Apparently it needed the Queen’s approval.
9th September 2019 it might happen.
Porolouguing is the fancy term for wiping the slate clean.
ffs and people hate on unions!
1 Like
Matt Christman seems to be legit losing it. I’m sympathetic.
2 Likes
He sounds fine on the Chapo ep out today.
Incredible article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/29/conservatives-say-weve-abandoned-reason-civility-old-south-said-that-too/
Proslavery rhetoricians talked little of slavery itself. Instead, they anointed themselves the defenders of “reason,” free speech and “civility.” The prevalent line of argument in the antebellum South rested on the supposition that Southerners were simultaneously the keepers of an ancient faith and renegades — made martyrs by their dedication to facts, reason and civil discourse.
It might sound strange that America’s proslavery faction styled itself the guardian of freedom and minority rights. And yet it did. In a deep study of antebellum Southern rhetoric, Patricia Roberts-Miller, a professor of rhetoric at the University of Texas at Austin, characterizes the story that proslavery writers “wanted to tell” between the 1830s and 1860s as not one of “demanding more power, but of David resisting Goliath.”
They stressed the importance of logic, “facts,” “truth,” “science” and “nature” much more than Northern rhetoricians did. They chided their adversaries for being romantic idealists, ignoring the “experience of centuries.” Josiah Nott, a surgeon who laid out the purported science behind black inferiority, held that questions like slavery “should be left open to fair and honest investigation, and made to stand or fall according to the facts.” They claimed that they were the ones who truly had black people’s best interests at heart, thanks to their more realistic understanding of human biology. “No one would be willing to do more for the Negro race than I,” John Wilkes Booth wrote shortly before he assassinated Lincoln. He alleged that any pragmatist could see that freeing black people into a cold, cruel world would actually cause their “annihilation.” Slavery, another Southern thinker argued, was natural, because if whites could work the sweltering South Carolina rice fields, they would. The “constitutions” of black men, on the other hand, were “perfectly adapted.”
They loved hyperbole. Events were “the most extraordinary spectacles” that had “ever challenged the notice of the civilized world,” “too alarming” and threatened “to destroy all that is valuable and beautiful in the institutions of our country.” All over, they saw slippery slopes: Objecting to the extension of slavery into new territories, Lincoln’s longtime position, would lead inexorably to miscegenation.
The most important thing to know about them, they held, was that they were not the oppressors. They were the oppressed. They were driven to feelings of isolation and shame purely on the basis of freely held ideas, the right of every thinking man. Rep. Alexander Sims (D-S.C.) claimed that America’s real problem was the way Southerners were made to suffer under “the sneers and fanatic ebullitions of ignorant and wicked pretenders to philanthropy.” Booth’s complaint, before he shot Lincoln, wasn’t that he could no longer practice slavery, something he’d never done anyway. Instead, he lamented that he no longer felt comfortable expressing “my thoughts or sentiments” on slavery freely in good company.
Lincoln understood that antebellum reasoning was more dangerous than straightforward defenses of chattel slavery. He feared that by claiming to stand for freedom, reason and civility, and by framing themselves as beleaguered victims, pro-Southern thinkers could draft new warriors who thought they were fighting for something fundamentally American, even if they were wary of slavery itself.
And that’s what happened. One reason slavery was not abolished in America through the political process, as it was in Britain, is that abolitionists were rhetorically straitjacketed by the proposition that they were the hard-liners who sought to curtail freedom. When the Charleston Mercury wrote that it was the “duty” of Northerners to “prove” that they were willing to defend Southerners against “fanatics,” Northern newspapers reprinted the editorial. Northerners, not Southerners, had to watch what they said and strain to compromise so they didn’t confirm the dictatorial notion Southern rhetoricians had implanted in the public mind.
In their 1858 debates, Lincoln pressed Douglas to clarify what kind of America he really wanted: one that had slaves or one that didn’t? Douglas claimed only to stand against mob rule. But why, Lincoln asked, was he choosing to die on the South’s hill? Why would applying his principle — the mandate to protect the South from “interference” by extremist hordes — end up curtailing freedom for millions of black Americans? Was it possible, Lincoln suggested, that Douglas secretly preferred a slave society to a free one?
7 Likes
Great WaPo article. Needed to be said.
It’s no different from what MLK said:
I am of the belief that the left needs to threaten disorder, to wage war on the illusion of civil society. And I do this without King’s belief in non-violence. Which doesn’t mean that I am pro-violence, just that I am a pragmatist and I want to leave all options on the table.
1 Like
Pretty conflicted about this. Among other things she takes a song about Long Beach and seemingly makes it about LA. And she’s from like NY. It’s cultural appropriation.
If there isn’t one already there should be a Twitter account called “The One F-Word” or something similar that just posts clips of the single, allowed F-bomb dropped in PG-13 movies
2 Likes
“Actually welfare programs keep people in poverty”
Alright, who had Madeline Westerhout?
I mean they do but not for the reasons they claim. It’s got nothing to do with a ‘culture of dependency’ and everything to do with creating a situation where additional earnings have an effective tax rate of several hundred %.
Our welfare system sucks. That’s not an argument for not doing welfare, it’s an argument for not doing it shitty.
1 Like
He’s just the first guy who suggested doing what econ nerds have wanted to do all along. Repeat after me: “Demand creates supply in a post scarcity world not the other way around”. Most conservative thinking revolves around the idea that there is a finite amount of supply for goods and services, even though that is very obviously not the case. If you want to juice the economy in 2019 you do it by creating demand, not by pumping supply.
The people who need stuff are the real job creators. That means every poor person whose needs aren’t being met is a huge economic problem. We could justify tons of supply with their demand. There’s not any good reason for there to still be people poor enough to get our existing welfare programs in America period. We have plenty of resources.
1 Like
Don’t forget Kate Beckinsale was in there somewhere. Pete’s definitely got quite a range.
1 Like
Who in the actual hell is scratching out checks to these two idiots? Does anyone know?