It wasn’t about slavery, I mean yeah the vice president of the confederacy made a speech saying slavery was the cornerstone of the CSA, and multiple seceding states released documents that explicitly stated they were seceding in large part because of slavery, and all the seceding states were slave owning states, and West Virginia exists because they split from Virginia as they had no slaves and thus no reason to fight to hold them, and the CSA constitution mandated that any new state would be required to be a slave state… but… umm…
I mean they’re not entirely wrong, fighting slavery was a political tool not a moral imperative as it should have been and Lincoln didn’t in fact want to unilaterally shut it down he wanted the nation to figure it out ideally without violence.
Ed: books people, I’m not interpreting anything Lincoln was extremely vocal about it. Listen to Lincoln, he knows Lincoln weirdly enough.
History is nuanced, yes. Lost Cause bullshit and slavery apologists can GTFO tho. They’re not arguing in good faith so when you chime in to let everyone know how smart you are by supporting that nonsense, you know what it looks like, right?
Bro it’s factually correct, you can read Lincoln’s diary discussing it. The statement “the civil war was about slavery” isn’t wrong it just lacking nuance in the same way the statement I added to was.
Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.
They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.
The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest."
Dan Stone, A. Lincoln, Representatives from the county of Sangamon
You are 100% correct in your assertion that the civil war was a culmination of much more than just moral outrage over slavery, and it’s a subject worth continued study.
However, there are people who are exploiting that nuance for despicable reasons. So when you comment trying to clarify what you see as a matter of historical record, some of us see it as unhelpful because it’s continuing to provide conversational cover to those who want to use that historical record in bad faith.
It’s true, some slaves learned trade skills, but would you come in talking that ish if the OP was about the benefits of being enslaved?
It is a bit hard to distinguish between a bad faith arguing and someone who is being pedantic. Poe’s Law may parallel this. Maybe that’s what they thought?
Except it WAS about slavery as that was the primary reason why the South started the war.
Your point would be akin to saying that the Second World War in Europe wasn’t just about the Axis invasions because there are also complaints that Germany built too many telegraph lines vs what was permitted in the Treaty of Versailles. I mean yes those exist but that doesn’t change that the war was really about stopping the fascist invasions.
You didn’t prove anything because you’ve provided no evidence but rather elucidated us all to your lazy lackadaisical bad faith argument style. Try harder or you know at all if you’re going to insert yourself into things you clearly don’t understand nor have any intention to learn.
The south said ‘it’s about slavery’ as often and as clearly as possible.
People saying ‘it wasn’t about slavery’ are entirely wrong. Regardless of what Lincoln said. Pounding the table about what Lincon said is a misleading horseshit argument regardless of whether its claims are factual. It’s not fucking relevant. The issue is: the south started a war, and they started that war over slavery.
"I mean they’re not entirely wrong, fighting slavery was a political tool not a moral imperative "
In this you seem to be arguing what the North’s perspective is on the war while entirely avoiding the fact the traitor states started the war specifically about slavery. This is what people are reacting to.
It’s ABOUT slavery. Slavery was the entire root cause.
The south started a war.
The war was over slavery.
This submission is an idiot saying “the civil war wasn’t about slavery,” and you saying “they’re not entirely wrong.” They are, though. They really fucking are. If your denial of that fact is plainly not rooted in ignorance, what the fuck are you doing?
You need to develop a response to criticism besides doubling down and scrambling for some way to avoid saying “whoops.”
It was about trade played out through slavery sure.
Correct.
Correct.
Incorrect, they aren’t entirely wrong they’re not entirely right either. Please quote any part you feel is a “denial of fact” my suspicion is like everyone else you’ve jumped on board without reading the whole thing.
I’m not wrong, you’re simply confused. Historians time and time again, respected ones at that say the same thing I do and that’s ignoring the fact I quoted Lincoln about Lincoln, not my contemporary about Lincoln. I’m pretty sure dude knew his own thoughts.
Lincoln doesn’t matter - the South started the war, about slavery.
Nothing Lincoln did could possibly change that. No quote of his could be relevant. Saying so isn’t a question of veracity. The man himself could be on-record insisting slavery had nothing to do with it, and he’d be just as wrong, because the South started the war, *about slavery.
You know this is correct. You say this is correct. But then you turn away and make excuses for someone saying the complete opposite of that objective fact.
When this bigot begins “The Civil War wasn’t about slavery until the Union started losing,” that’s lost-cause bullshit, and your defense of it is inexcusable. This is bog-standard Leeaboo nonsense that you’re running interference for. ‘Surely people would have stopped Lincoln’s unpopular war’ might as well spell out “Northern Aggression” if you fold the page in half.
I’m sorry, hold on.
I almost missed that you slipped into outright Confederate propaganda.
“It was about trade played out through slavery?” Fuck right off with that, the war was about SLAVERY. In itself, for its own sake. Not because of bloodless lies like blaming “trade.” The bigotry of white supremacy was foundational! These bastards did not just want convenient free labor - they were fundamentally opposed to black people being treated as human. Quite a fucking lot of them asserted that black people, born anywhere, could never be American citizens.
Your behavior in this thread is why demands for “civility” enable toxic abuse. You can keep saying dumb shit as eruditely as possible, and everyone else has to dance around beginning a detailed condemnation with the barest hint of personal directed frustration.
“It was about trade played out through slavery?” Fuck right off with that, the war was about SLAVERY. In itself, for its own sake.
That’s just objectively wrong, dude. You need to read a history book, and not one of the 4th grade ones that always say the good guys defeated the bad guys. Nuance is a thing.
And yes, it is a thing that CAN be used to shield bigoted ideas, but that’s not what the person you responded to is doing. They’re just trying to correct you.
Our new government['s]…foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
You really think they would have fought a war and died by the tens of thousands just because they like slavery so dang much? Because they’re just that evil? They could be racist without owning slaves. Hell, they ended up doing that, for a hundred years after the Civil War. Hell, the North did that before the Civil War. Much of the North was very racist at the time, though that was in the process of changing.
The South fought to protect their slaves because their economy was built on slaves.
Yes, I think the traitors who started a war to maintain slavery are evil.
Why is that a question.
What the fuck.
These people screamed at the top of their lungs that low-key 1850s racism wasn’t nearly racist enough. That any black man being a citizen was a betrayal of the entire national experiment. And for some reason you’re searching for excuses to say it was rational economic incentives.
Bigotry is bad… mmkay? Bigots themselves don’t have to think they’re evil, and twirl their moustaches, to be really fucking evil. Obvious example, Nazis. Tell me the holocaust was really about land rights and I’ll tell you where to shove it.
Tell me the holocaust was really about land rights and I’ll tell you where to shove it.
The both of you are trying to rationalize the worst evils in the world, as if extraordinary bigotry isn’t thoroughly sufficient.
You in particular scoff, “You really think they would have fought a war and died by the tens of thousands just because they like slavery so dang much?” Like you cannot imagine shockingly violent conflict emerging from sheer hatred. In the south. A culture stereotyped for generational blood feuds. A region that if we’re brutally honest still has a problem with lynching.
All for “nuance.”
Nuance you’re blind to, when it’s me pointing out, people make these excuses as propaganda. The other guy dying on this hill keeps ranting about Lincoln for some reason and just coincidentally drops that well okay the war was about the business of dehumanizing misery. It’s just business! A perfectly reasonable dry bloodless economic incentive. Co-equal to, y’know, openly declaring black people subhuman. Both sides.
Again reaching for the hopefully obvious comparison: would you say the holocaust was about the Nazi desire to kill Jewish Germans…'s businesses? How seriously would you take someone’s insistence that they’re not doing apologism, when all they talk about is Japanese internment and lebensraum? “I don’t know why we can’t address Hitler’s vile antisemitism, and his totes sincere good-faith criticism of wealthy minorities. Why can’t both be true? Discuss.”
“I don’t know why we can’t address Hitler’s vile antisemitism, and his totes sincere good-faith criticism of wealthy minorities. Why can’t both be true? Discuss.”
Well, almost. It’s a perfectly valid thing to want to acknowledge the evil of Hitler but also the oppressive economic conditions imposed on Germany after WW1. And in a broader context, the whole buildup of HOW the Nazis gained power. They weren’t just a dark cloud of evil creatures who appeared stage right and seized power in Germany. The context is important, if for nothing else so we can learn from it.
Which is nowhere close to being a Nazi apologist.
people make these excuses as propaganda.
No one is doing that here and now. I understand being on your guard, because yes people do that. Bigots do that. Apologists do that. I agree. And when they do that, we shouldn’t get hoodwinked into discussions about nuance because they’re just a cover for making their bigoted ideas sound palatable.
But that’s not what’s happening here. Everyone in this thread that I have seen is roundly denouncing slavery and racism. We have the freedom, now, to be able to discuss nuance without worrying about whether it will be used as a shield for bigots. We don’t ALWAYS have to dismiss context and nuance - and if we do, then we won’t recognize the buildup to it next time.
Everyone in this thread that I have seen is roundly denouncing slavery and racism.
So would the asshole claiming “the civil war wasn’t about slavery.”
That’s how these excuses function as propaganda. They don’t come out and say “yay evil.” But they’re still defending evil… by degrees. The nuance of their claims is kinda fucking important.
We have the freedom, now, to be able to discuss nuance without worrying about whether it will be used as a shield for bigots.
You live on a different internet.
We don’t ALWAYS have to dismiss context and nuance
… reducing this to ‘well you just hate nuance’ is so goddamn ironic I’m not sure where to begin.
Underlining an inability to identify bigotry when it’s any less blatant than declaring an ethnicity subhuman, in as many words.
And turning it into personal insults about mental health. Real classy.
Again: even the obvious bigot we’re all bickering about would loudly insist he’s against slavery and racism. And then he’d immediately say some shit that promotes, excuses, or minimizes outright bigotry.
And you two pipe-chewing scholars would scoff, asking: what’s so racist about that obvious dogwhistle? Technically that bigot’s point about crime rates was factually correct! Are we not free to litigate whether those bad-faith justifications make valid claims before an insane conclusion? There’s no way that’s how every racist asshole launders their evil bullshit. Surely it’s not exactly how they shield their views, when they can’t outright say, “fuck the outgroup.”
Meanwhile.
Back at the distant point:
The civil war was about slavery. For its own sake. Any human conflict is going to be more complex than a single word, but few wars have ever been clearer about their overwhelming central focus. If you say the sky is blue because of light from the sun and I add “and from the stars!,” that’s how uselessly tangential it is to insist “and trade.”
Humans have done unimaginable evil for its own sake. Tell six generations they’re the only people who count, and of course number seven’s ready to end you for questioning it. You don’t count. This is unmistakable and unavoidable in strongly hierarchical honor cultures. For example: the south. Seeking a calmly reasoned explanation when a senator beats someone half to death with a walking-stick leads to “4D chess” self-delusion. Like it has to be strategic.
Like systemic violence against an entire race has to make sense without bigotry, even if you fully acknowledge there is “also” bigotry.
Describing those flimsy justifications at all requires considerable context to avoid coming off as just another racist asshole.
Using those flimsy justifications like they’re interchangeable for the actual fuuucking reason is inexcusable. And you lurched into this conversation specifically to excuse it. Feel free to stop.
even the obvious bigot we’re all bickering about would loudly insist he’s against slavery and racism
And he would obviously be lying. Racism is fairly easy to identify. For most people. Not you, of course. You see racism behind every tree, apparently.
If you say the sky is blue because of light from the sun
To make a better analogy, it’s like if someone said “the sky is blue because we can only see blue light!” The answer would be “no, but there’s a bit of truth there. The atmosphere scatters blue light more than other wavelengths, and human eyes are more attuned to blue than other colors”. Why does this matter? Because he drew the wrong conclusion from a tidbit of accurate information.
Especially since the idiot claiming we can’t see red light isn’t actually part of the conversation. Nor are any other Red Lighters. We’re just discussing something he said.
Seeking a calmly reasoned explanation when a senator beats someone half to death with a walking-stick
Are you a time traveller?
…is this “Preston Brooks” in the room with us right now?
We’re like 4 steps removed from the person who even said the quote in OP.
You can chill, you’re not about to fight off a horde of Copperheads. This is a left-leaning internet forum. There are no Klansmen here. You’re not on a crusade. Chill the fuck out. We are on the internet.
Being frothing at the mouth outraged because something happened a hundred and fifty years ago is not healthy. It’s a fixation.
No, troll, I’m using it as shorthand for how fucked-up the society we’re discussing was, around the time we’re discussing.
It is part of a direct response to a question you asked - a question you asked as smugly as possible. Like you cannot imagine systemic violence and outright war over ideology alone, and that makes me ignorant.
We’re discussing how people are lying about the war. Misleading defenses of outright lies are still basically just lies. That’s why lying racists themselves will make exactly the same defenses, when pressed. They are not married to the original lies. All they care about is finding some excuse to minimize the horrific evil that you have scoffed at.
We’re still directly talking about the civil war… as proven by your immediate follow-up comment, condescending like I missed the exact details I’ve been addressing the whole time.
All vitriol in this exchange has been about your shitty behavior. Including this: you treated contemporary reference to the south’s cultural stereotypes, by name, as a sign of mental illness. Fuck right off if you think any properly enforced leftist space would tolerate that shit.
It’s just exhausting how you keep saying this. No, we’re not. We’re trying to discuss historical facts and the glossing over of them, but you keep trying to pivot the discussion to a “racism bad, yes or no?” conversation.
Declaring “the civil war wasn’t about slavery,” verbatim, in any context, is not nuance - it is a lie. It is an indefensible oversimplification at best, and racist garbage which you have acknowledged as racist garbage at worst.
The thread is about some asshole telling this and other lies. It is that worst-case racist garbage.
The conversation you barged into involves some dingus who was trying to eke technicalities about those lies, as if anyone involved is unfamiliar with the premise being viciously misrepresented through those lies.
Your contribution has been to escalate and deny and make this personal, while declaring that you’re only carrying a torch for nuuuaaance, whilst struggling with dead simple context and being insufferably smug about how badly you missed it.
The Cornerstone Speech is in black and white, in history books and this conversation. Abusive troll. Referring to it is not even a matter of your grand claims to be a nuance understander. It’s basic reading comprehension. I am describing the aggressively obvious for-its-own-sake bigotry of the goddamn Confederacy - the central fucking topic of this post.
“the sky is blue because we can only see blue light!” The answer would be “no, but there’s a bit of truth there.”
… no, that’d be running interference for morons. Insisting “he’s not entirely wrong!” when the only sane aspect of someone’s worldview is that the sky is blue is the biggest motte-to-bailey ratio I’ve ever heard.
Thank you for making crystal clear why this thread is a trainwreck. You’re twisting complete nonsense claims by obvious idiot liars into an out-of-context interpretation of a few words they kinda said.
In the case of the OG Facebook dolt, he didn’t say “the civil war about more than slavery,” he said “the civil war WASN’T ABOUT SLAVERY, UNTIL blah blah blah.” Bog-standard Lost Cause propaganda. Picking a few words from that and going yeah-but is exactly the sort of dissembling excuse that overt racists like his dumb ass will do all the fucking time.
If you can’t spot the problem when third parties do it for him, you’re why it’s a problem.
the civil war WASN’T ABOUT SLAVERY, UNTIL blah blah blah
I feel a bit sorry for you now. It’s got to be difficult arguing against knowledge, because sometimes you’re required to show that you’re right. And that’s very hard to do if you refuse to learn history for fear of it somehow corrupting you into racism.
It’s only nuanced if you ignore all the primary evidence that it really was over the issue of slavery and almost entirely about preserving slavery.
Most of those “Well it was more nuanced because states rights and they got beneficial skills” reasons are made up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
Most of those “Well it was more nuanced because states rights and they got beneficial skills” reasons are made up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
Please quote my statements amounting to such implied accusation.
history is nuanced but your actually a Nazi if you recognize that fact…
Because not all nuance is created equal nor is it accurate. Much of the “nuance” of the civil war beyond southern cecession and the ensuing war was over the institution of slavery and its abolition are falsehoods spread by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
We have plenty of primary evidence from the cornerstone speech, to the actual confederate constitution, to letters of secession to the journal entries of soldiers who fought. None of that supports the “Well it was states rights and the soldiers didn’t know better and the south was just a peace loving society that didn’t want to hurt anyone, and the north are the real aggressors (despite the confederates firing the first shots in the first battle on Northern territory).”
But hey keep falling propaganda by apologists for a dead slaver nation-state that Hitler wrote about his admiration of in mein kampf.
It feels disingenuous to remove morality from the equation. Morality clearly played a role which is why thinkers like Frederick Douglass are still remembered to this day. Clearly there were other forces at play- political and economic which shaped how this played out, but morality was certainly involved.
Gonna get a little preachy here - skip this part if you don’t wanna hear that.
All of American history from the Revolutionary war to today can be summed up with people trying to reconcile the conflict of individual freedom and equality. Those two cannot coexist, and a boundary must be placed on one in order to allow the other ideal to flourish.
The civil war is a great example, individual freedom allows one to own another person if that is their desire. Equality says that your individual freedom cannot impede another person’s. This means slavery cannot exist in such a value system and equality was valued above individual freedom.
The current abortion debate has the same bedrock conflict. Does an individual’s personal freedom allow them the right to stop being pregnant if they wish? Well equality says the unborn child should be considered, as the choice to terminate violates their individual freedom to exist.
Let me be clear - in this post I am not advocating for either side in the abortion debate. I am merely trying to show that most of American history has been defined by trying to draw the line between the two founding principles of the nation.
Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.
They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.
The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest."
Dan Stone, A. Lincoln, Representatives from the county of Sangamon
It was a moral imperative for much of the North. Lincoln only barely scraped out the Republican nomination. His main opponent was William Seward who was a “radical” abolitionist. Had Seward won the nomination, there may have been some fracturing of the newly formed Republican party. So while there was indeed a portion of the population who felt the complete abolition of slavery was too far, a huge chunk agreed with Seward. In particular, his own wife, Francis Seward. She abhorred slavery and I urge everyone to read her writings upon the subject.
Not enough to change it by force federally, clearly. I’m well aware, that doesn’t change the fact Seward did not win and Lincoln and his supporters didn’t want radical emancipation they wanted to slow roll everything.
And to be clear the South viewed a loss of slaves to the North as a loss of property and thus trade to the North. It’s dumb and tedious but very accurate to say it was a trade dispute, a horrific hard to visualize in full one but a trade dispute none the less.
I’m neither american nor well versed in american history. That being said, from the quotes I read in your linked article about Lincoln’s views on slavery it does not seem to me that the northern states had a lot of money/resources to gain from freeing slaves in the south. So, correct me if i’m wrong, but how can you call it a trade dispute if one side views it as losing property while the other side does not view it as obtaining property?
That being said, from the quotes I read in your linked article about Lincoln’s views on slavery it does not seem to me that the northern states had a lot of money/resources to gain from freeing slaves in the south.
They wouldn’t gain money or resources no, they would instead reach a more even economical footing with the South. It’s one of those things I think I would have to provide links to because I don’t think I could adequately explain it myself.
So, correct me if i’m wrong, but how can you call it a trade dispute if one side views it as losing property while the other side does not view it as obtaining property?
I mentioned the South specifically but both sides took it as a loss of valuable property to the free North. The North in many actual laws regarding freemen specifically refer to slaves as property as does the Confederate Constitution if I’m not mistaken.
Well, I’ve had a neighbor claim I was doing things on his side of the property line, which he placed in the middle of my driveway. For him, it was a property dispute. For me, it was the ravings of a not-quite sane person. Think of it that way.
You are right, it was not a trade dispute, but the raving slave-owners would say whatever they could to justify their actions and make it sound noble. Much like Putin says he invaded Ukraine to “save them” from “embedded Nazis”. For Putin, it’s a mission of peace. For everyone else, it’s an unjustified invasion.
Did the South start the Civil War by seceding, or did the North start the Civil War by not letting them?
If the South started it by seceding, it was absolutely, unquestionably over slavery. A simple look at the various articles of secession makes that abundantly clear.
If the North started it by not letting them secede, then the Civil War was about preserving the Union, which the South was trying to leave because of slavery. The North wasn’t fighting to end slavery. The north in general may or may not have wanted that, but that wasn’t why they went to war.
The South literally declared war so that would be hard to argue plus the whole succession thing.
Correct.
Also correct, those that l two things aren’t mutually exclusive nor are they in this case. I mean they don’t particularly care about the union, they wanted to keep the territories and keep the trade. If all the people of the South wanted to leave with their slaves the North world have cheered it on and in fact did with a number of southerners who went to places like Brazil and Argentina before during and after the war. Weirdly enough much like Nazis.
You are right that Lincoln didn’t want a war and only went to war to preserve the union. The North had the votes to end slavery without war and that is how they wanted to end it.
Which is why the southern states seceded and started the war in order to preserve their right to own slaves.
This ain’t difficult, people. Photocopies of the documents from that time are easily accessible and written in modern English.
Whenever a chud gives me the “it wASnT AbOut SLavErY!” Line I always go ask them to read the seceding states articles of secession. South Carolina is my particular favorite since they started all.
 But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations… [The northern] States…have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress, or render useless any attempt to execute them… Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken…
The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
Those [non-slaveholding] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace…property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the Common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that the “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship persons, who, by the Supreme Law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive to its peace and safety.
A few years ago one of my conservative neighbors tried to drop the line on me that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. I opened up the South Carolina Articles of Succession and read it out loud to him. To his credit, he accepted it and changed his mind.
You missed that CSA states weren’t allowed to end slavery.
So if conservatives meant things when they say words - the civil war was coincidentally about slavery-having states seeking new slavery-having allies to continue doing slavery together, after flipping out when an anti-slavery party took the white house.
But it was totes mcgoats about states’ rights. Except the right to end slavery.
Is there really 2 hours and 18 minutes worth of content devoted to Scott Adams losing his goddamn mind? I don’t know if I have that kind of time to invest in that douche canoe.
Having listened to some other Behind the Bastards I’d say it’s really an entertainment show that uses their topics as a basis to joke around than a serious biography wherein explaining the subject is the primary goal.
They’re usually fun and you’ll tend to learn something new but it’s not really ever going ot be a serious deep dive.
Sounds a bit like Drunk History! Though I think I’d have to take that one with a bit more salt
I keep hearing about the podcast and it sounds great. Could you recommend any outstanding episodes to check out? My interests are wide so anything is on the table
I’ve not long listened to it so probably can’t make great recommendations of classic episodes but I enjoyed their series of episodes about Vince McMahon titled: “Histories Greatest Bastard!” (partly because it features Seanbaby.) I’ve really just dipped in an out of a couple of random episodes otherwise.
I really enjoyed it. But I was also playing rocket league or driving when I listened to it. Behind the bastards is moderately funny so it’s an easy listen.
Hah yeah… It also wasn’t until this post that I made that connection. For the past few years I’ve heard of “the Dilbert Guy going off the deep end” and seen random posts (like this) with this Scott character being an absolute moron
I really don’t understand successful people attaching their wagon to Conservatives… The entire human history is just a parade of religious Conservatives resisting change, trying to subjugate others and looking like absolute assholes in hindsight.
There is ZERO examples in history of “hey we were going to expand freedoms, but good thing we didn’t, thanks to the religious opposition!”…
Conservatives are wrong and have been wrong on every single social issue since the dawn of time.
I’m sure they had their victories when it comes to economic issues, but they haven’t had one of those in over half a century either, since the only idea they seem to have is tax cuts.
So far it isn’t as bad as I feared. It’s very early days though! I’m really keen to create a community where we can discuss any topic including contentious ones respectfully, rather than just avoiding posting anything that could bring out the trolls. I’m hoping the one-warning-then-you’re-banned rule will be sufficient to keep the worst at bay. Please report comments that break the rules if you see them to help keep this community an enjoyable place to be!
Ehm, no? Nobody gives a shit if you speak your region’s language as long as you don’t want to use it as an excuse to secede. Think of Galicians, Asturians and Valencians
Catalan and euskera are somehow secesionist languages? That’s exactly what I was talking about. By the way, valencian and catalan are the same language. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencian_language
Tell that to a Valencian and they’ll rip your head off like if you just made a “paella”
And no, they aren’t “separatist languages”, but secessionists use them as a symbol of their goals like if a country couldn’t have co-official languages
As an Englishman , I disagree, most couldn’t give a flying fuck about whether the Welsh want to learn Welsh, only attention seeking wankers who like to stir up shit say shit like this. Fuck them
I mean the point is more that at one time clearly most of the English wanted that considering a system to defeat the Welsh language was created and adopted by your progenitors.
I’m not trying to defend the decisions of the government’s of old, but your comment reads like the English are all throthing at the mouth at the thought of the Welsh learning Welsh, when the reality is most English people know a Welsh person and for the vast majority of us there is no animosity towards the Welsh or their language. I’ve never heard anyone even talk about it negatively in real life, it’s such a rage bait comment and an opinion that only someone devoid of reality would make.
How can anyone hate a language where the translation for microwave is popty ping.
How would you or I even know what my forefathers thought, the opinions of the common Englishman in the 1850s aren’t really popular reading. Hell, there’s a good chance some of my forefathers were Welsh and Irish anyway. The opinions of the commoner rarely reflected what the government’s of old decided, considering every man didn’t even get a vote until 1918 the government’s of old didn’t give a fuck what the common man thought anyway so there isn’t much reason to believe my forefathers gave a fuck whether the Welsh spoke Welsh either. I’d imagine they gave more of a fuck about earning enough to pay their taxes and rent just like the common man does now.
It’s clear you have some animosity toward the English, that’s fine. Have a good evening.
@angrilyeatingmuffins I’ve replied to you elsewhere reminding you not to get aggressive, now you’re being xenophobic too. I’m deleting your comments. Please don’t break the rules of the community again or you’ll be banned. Thank you.
I see this place is just the same as reddit afterall, same old stereotype bullshit. Yeah we’re still all the same as the people who fucked up Ireland…Which wasnt just the English part of Britain.
Your really think everyone who replied to that survey was Welsh? Majority of the UK are not daily mail/sun reading mouth breathers and don’t want an entire country that speaks like they come from surrey.
In figure 1 [4] we show the future energy reserves in billions of oil equivalent, Btoe, as a function of year. While we obliviously use up fossil fuels without taking stock of about what future reserves look like, we should take note of the endpoints shown here. These endpoints are dangerously close: Since our society is so dependent on fossil fuels, it therefore is extremely important for us to know when these fuels will run out according to [4]:
Oil will end by 2052 – 30 years time
Gas will end by 2060 – 40 years time
Coal will last till 2090 – 70 years time
However, according to BP [5], earth has 53 years of oil reserves left at current rate of consumption.
A lot of that extended when we discovered fracking. The industry will keep finding new and more expensive ways to locate and abuse natural oil and gas. I don’t think the world will “run out”, but it will certainly be too expensive for the majority of society. But that’s effectively the same.
I think framing it as fossil fuels will run out in our lifetime, or the lifetime of the next generation stresses the urgency of the situation, and makes it more relatable than saying “fossil fuels will run out by year 20XX”. It feels harder to ignore that way.
When I’m depressed, I think of it like …. We won’t run out, it just gets harder and more expensive to get, BUT we’ve already passed the point where we could recover in the event of civilization-wide catastrophe. We no longer have sufficient recoverable (as a less advanced society) energy sources to rebuild. If we fuck up now, that’s it for humanity
Another thing to think of is what it will look like as people grab at those last remaining drops. We already see it in loosening of restrictions to allow fracking, and moving villages and farms to scrape coal out of weaker and weaker deposits. The costs (not paid) of gathering this fuel will only increase and it’s already more than many are willing to tolerate, so the exact date of running out doesn’t matter at all.
What happens when we run out of fossil fuels? I understand fossil fuels are causing climate change/carbon issues. So why not just good riddance? Maybe I’m having a ‘shower moment’, but I think the change would force us to move to cleaner energy. Is there any intrinsic value to having pockets of sludge in the earth?
What will happen, is 1000 more years of already changed climate, so that one’s not going back all that easily.
Shutting down all fossil fuel use right now, would leave the world with a deficit of energy, meaning daily blackouts for starters, and a fleet of non-functioning cars, trucks, trains, ships, and planes, with some industries getting severely crippled (cement, steel, aluminum production, or anything using electroplating processes).
We’re already being forced to move to cleaner energy sources, because the high quality carbon and oil deposits are already gone; what’s left, is low quality stuff that’s more expensive to extract and less energy efficient. So a switch to renewables and nuclear it is for the foreseeable future.
Is there any intrinsic value to having pockets of sludge in the earth?
Other than not having it floating all around… not really. It’s likely going to get extracted until it stops being profitable, which is for a long time.
There’s literally a nebula out there that is almost pure ethanol that tastes of raspberry. I’ve no clue how we figured out what it would taste like, but there is literally enough alcohol there to keep the next 500 generations of humans perpetually shit faced even with the population boom that would occur.
Infrared light gets absorbed by organic molecules at specific wavelengths depending on what structure they have. So we can look at IR light that has passed through the nebula to see what molecules are in it. The first article I saw said the cloud has ethyl formate which apparently has a raspberry like flavor.
What’s funny is a lot of people in Ireland pronounce it Thigh land rather than Tie land. Irish people in general use a harder T than the soft th in most other words. I always wondered why. One theory I can’t up with is that it might be misplaced respectful. Like, if you know that th is usually pronounced softly, doing so for the place name of another country as it’s how they pronounce it is better. Even if it’s not how they pronounce it in this case.
It’s almost as if “Thai” is not a natively English word. Thai language doesn’t even have the rare th sound, as far as know of. Why are people this arrogant.
Yup. The th sound is pronounced with a hard “T,” and when the r is in the middle of the word it’s silent, and typically has more of an l pronunciation. It’s a very non western language, and is completely independent from Latin.
Tetanus is an anaerobic bacteria which means exposure to air will kill it. If a cut is bleeding that means it's at least partially exposed and may prevent tetanus. The reason people tend to get tetanus infections from puncture wounds is because the wound heals up and seals out the air.
Also, letting a cut bleed for a bit is one way of flushing any foreign material from the wound, which can help. But you still need antibiotics and a bandage to reduce the risk of infection.
Ah right, and that’s why people think it’s related to rust. Because most people getting a puncture would probably got it by standing on a nail, which was out in the elements and thus rusty…
My doc once explained that nails, or anything that causes a puncture wound, are worse than a cut because they compress tissue within the wound, creating places where there is no exposure to oxygen.
B: “Isn’t there chest compressions or something involved?”
A: “Nope, chest compressions are dangerous and cause people to break bones. Plus almost 100% of people who were not laying on their backs ended up dying after their heart stops. So, laying someone on their back is all you need to do.”
Yeah, it’s incredibly frustrating when propaganda uses partially true information to push their agenda. From a first aid perspective, letting the wound bleed a bit and get oxygen exposure can reduce the initial infection. You should absolutely get the vaccine though because why fucking risk it?
Bad faith arguments, bigotry and trolling are not acceptable in this community. Please read the rules in the sidebar before participating further. This is your warning.
I’m trying to be fair mod and not too authoritarian while being committed to making this a welcoming and an enjoyable community for everyone. It’s a hard balancing act tbh, but I think the one-warning-then-you’re-banned rule is a reasonable middle ground. Tonight/tomorrow I’ll make a sticky post asking for additional mods and asking for feedback on the rules and how this community should be run so everyone can have a say. Please comment on that post, I am willing to listen to everyone and change the rules of it’s what the majority want.
Obviously, yes. Especially when you are a member of a dominant ethnic group, cosplaying at being “other” when you will never be involuntarily othered, and explaining your (entirely illegitimate) choice via racial stereotyping.
It is absolutely not the same as identifying as gay or trans or whatever other besieged minorities you are slyly pouring scorn on. People don’t choose to get fucked over for who they are regardless of what they do. They are who they are and they’re surrounded by desperately insecure fuckwits who can only make themselves feel better by making the lives of others worse.
I refuse to let people’s insecurities prevent me from being myself. All who oppose me shall know the apocalyptic hellstorm of my wrath. Those who would disparage me are the evil ones, and will always be. My enemy must be ripped from this world. I am what I know to be, and any who would doubt this doubt a true individual.
confidently_incorrect
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.