Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Novus America]

Maybe. I have not been to that cesspool in a while. This cesspool gives me my daily dose of shit.
Half the posts here are from left wingers though TBH.

If the LWDT is a cesspool, what is this? Better yet, what the fuck is NSG as a whole?

The raw herpes infested sewage from the entirety of Detroit?

[Novus America]

Because I’ve just provided a daily dose of shit. Namely, since I’m a shit person.

Don't worry, we're all horrible people. If we weren't, we wouldn't be posting on NationStates.

She speaks the truth.

[Totally Not OEP]

Assuming technological development occurs at the same rate, slavery becomes economically non-viable in the 1930's or 40's.

1920s, I think, is the latest; Fordism emerged for a reason.

That's, in fairness, something completely true but which we don't like to think about- as the slave population "whitens" from the degenerate behavior of the masters, public opposition to slavery grows. It's not inconceivable that the confederacy opts for gradual emancipation based on skin color, especially when demand for slavery drops like a rock due to cotton harvesters.

Economics and cultural beliefs intertwined can produce the needed changes. I'd imagine cotton will begin to fade by the 1880s and will then become majority focused on industry, as that field already contained 5% of the slave population in the 1860s.

[Novus America]

Assuming technological development occurs at the same rate, slavery becomes economically non-viable in the 1930's or 40's.

1920s, I think, is the latest; Fordism emerged for a reason.

That's, in fairness, something completely true but which we don't like to think about- as the slave population "whitens" from the degenerate behavior of the masters, public opposition to slavery grows. It's not inconceivable that the confederacy opts for gradual emancipation based on skin color, especially when demand for slavery drops like a rock due to cotton harvesters.

Economics and cultural beliefs intertwined can produce the needed changes. I'd imagine cotton will begin to fade by the 1880s and will then become majority focused on industry, as that field already contained 5% of the slave population in the 1860s.

So why did the Southern slave owners refuse to negotiate?
Lincoln never called for a complete ban on slavery immediately before the war.
The vast majority of Northern abolitionists were willing to negotiate a slow and gradual tradition.
But the South went to war before Lincoln ever took office.

Lincoln won fair and square according to a system largely created by the South for the South.
A system states in the South agreed to.

[Totally Not OEP]

1920s, I think, is the latest; Fordism emerged for a reason.



Economics and cultural beliefs intertwined can produce the needed changes. I'd imagine cotton will begin to fade by the 1880s and will then become majority focused on industry, as that field already contained 5% of the slave population in the 1860s.

So why did the Southern slave owners refuse to negotiate?
Lincoln never called for a complete ban on slavery immediately before the war.
The vast majority of Northern abolitionists were willing to negotiate a slow and gradual tradition.
But the South went to war before Lincoln ever took office.

Lincoln won fair and square according to a system largely created by the South for the South.
A system states in the South agreed to.

Because the economic and cultural situation of 1860 was far different from our hypothetical 1920.

[Novus America]

So why did the Southern slave owners refuse to negotiate?
Lincoln never called for a complete ban on slavery immediately before the war.
The vast majority of Northern abolitionists were willing to negotiate a slow and gradual tradition.
But the South went to war before Lincoln ever took office.

Lincoln won fair and square according to a system largely created by the South for the South.
A system states in the South agreed to.

Because the economic and cultural situation of 1860 was far different from our hypothetical 1920.

Yes they were short sighted extremists in 1860.
Maybe they would no longer be in 1920.
We cannot know for sure though.

[Totally Not OEP]

Because the economic and cultural situation of 1860 was far different from our hypothetical 1920.

Yes they were short sighted extremists in 1860.
Maybe they would no longer be in 1920.
We cannot know for sure though.

Graduated emancipation was never on the agenda, for North or South.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

Because I’ve just provided a daily dose of shit. Namely, since I’m a shit person.

Don't worry, we're all horrible people. If we weren't, we wouldn't be posting on NationStates.

Don’t be like that. You’re mostly good people except for the commies.

[Novus America]

Yes they were short sighted extremists in 1860.
Maybe they would no longer be in 1920.
We cannot know for sure though.

Graduated emancipation was never on the agenda, for North or South.

Well true it was not, making the South starting a war even more stupid.
The agenda in the North was to limit it from spreading to new territory.
However the point remains the South has the opportunity to do things an easier way (for those not slaves) but took the route of uncompromising war.

[Farnhamia]

Don't worry, we're all horrible people. If we weren't, we wouldn't be posting on NationStates.

Don’t be like that. You’re mostly good people except for the commies.

*looms ominously* Please don't state or even imply that a whole group of other people are bad. Thank you.

[Totally Not OEP]

Don’t be like that. You’re mostly good people except for the commies.

*looms ominously* Please don't state or even imply that a whole group of other people are bad. Thank you.

I'm convinced at this point you lot are making an effort to prove to us your ability to make fuck ups is limitless.

You've now essentially opened the biggest can of worms that can be on a discussion forum: that there are no such thing as bad ideas or groups that can be criticized. The life blood of a forum is the ability of the membership therein to debate the merits of such ideas and their adherents as compared to their opposites. By one swift stroke, you've now killed that; by your logic, Torrocca for example, someone I heartily disagree with on many things but respect their right to do so, could be banned for their previously stated opinion that all Nazis are evil. I myself have often stated my utter disdain for Communists, like the poster in question that you've responded to. You've essentially placed us all in the position that any sort of meaningful dialogue is impossible, because if you cannot even imply groups of people are bad, you've made it impossible to even argue for the rightfulness of your own ideas.

This is a dangerous precedent to set and only makes your alleged position as impartial overseers even more of a farce than it already was.

[Hanafuridake]

Imperator: Rome has made me wonder how history would have been changed had the Mauryans conquered further west and possibly reached Europe and North Africa, especially the cultural and religious implications. I could see something similar to the Greek Kingdoms, with Roman, Germanic, and Egyptian deities being incorporated into Buddhist sects as protector spirits and avatars. I'm not entirely sure how the Jews would have reacted or how Ashoka would have regarded them, since there wasn't a monotheistic school of thought in India at the time period.

[Totally Not OEP]

Imperator: Rome has made me wonder how history would have been changed had the Mauryans conquered further west and possibly reached Europe and North Africa, especially the cultural and religious implications. I could see something similar to the Greek Kingdoms, with Roman, Germanic, and Egyptian deities being incorporated into Buddhist sects as protector spirits and avatars. I'm not entirely sure how the Jews would have reacted or how Ashoka would have regarded them, since there wasn't a monotheistic school of thought in India at the time period.

I really do not believe it was possible for the Mauryans to conquer that far West. Historically, the tendency has been it is a lot easier for MENA entities to project power to the East than vice versa, probably as a result of the inherent geography of the respective regions. Still, as a counter-factual, it's certainly interesting; what's got you on the Indian vibe lately, by the way?

[Conserative Morality]

Imperator: Rome has made me wonder how history would have been changed had the Mauryans conquered further west and possibly reached Europe and North Africa, especially the cultural and religious implications. I could see something similar to the Greek Kingdoms, with Roman, Germanic, and Egyptian deities being incorporated into Buddhist sects as protector spirits and avatars. I'm not entirely sure how the Jews would have reacted or how Ashoka would have regarded them, since there wasn't a monotheistic school of thought in India at the time period.

Super Bactria.

[Duhon]

Imperator: Rome has made me wonder how history would have been changed had the Mauryans conquered further west and possibly reached Europe and North Africa, especially the cultural and religious implications. I could see something similar to the Greek Kingdoms, with Roman, Germanic, and Egyptian deities being incorporated into Buddhist sects as protector spirits and avatars. I'm not entirely sure how the Jews would have reacted or how Ashoka would have regarded them, since there wasn't a monotheistic school of thought in India at the time period.

In all likelihood the resulting empire would've broken up even faster than Alexander's did. Chandragupta may have been a great conqueror, but from the surviving evidence it is apparent that Bindusara's talents lay in consolidation, something far harder to do when your territories stretched out to the Levant, even beyond.

[Hanafuridake]

Imperator: Rome has made me wonder how history would have been changed had the Mauryans conquered further west and possibly reached Europe and North Africa, especially the cultural and religious implications. I could see something similar to the Greek Kingdoms, with Roman, Germanic, and Egyptian deities being incorporated into Buddhist sects as protector spirits and avatars. I'm not entirely sure how the Jews would have reacted or how Ashoka would have regarded them, since there wasn't a monotheistic school of thought in India at the time period.

I really do not believe it was possible for the Mauryans to conquer that far West. Historically, the tendency has been it is a lot easier for MENA entities to project power to the East than vice versa, probably as a result of the inherent geography of the respective regions. Still, as a counter-factual, it's certainly interesting; what's got you on the Indian vibe lately, by the way?

I've been reading on early Buddhist schools and how important Mahayana texts like the Lotus Sutra passed into East Asia through India, which made me wonder about what it would have been like had it passed in the other direction as well.

You're right that it's probably impossible, I proposed the idea out of sociological fascination rather than actual martial or geographical viability.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

*looms ominously* Please don't state or even imply that a whole group of other people are bad. Thank you.

I'm convinced at this point you lot are making an effort to prove to us your ability to make fuck ups is limitless.

You've now essentially opened the biggest can of worms that can be on a discussion forum: that there are no such thing as bad ideas or groups that can be criticized. The life blood of a forum is the ability of the membership therein to debate the merits of such ideas and their adherents as compared to their opposites. By one swift stroke, you've now killed that; by your logic, Torrocca for example, someone I heartily disagree with on many things but respect their right to do so, could be banned for their previously stated opinion that all Nazis are evil. I myself have often stated my utter disdain for Communists, like the poster in question that you've responded to. You've essentially placed us all in the position that any sort of meaningful dialogue is impossible, because if you cannot even imply groups of people are bad, you've made it impossible to even argue for the rightfulness of your own ideas.

This is a dangerous precedent to set and only makes your alleged position as impartial overseers even more of a farce than it already was.

There isn't anything wrong with what Farn did. As is known on this site, you can criticize an ideal/ideology ("communism is bad" for example) but not its people ("commies are bad").

[Totally Not OEP]

You're right that it's probably impossible, I proposed the idea out of sociological fascination rather than actual martial or geographical viability.

Nothing wrong with either. I've speculated on such in this thread, although on more contemporary times; you might recall me speculating about how the Early Republic period in the United States could've went very different. For another counter-factual, and one probably more up your alley, the Ottomans very nearly conquered Constantinople in the first decade of the 15th Century but Timur appeared at the worst possible point for them. Without such happening, the early fall of the city opens up vast opportunities for the Ottomans and by extension the expansion of Eastern (Islamic) philosophies and ways of thinking to spread.

The Italian states are weak at this time, with Milan on the verge of collapse and Venice still recovering from Choggia and the plague. Spain has yet to form, with Sicily and Aragon about to undergo a succession crisis. The Hussite Wars are distracting the Hungarians, Poles and Germans while the Hundred Years War continues to rage in France. Most importantly, perhaps, is the fact the Church is still in schism. Entirely possible that in such a scenario the Ottomans could rapidly expand across vast sums of Europe given the ongoing power vacuum and disorder. To the East, meanwhile, the collapse of the Ilkhanate and lack of Timur means no Persian entity to distract the Ottomans from affairs in Europe like historically.

[Hanafuridake]

Don’t be like that. You’re mostly good people except for the commies.

*looms ominously* Please don't state or even imply that a whole group of other people are bad. Thank you.

The spirit of Barney Fife lives on in NS moderation.

[Torrocca]

*looms ominously* Please don't state or even imply that a whole group of other people are bad. Thank you.

I'm convinced at this point you lot are making an effort to prove to us your ability to make fuck ups is limitless.

You've now essentially opened the biggest can of worms that can be on a discussion forum: that there are no such thing as bad ideas or groups that can be criticized. The life blood of a forum is the ability of the membership therein to debate the merits of such ideas and their adherents as compared to their opposites. By one swift stroke, you've now killed that; by your logic, Torrocca for example, someone I heartily disagree with on many things but respect their right to do so, could be banned for their previously stated opinion that all Nazis are evil. I myself have often stated my utter disdain for Communists, like the poster in question that you've responded to. You've essentially placed us all in the position that any sort of meaningful dialogue is impossible, because if you cannot even imply groups of people are bad, you've made it impossible to even argue for the rightfulness of your own ideas.

This is a dangerous precedent to set and only makes your alleged position as impartial overseers even more of a farce than it already was.

On the one hand, a stupid statement like, "lol commies all bad xD," does fall under the "all X are Y" rule. On the other... I don't think it's that meriting of an unofficial warning for a trivial one-off, especially when compared to all the much worse rulebreaking shit. On the third, and semi-unrelated to those two hands, I'd believe your statements of respect were more genuine if you referred to me as I prefer being referred to on here.

[Totally Not OEP]

I'm convinced at this point you lot are making an effort to prove to us your ability to make fuck ups is limitless.

You've now essentially opened the biggest can of worms that can be on a discussion forum: that there are no such thing as bad ideas or groups that can be criticized. The life blood of a forum is the ability of the membership therein to debate the merits of such ideas and their adherents as compared to their opposites. By one swift stroke, you've now killed that; by your logic, Torrocca for example, someone I heartily disagree with on many things but respect their right to do so, could be banned for their previously stated opinion that all Nazis are evil. I myself have often stated my utter disdain for Communists, like the poster in question that you've responded to. You've essentially placed us all in the position that any sort of meaningful dialogue is impossible, because if you cannot even imply groups of people are bad, you've made it impossible to even argue for the rightfulness of your own ideas.

This is a dangerous precedent to set and only makes your alleged position as impartial overseers even more of a farce than it already was.

On the one hand, a stupid statement like, "lol commies all bad xD," does fall under the "all X are Y" rule. On the other... I don't think it's that meriting of an unofficial warning for a trivial one-off, especially when compared to all the much worse rulebreaking shit. On the third, and semi-unrelated to those two hands, I'd believe your statements of respect were more genuine if you referred to me as I prefer being referred to on here.

To what are you referring to?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

On the one hand, a stupid statement like, "lol commies all bad xD," does fall under the "all X are Y" rule. On the other... I don't think it's that meriting of an unofficial warning for a trivial one-off, especially when compared to all the much worse rulebreaking shit. On the third, and semi-unrelated to those two hands, I'd believe your statements of respect were more genuine if you referred to me as I prefer being referred to on here.

To what are you referring to?

She goes by Torra and feminine pronouns nowadays, but you already knew that.

[Totally Not OEP]

To what are you referring to?

She goes by Torra and feminine pronouns nowadays, but you already knew that.

I'm beyond confused at this point as to what that has to do with my post?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

She goes by Torra and feminine pronouns nowadays, but you already knew that.

I'm beyond confused at this point as to what that has to do with my post?

She said she wanted you to refer to her the way she wanted to be referred to, you asked what she meant, I was explaining what she meant.

[Novus America]

I'm beyond confused at this point as to what that has to do with my post?

She said she wanted you to refer to her the way she wanted to be referred to, you asked what she meant, I was explaining what she meant.

“They/Them/Their are perfectly acceptable alternatives as well :3”
When she literally puts that in her sig, and someone does so she has no possible room to complain.