oklahoma, the admission of Arizona in 1912 becomes the earliest possible date for the amendment of the Constitution to forbid slavery. That's about fifty years removed from the Civil War, and not quite so destructive to the South in the long-term.

You're assuming that the only way the North could impede Slavery is by directly banning via Constitutional Amendment, when this is not the case; any number of acts could be steered through Congress or done via gaining control of the Supreme Court. I'm not saying this was likely, but from this perspective the South's action make a lot of sense.

Further, a factor less noted is that by the 1860s the ethno-genesis of the South had occurred. A Confederate National identity had been formed and quite obviously grew over the course of the war as a result of decades of Southern political thought. it's often been asked why poor Southern Whites fought for the Confederacy, and this is the clear answer. It's why you had the battered and broken Army of Tennessee throw itself like hell at Sherman in Bentonville in March of 1865 and why Lee's ragged and tired army kept fighting literally up until April 9th. Lest anyone doubt this, go look up what Gordon's boys did that day.

[Ostroeuropa]

That NPC meme sure triggered a lot of people, it's fucking hysterical.

[Ostroeuropa]

That NPC meme sure triggered a lot of people, it's fucking hysterical.

[Fahran]

That NPC meme sure triggered a lot of people, it's fucking hysterical.

"It's dehumanizing."

It's a joke. And a pretty salient one at that.

[Ostroeuropa]

That NPC meme sure triggered a lot of people, it's fucking hysterical.

"It's dehumanizing."

It's a joke. And a pretty salient one at that.

Pretty much yeah, which is probably why plenty of people flipped out over it. Honestly some days it feels so hard to identify with the left, but I think the major crybabies here were pundits pushing clickbait politics necessarily blunt, simplified, and stupid enough for mass appeal, and those who repeat their talking points and don't actually engage with their opponents ideas or criticisms to elaborate on those bite-size entry level ideas because they don't know how to respond to criticism.

This is a problem fostered by the establishments of both sides of the political spectrum talking past eachother and not engaging with eachothers ideas.

The NPC thing was basically "We can infer simplistic internal programming from simplistic and limited external responses." and mocking people for that.

Like, this is almost a daily experience for me. I say some shit and they have one of three canned responses to criticism. They're limited to certain scripted responses and actions because the political intelligence is artificial, set in place by a programmer who is not here to update it for them, and not genuine. I thought I was going mad.

[Bienenhalde]

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.

Many of the things Mandela did early in his career were morally questionable to say the least, but I think it is important to consider that he changed and moderated his actions over time. He might have done bad things back in the sixties, but by the nineties he was working for peaceful change and racial reconciliation and I think by then he ended up doing much good, despite his past mistakes.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not every criticism of Israel is born from hatred of Jews. Hell, I know Jews who are very critical of Israel even as a concept.

Oh, I'm aware. I'm personally criticize the policies of the Israeli government on a regular basis. That said, anyone should be suspicious when a person argue against nationalism for Jews while supporting it for everyone else.

Jews weren't a nation until the state of Israel was created. They didn't have a common language, common culture, or common territory.

[Fahran]

Jews weren't a nation until the state of Israel was created. They didn't have a common language, common culture, or common territory.

That's a bit debatable.

A nation is defined as "a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

Prior to the establishment of Israel, Jews did form internally stable communities within larger communities on the basis of common religion, a common liturgical language, a common economic life, a common ethnicity, and a common psychological make-up. Even the centrality of Israel to their identity could be perceived as embodying a common territory shared by all Jewish people regardless of their current location in the world. You'd have to quibble to assert that Jews weren't a nation in any sense prior to the establishment of Israel by emphasizing their lack of an immediately inhabited and sovereign territory and their different everyday languages.