War Room Lounge V47: The Cool Kids are in the Over-40 Club

[Prokofievian]

My wife made fast forward through the dog killing scene in Chernobyl.

Also

Ah, thanks for warning me, we almost started watching that. Nice fucking try, HBO.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Good thread @Limbo Pete @Captain Davis

 

[Limbo Pete]

Good thread @Limbo Pete @Captain Davis

Pretty dang solid. This kind of shit is so god damn important for understanding how we got to be where and who we are.
I do have a few issues with her breakdown, but then again it's a hyper condensed twitter summary.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Pretty dang solid. This kind of shit is so god damn important for understanding how we got to be where and who we are.
I do have a few issues with her breakdown, but then again it's a hyper condensed twitter summary.

Gotta give Dinesh credit. His constant lying about history has brought real historians to the public eye

Kevin Gannon had a similar breakdown on how Lincoln saw the South trying to expand slavery and it being an attack on labor.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Gotta give Dinesh credit. His constant lying about history has brought real historians to the public eye

Kevin Gannon had a similar breakdown on how Lincoln saw the South trying to expand slavery and it being an attack on labor.

Yeah, his kicking the hornets nest does have a silver lining lol
And I like Gannon a lot. He's my kind of articulate.

 

[Prokofievian]

Gotta give Dinesh credit. His constant lying about history has brought real historians to the public eye

Kevin Gannon had a similar breakdown on how Lincoln saw the South trying to expand slavery and it being an attack on labor.

One line from Hannah Arendt's ''The Origins of Totalitarianism'' essentially bumped it up to the top of my reading list, and relegated what I was reading to ''book I read on the train.'' Speaking about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, she said (paraphrasing) ''it is not the role of historians to point out that such an obvious forgery is indeed a forgery, but rather, to explain why so many people believed it, even after it was shown to be a forgery.''

 

[Captain Davis]

Good thread @Limbo Pete @Captain Davis

She’s right. It was never about the slave, it was about the labor competition. In other words, the bottom line is it was all over money and conquest.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

She’s right. It was never about the slave, it was about the labor competition. In other words, the bottom line is it was all over money and conquest.

For the South it was all about Slavery and ensuring it's expansion

 

[Limbo Pete]

She’s right. It was never about the slave, it was about the labor competition. In other words, the bottom line is it was all over money and conquest.

 

[Captain Davis]

For the South it was all about Slavery and ensuring it's expansion

Regardless, it was never about the slave. It was about what slavery produced.

If you think the republicans, Lincoln, or the overwhelmingly majority of the Northern population of that era, gave a rip about slaves, you are just plain ignorant.

 

[Captain Davis]

What’s funny is you always make some comment like this, yet you never prove me wrong.

If you want to set up a debate, I’m your Huckleberry.

 

[Limbo Pete]

What’s funny is you always make some comment like this, yet you never prove me wrong.

If you want to set up a debate, I’m your Huckleberry.

You can lead a horse to water, and so on...

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Regardless, it was never about the slave. It was about what slavery produced.

If you think the republicans, Lincoln, or the overwhelmingly majority of the Northern population of that era, gave a rip about slaves, you are just plain ignorant.

Regardless of the North's motivation the South was entirely driven by the Slavery and it's expansion.

 

[Captain Davis]

Regardless of the North's motivation the South was entirely driven by the Slavery and it's expansion.

Not true at all. Partially true, but that was not the sole intention.

Again, if anyone here wants to put this up for debate...fight me!

 

[Captain Davis]

All I've ever tried to do (other than mild, friendly shit talking) is try to help you better understand the history, bud
You can lead a horse to water, and so on...

Again, all you ever do is rattle off something like this. If you want to teach me, put your money where your mouth is. Let’s see what you know about it all.

 

[Prokofievian]

@PolishHeadlock2 @Limbo Pete she also said ''it's the opinion that persuades, not fact.'' Which would need to be true, if we look back at the record. It was readily believed by educated people in the third Reich that poles and slavs were subhumans, on whom education would be wasted and for whom a slave's existence was the only appropriate one. This was notably after the following: Tchebysheff, Markov, Liapunov, Banach, Tsiolkovsky, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Chekhov, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, among others.

The fact was at the time that the idea of these people being subhuman was unsupportable by the evidence. Rachmaninoff looks like the spitting image of a nazi propaganda poster about Rassenschande, and just listen



But people believed it.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Again, all you ever do is rattle off something like this. If you want to teach me, put your money where your mouth is. Let’s see what you know about it all.

Sometimes I feel like we're meeting for the first time all over again

 

[Limbo Pete]

I mean, what can you teach anyone here? Nothing. People like Nodak and people in the sciences, or people in business like Savage and others, they have useful information and life experience. What do you offer? What does your expertise contribute?

Since you insist on learning about my expertise, and want a demonstration of what I contribute to this discount karate forum, let me show you a little bit. Heads up, it's a bit of a long read

Spoiler

 

[Captain Davis]

Sometimes I feel like we're meeting for the first time all over again

Fight me.

For once, lay it out there. I want to be wowed by your vast knowledge of 19th century history. You always reply to me in some condescending manner, as if you are above any conversation. You are a “real” historian and I am just an ignorant simpleton with a measly high school education.

If you or anyone here wants to put this up for debate, let’s do it.

 

[Fawlty]

Good thread @Limbo Pete @Captain Davis

That was a great read, thanks.

I think in making her excellent points, she undersells the 1860 Northern coalition's makeup w/respect to aversion to slavery, and not just slave owners. With slavery being so intertwined into the fabric of the country, it was something that was almost impossible to peacefully unwind. There isn't a good analogy for it, but abolition was as radical an idea as something like banning the use of cheap foreign labor while giving all illegal immigrants citizenship, at least for its scale and impact (and the label of "abolitionist" was something akin to labeling an American a "communist" during the Cold War). Except more radical than all of that, probably. Yet anti-slavery people (not just anti-slave-economy people) made up a real, live, morally influential part of the new party, without which it would probably not have won. A lot of antislavery beliefs were held down by the political impossibility of the proposal. It was a question of pragmatism vs. idealism for many, especially because everybody knew the Union was at stake.

I guess the difficulty of that moral stand lies somewhere between defying Nazi Germany and being a Never-Trumper. I don't think I would have been an abolitionist myself. Probably a Free Soiler who talked about how bad slavery was, and opposed it, but wanted to pick a fight at stopping the expansion of slavery rather than forcing the civil war that came anyway.

Imagine knowing that something is morally reprehensible and must be stopped, yet having no recourse to end it short of civil war, and trying to compromise- only to be forced into war anyway. That's the position every morally-forward but pragmatic person in America was in.