New Gillette commercial "not an indictment on manhood"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Abomination:

Something Amyss:

Abomination:
Talking about voting rights and representation.

Blacks and whites kissing takes away voting rights? My this gets curiouser and curiouser.

There is more than one conversation going on in this thread. Stop being obtuse.

There are multiple conversations, but the one you replied to was the one where I was talking about a TV series having a black woman and a white man kiss and you responded about taking away rights from others. Don't be disingenuous, you responded to Kirk and Uhura kissing and suggested that rights were being taken away from the poor triggered racists.

It's not disingenuous to wonder what a fictional account of two people kissing has to do with voting rights, but it's outright dishonest to try and pretend it is and then to try and pretend you meant something else.

Abomination:
You need a (relatively) intelligent population to operate machinery. Slavery stifles that aspect of humanity.

They'd simply wouldn't call being able to operate machinery being intelligent; they'd called something like being trained. If England had child labor in factories (sometimes with children as young as 4 years old), there was no reason for the confederates to not had slaves (and slave children) working at factories.

EDIT: And something in what they would definitely had used slaves during the industrial revolution was the coal mines.

Abomination:
Slavery was used by the North to force their will on the South who wished to leave the US. I am not convinced the South would have remained a nation that supported slavery with the rise of industrialism.

Hate to interrupt your historical revisionism, but the Civil War was a war that the South started. Even before the issue of slavery was made to be a definite issue of the Civil War (and it wasn't until the middle of it) the answer to the South saying "we want to leave the Union" was a firm "tough shit." Slavery being abolished or no, the definitive answer to the South breaking away violently (and they did break away violently, they started the first battle of the war) was that the South was going to be pulled back kicking and screaming every step of the way. Because if you just let territories break away whenever an election goes badly, it fundamentally damages the fabric of a nation. It's why after the Civil War people around the world stopped saying "these United States of America," and started saying "THE United States of America," because it was the point that America proved that it wasn't just a democratic experiment anymore, that it had the fiber to stay together as a proper nation worth its salt.

So please stop this crap about "Oh, was slavery worth the war?" when the South threw a temper tantrum over a President they didn't want being elected (Notice how there's a distinct lack of Civil War with Trump being elected despite how much people hate him?) even though the election in the South was such a shit show that Lincoln wasn't even on a lot of ballets, (so any complaints about lack of representation from southerners is nothing short of fucking rich) and they broke away before Lincoln did anything or even declared his intention TO do anything as President.

So yeah, please no apologism about the War of Southern Aggression.

Abomination:
Slavery was used by the North to force their will on the South who wished to leave the US. I am not convinced the South would have remained a nation that supported slavery with the rise of industrialism.

Slavery was economically infeasible even before the war of southern aggression started. It actually costed plantation owners more to keep black people as animalistic property than it did to hire free workers.

Slavery in the south was a cultural institution that would never go away in full.

undeadsuitor:

Abomination:
Slavery was used by the North to force their will on the South who wished to leave the US. I am not convinced the South would have remained a nation that supported slavery with the rise of industrialism.

Slavery was economically infeasible even before the war of southern aggression started. It actually costed plantation owners more to keep black people as animalistic property than it did to hire free workers.

Slavery in the south was a cultural institution that would never go away in full.

The entire current system of the people do the work and the higher ups take what they earned and pay them shat is just a continuation of that system, except now they do not pay them enough to afford housing and people instead gain the freedom to choose which employer they move to who treats them like shat. They took out the legal abuse and ownership but still have people economically enslaved as they will never be able to get ahead as they still cannot even make ends meet due to too much of what they earned being sent to other people's pockets.

Abomination:

CaitSeith:

Abomination:
I am not convinced the South would have remained a nation that supported slavery with the rise of industrialism.

Why not? Instead of paid workers, they'd had slave workers at the factories.

Because in every case industrialization has been the death of slavery. You need a (relatively) intelligent population to operate machinery. Slavery stifles that aspect of humanity. It becomes more economical to have paid labor than have to bother with the housing, feeding, security of slave ownership in an early industrial setting.

Why is pay better, from the perspective of the boss here? Could not the plantation owners have just trained the slaves to work machines instead of farming crops? I mean, the slaves didn't come here just knowing intuitively how to farm cotton.

BreakfastMan:
Why is pay better, from the perspective of the boss here? Could not the plantation owners have just trained the slaves to work machines instead of farming crops? I mean, the slaves didn't come here just knowing intuitively how to farm cotton.

If anything, it'd seem like a cogent argument for late-game industrialisation. That's kind of what's happening now. We're not losing our jorbs to illegal immigration or overseas movement so much as to industrialisation. But even n ow, it's cheaper for a place like, say, China to have "workers" live on-site ands put up suicide prevention nets than to switch over to machinery.

From a real-world standpoint, it seems less like industrialisation made slavery cost-prohibitive and more like outlawing slavery made industrialisation more cost-effective.

CaitSeith:

Abomination:
You need a (relatively) intelligent population to operate machinery. Slavery stifles that aspect of humanity.

They'd simply wouldn't call being able to operate machinery being intelligent; they'd called something like being trained. If England had child labor in factories (sometimes with children as young as 4 years old), there was no reason for the confederates to not had slaves (and slave children) working at factories.

EDIT: And something in what they would definitely had used slaves during the industrial revolution was the coal mines.

One might also have much to say about modern prisons doubling as factories.

Something Amyss:
There are multiple conversations, but the one you replied to was the one where I was talking about a TV series having a black woman and a white man kiss and you responded about taking away rights from others. Don't be disingenuous, you responded to Kirk and Uhura kissing and suggested that rights were being taken away from the poor triggered racists.

It's not disingenuous to wonder what a fictional account of two people kissing has to do with voting rights, but it's outright dishonest to try and pretend it is and then to try and pretend you meant something else.

Abomination:

BreakfastMan:

hanselthecaretaker:

The proverbial frog has jumped out of the hot bath water. Change can be forced when time is of the essence, but usually it breeds resentment and backfires, no matter the sentiments involved.

Change needs to happen, so it needs to be "forced", one way or another.

Whenever you attempt to force a people to change their social (even if misaligned) beliefs you will encounter strong resistance. Measuring if the resistance, cost and probability of success of "conversion" is something one does not weigh lightly.

Sometimes actions are not worth taking in the short term when in a generation or so the societal problem will fix itself.

Is what I responded to.

CaitSeith:
They'd simply wouldn't call being able to operate machinery being intelligent; they'd called something like being trained. If England had child labor in factories (sometimes with children as young as 4 years old), there was no reason for the confederates to not had slaves (and slave children) working at factories.

EDIT: And something in what they would definitely had used slaves during the industrial revolution was the coal mines.

What they call it doesn't matter, you need a labour force capable of understanding machinery in order to use early industrial machinery. The more intelligent your population becomes the more likely they are to have opinions about slavery and the ability to organise against it. The amount of effort required to keep an industrial population in a state of slavery is simply not feasible or worth the effort in order to obtain the benefits of industrialisation.

erttheking:
So yeah, please no apologism about the War of Southern Aggression.

A portion of the country voted to secede, another part said you can't do that, that part of the nation rebelled. Too many are happy to say the Civil War was all about slavery, or slavery had little to do with it, but the point stands that a part of a nation no longer wished to be governed by another part and sought to leave. In that war, slavery was used to uphold the status quo. So it raises the question, was it worth it? Was the war to keep the nation united, or to abolish slavery?

One way or another, highest casualty count in US history. Was it really worth it?

undeadsuitor:
Slavery was economically infeasible even before the war of southern aggression started. It actually costed plantation owners more to keep black people as animalistic property than it did to hire free workers.

Slavery in the south was a cultural institution that would never go away in full.

You would be surprised how quickly economic feasibility influences cultural norms. Culture protects nobody from starvation.

BreakfastMan:
Why is pay better, from the perspective of the boss here? Could not the plantation owners have just trained the slaves to work machines instead of farming crops? I mean, the slaves didn't come here just knowing intuitively how to farm cotton.

Far more economical to have a staff that you don't have to train every batch of after you work them to death, and machinery allows an individual to produce multiples more of your product than manual labour does. Also, machinery is far more complex than a scythe or sickle, and an industrial work-space is very difficult to oversee by comparison. It becomes cheaper to just hire workers than own them.

Something Amyss:
From a real-world standpoint, it seems less like industrialisation made slavery cost-prohibitive and more like outlawing slavery made industrialisation more cost-effective.

The massive economic bonuses of having a paid population far outweigh the use of slave labour. The spillover effect into other areas such as education, scientific discovery, population growth, and available military manpower are too significant for any nation seeking to compete in the modern world.

Abomination:
Snip

*Ahem*

erttheking:

Abomination:
Slavery was used by the North to force their will on the South who wished to leave the US. I am not convinced the South would have remained a nation that supported slavery with the rise of industrialism.

Hate to interrupt your historical revisionism, but the Civil War was a war that the South started. Even before the issue of slavery was made to be a definite issue of the Civil War (and it wasn't until the middle of it) the answer to the South saying "we want to leave the Union" was a firm "tough shit." Slavery being abolished or no, the definitive answer to the South breaking away violently (and they did break away violently, they started the first battle of the war) was that the South was going to be pulled back kicking and screaming every step of the way. Because if you just let territories break away whenever an election goes badly, it fundamentally damages the fabric of a nation. It's why after the Civil War people around the world stopped saying "these United States of America," and started saying "THE United States of America," because it was the point that America proved that it wasn't just a democratic experiment anymore, that it had the fiber to stay together as a proper nation worth its salt.

So please stop this crap about "Oh, was slavery worth the war?" when the South threw a temper tantrum over a President they didn't want being elected (Notice how there's a distinct lack of Civil War with Trump being elected despite how much people hate him?) even though the election in the South was such a shit show that Lincoln wasn't even on a lot of ballets, (so any complaints about lack of representation from southerners is nothing short of fucking rich) and they broke away before Lincoln did anything or even declared his intention TO do anything as President.

So yeah, please no apologism about the War of Southern Aggression.

Emphasis mine. Please point out a point in history where letting territories freely breaking away goes well for the nation. The very democratic nature of America would've been undermined if states could throw a hissy fit every time it didn't go the way they wanted it to. So yeah. It was worth it.

Frankly if you want to ask people if it was worth it regarding the Civil War, you're asking the wrong people. You need to be asking the South if their temper tantrum was worth it.

Abomination:
Is what I responded to.

Abomination:

Something Amyss:

Lil devils x:
How many dislikes do you think a video condemning slavery would have gotten in the south just before the civil war? That is what you expect when you want to make real change happen.

Hell, a white man kissing a black woman nearly got Star Trek takeACn off the air in the era of Civil Rights. Fice years after Dr King's "I Have a Dream" speech, enough people were losing theirt shit over a fictitious kiss on TV that several affiliates pulled the show and it was in danger.

Guess we can't have racial equality because the teevee box gave white people in the south the sads.

No matter the derision you hold towards those people, they also have the same voting rights as everyone else.

In an effort to grant rights to some people are you prepared to force others to give up their rights? The end goal is probably worth it, but there will be significant discomfort leading up to it, and it can in turn be justification for future stripping of rights when another social concept is deemed "necessary".

Please don't lie.

The massive economic bonuses of having a paid population far outweigh the use of slave labour. The spillover effect into other areas such as education, scientific discovery, population growth, and available military manpower are too significant for any nation seeking to compete in the modern world.

And yet, here we are with slave forces in countries where it's legal. It's almost like the theory you're pitching doesn't hold up to reality.

erttheking:
Emphasis mine. Please point out a point in history where letting territories freely breaking away goes well for the nation. The very democratic nature of America would've been undermined if states could throw a hissy fit every time it didn't go the way they wanted it to. So yeah. It was worth it.

Frankly if you want to ask people if it was worth it regarding the Civil War, you're asking the wrong people. You need to be asking the South if their temper tantrum was worth it.

I understand the damage it would cause to the NATION, but honestly? Why is it a good thing to avoid? It's fine for some nations to break away from larger empires but the US is somehow sacrosanct in this?

Look at the Catalan independence movement, a region wants to break away from Spain because they do not like how the country is being operated. They are throwing a "hissy fit" as you put it. It's imperialism, but that's only bad when it's convenient it seems.

Abomination:

erttheking:
Emphasis mine. Please point out a point in history where letting territories freely breaking away goes well for the nation. The very democratic nature of America would've been undermined if states could throw a hissy fit every time it didn't go the way they wanted it to. So yeah. It was worth it.

Frankly if you want to ask people if it was worth it regarding the Civil War, you're asking the wrong people. You need to be asking the South if their temper tantrum was worth it.

I understand the damage it would cause to the NATION, but honestly? Why is it a good thing to avoid? It's fine for some nations to break away from larger empires but the US is somehow sacrosanct in this?

Look at the Catalan independence movement, a region wants to break away from Spain because they do not like how the country is being operated. They are throwing a "hissy fit" as you put it. It's imperialism, but that's only bad when it's convenient it seems.

You'll forgive me for thinking they have more legitimate greviances than "Wah wah, we lost one election, fuck everything." Also they didn't announce their intention to break away and launch unprovoked attacks on Spanish bases. Your comparisons are shallow.

Something Amyss:

Abomination:
Is what I responded to.

Abomination:

Something Amyss:

Hell, a white man kissing a black woman nearly got Star Trek takeACn off the air in the era of Civil Rights. Fice years after Dr King's "I Have a Dream" speech, enough people were losing theirt shit over a fictitious kiss on TV that several affiliates pulled the show and it was in danger.

Guess we can't have racial equality because the teevee box gave white people in the south the sads.

No matter the derision you hold towards those people, they also have the same voting rights as everyone else.

In an effort to grant rights to some people are you prepared to force others to give up their rights? The end goal is probably worth it, but there will be significant discomfort leading up to it, and it can in turn be justification for future stripping of rights when another social concept is deemed "necessary".

Please don't lie.

Ah, I see. My comment leads with the the derision you hold towards people who have "the sads" and do not have the same political views as you. I followed up mentioning how they have a vote just the same. Current political situation is that side is in... some form of control, and in order for their will to be overridden their votes would need to be as well (presently).

The massive economic bonuses of having a paid population far outweigh the use of slave labour. The spillover effect into other areas such as education, scientific discovery, population growth, and available military manpower are too significant for any nation seeking to compete in the modern world.

And yet, here we are with slave forces in countries where it's legal. It's almost like the theory you're pitching doesn't hold up to reality.

What countries? North Korea? Some of the African banana republics? Russia? All examples of nations that are failing BECAUSE of such practices. China has the population that it can afford to throw people into the meat grinder, the Confederate states did NOT have that population.

erttheking:
You?ll forgive me for thinking they have more legitimate greviances than ?Wah wah, we lost one election, fuck everything.? Also they didn?t announce their intention to break away and launch unprovoked attacks on Spanish bases. Your comparisons are shallow.

Their "grievances" are as legitimate as they believe them to be. They held them so strongly they were willing to go to war over them. That is how legitimate they were.

Such conviction is not born idly, to dismiss it as a baby's temper tantrum does not do it justice. Over half a million people died as a result of it.

Abomination:

erttheking:
You?ll forgive me for thinking they have more legitimate greviances than ?Wah wah, we lost one election, fuck everything.? Also they didn?t announce their intention to break away and launch unprovoked attacks on Spanish bases. Your comparisons are shallow.

Their "grievances" are as legitimate as they believe them to be. They held them so strongly they were willing to go to war over them. That is how legitimate they were.

Such conviction is not born idly, to dismiss it as a baby's temper tantrum does not do it justice. Over half a million people died as a result of it.

Slavery. The South's grievances was they wanted to keep slavery. I personally think it is fine for a region to break free when it is because they are being oppressed and abused, such as say, every colonial territory ever, but when your reason is to defend the dehumanization of entire peoples, fuck off. The Confederacy was evil, no one on their side was justified, and they got what they deserved, a rightful ass-kicking.

Robert E. Lee was a racist, every Confederate was a racist, and Southern Pride is built inherently on racism.

Saelune:
Slavery. The South's grievances was they wanted to keep slavery. I personally think it is fine for a region to break free when it is because they are being oppressed and abused, such as say, every colonial territory ever, but when your reason is to defend the dehumanization of entire peoples, fuck off. The Confederacy was evil, no one on their side was justified, and they got what they deserved, a rightful ass-kicking.

Robert E. Lee was a racist, every Confederate was a racist, and Southern Pride is built inherently on racism.

Yet, they democratically wished to leave the Union and the Union saw fit to use force to get them to stay.

I am not justifying slavery, but a rebellion is one for any reason the rebellers feel is justified. One person's right is being taken from them no matter which way this is cut.

Abomination:

Saelune:
Slavery. The South's grievances was they wanted to keep slavery. I personally think it is fine for a region to break free when it is because they are being oppressed and abused, such as say, every colonial territory ever, but when your reason is to defend the dehumanization of entire peoples, fuck off. The Confederacy was evil, no one on their side was justified, and they got what they deserved, a rightful ass-kicking.

Robert E. Lee was a racist, every Confederate was a racist, and Southern Pride is built inherently on racism.

Yet, they democratically wished to leave the Union and the Union saw fit to use force to get them to stay.

I am not justifying slavery, but a rebellion is one for any reason the rebellers feel is justified. One person's right is being taken from them no matter which way this is cut.

What did the slaves vote for?

[quote="Abomination" post="528.1056588.24288147"Ah, I see. My comment leads with the the derision you hold towards people who have "the sads" and do not have the same political views as you. I followed up mentioning how they have a vote just the same. Current political situation is that side is in...[/quote]

And when you responded about taking away rights and I asked what rights were taken away by the TV show I had mentioned you were all DON'T BE DUMB I TOTES MEANT SOMETHING ELSE.

If you're going to be accusing people of being obtuse, at least have the intellectual integrity to admit you didn't know what you were talking about. At best, the confusion was yours because you lost track of the context. At worst, you outright lied twice.

Are you going to demonstrate honesty, or not?

China has the population that it can afford to throw people into the meat grinder, the Confederate states did NOT have that population.

Well, I guess moving the goalposts yet again tells me you're not.

It's weird how many special rules you need to make your assertion work.

Abomination:

CaitSeith:
They'd simply wouldn't call being able to operate machinery being intelligent; they'd called something like being trained. If England had child labor in factories (sometimes with children as young as 4 years old), there was no reason for the confederates to not had slaves (and slave children) working at factories.

EDIT: And something in what they would definitely had used slaves during the industrial revolution was the coal mines.

What they call it doesn't matter, you need a labour force capable of understanding machinery in order to use early industrial machinery. The more intelligent your population becomes the more likely they are to have opinions about slavery and the ability to organise against it. The amount of effort required to keep an industrial population in a state of slavery is simply not feasible or worth the effort in order to obtain the benefits of industrialisation.

They don't need to understand machinery, just how to operate it. White supervisors would be in charge of making sure to know how machinery works and that they operate it correctly; the slave only needs to do a simple specific task they were trained to do repetitively all day. So far you are talking purely in hypoteticals. But I base my argument on real life examples of mere children having worked in factories or coal mines without rebelling, giving the owners all the benefits of industrialization. There is no reason the same couldn't had happened for slaves with the same level of education.

Abomination:
What is conscription if not slavery?

It is among your "duties owed to the government", if male. Whether or not being compelled into military service was "involuntary servitude" or not actually went through the courts and was judged by SCOTUS about a hundred years ago.

Butler v Perry (240 US 328 [1916]):

[The 13th Amendment] introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

That case wasn't directly about the draft, but about able bodied men being compelled by the state to do road work. 2 years later a case specifically about the draft was judged, although the implications of Butler should be obvious.

Arver v US [245 US 366 {1918}]:

[A]s we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.

There was a case in 1981 which tried to argue that only requiring men to register was sex discrimination, and that failed on the premise that federal law and military policy forbid women from the sorts of positions a draft would be intended to fill. In 2015, the National Coalition for Men started a new suit making a similar challenge on the basis that those barriers in federal law and military policy have been removed. It's still crawling through the legal system, the most recent article I could find on it [1] mentions that it was supposed to finally have a trial date assigned sometime this month.

According to the lawyer representing the oldest men's rights organization in the US:

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-allows-men-to-challenge-male-only-draft/:
NCFM takes no position on whether the best approach is to end mandatory draft registration or to require both men and women to register. Nor does NCFM take any position as to whether women should be in combat, as the draft can include noncombat positions. As a men's rights organization, NCFM's concern is with the unconstitutional sex discrimination against men. How to resolve the illegality is up to the federal government.

Of course, if NCFM wins their case, there are a whole bunch of state and federal agencies who are going to have to make changes (depending on how the federal government resolves the issue), including possibly a whole lot of women having to register or suffer the consequences.

Abomination:
One person's right is being taken from them no matter which way this is cut.

r u you really comparing a draft to being inhuman property treated like animals for your entire life until you die

Unfortunately embedded youtube videos no workie, but a Ted talk on this underlying topic by Eldra Jackson is interesting. Though the dislikes are definitely more than the average, which is a positive sign and i'm certain can be pinnd down to a couple of trigger words and 'variables' setting off certain types of people pavlovian-styley near the beginning of it. Heartfelt and important, I think.

Abomination:

Saelune:
Slavery. The South's grievances was they wanted to keep slavery. I personally think it is fine for a region to break free when it is because they are being oppressed and abused, such as say, every colonial territory ever, but when your reason is to defend the dehumanization of entire peoples, fuck off. The Confederacy was evil, no one on their side was justified, and they got what they deserved, a rightful ass-kicking.

Robert E. Lee was a racist, every Confederate was a racist, and Southern Pride is built inherently on racism.

Yet, they democratically wished to leave the Union and the Union saw fit to use force to get them to stay.

I am not justifying slavery, but a rebellion is one for any reason the rebellers feel is justified. One person's right is being taken from them no matter which way this is cut.

It's called real life. Nothing is clean cut. Soceity is meant to triage rights, seeing which is more important. If they dont, the courts and the government will. Around the same time, the Mormons tried to claim land, and the federal government stopped them too. Same with Native Americans.

It's like the current debate around 'Religious Freedom.' Sure you can believe what you want. But if you are inflicting damage onto other people, dont be surpised if people are going to call it out or ask for legisaltion. Your ideas are breaking someone else's Rights.

No matter why the South ceded, the Federal government are allowed to enforce their borders. Any enforcement of border WILL cut into someone's Rights. Even if people cross at the correct checkpoints, there is an assumption of guilt placed on any person entering and thus any officer can check any or all items someone brings in. Irrelevant of whether they are a citizen or not.

trunkage:

Abomination:

Saelune:
Slavery. The South's grievances was they wanted to keep slavery. I personally think it is fine for a region to break free when it is because they are being oppressed and abused, such as say, every colonial territory ever, but when your reason is to defend the dehumanization of entire peoples, fuck off. The Confederacy was evil, no one on their side was justified, and they got what they deserved, a rightful ass-kicking.

Robert E. Lee was a racist, every Confederate was a racist, and Southern Pride is built inherently on racism.

Yet, they democratically wished to leave the Union and the Union saw fit to use force to get them to stay.

I am not justifying slavery, but a rebellion is one for any reason the rebellers feel is justified. One person's right is being taken from them no matter which way this is cut.

It's called real life. Nothing is clean cut. Soceity is meant to triage rights, seeing which is more important. If they dont, the courts and the government will. Around the same time, the Mormons tried to claim land, and the federal government stopped them too. Same with Native Americans.

It's like the current debate around 'Religious Freedom.' Sure you can believe what you want. But if you are inflicting damage onto other people, dont be surpised if people are going to call it out or ask for legisaltion. Your ideas are breaking someone else's Rights.

No matter why the South ceded, the Federal government are allowed to enforce their borders. Any enforcement of border WILL cut into someone's Rights. Even if people cross at the correct checkpoints, there is an assumption of guilt placed on any person entering and thus any officer can check any or all items someone brings in. Irrelevant of whether they are a citizen or not.

And, you know, the slavery stuff.

Abomination:
Far more economical to have a staff that you don't have to train every batch of after you work them to death, and machinery allows an individual to produce multiples more of your product than manual labour does. Also, machinery is far more complex than a scythe or sickle, and an industrial work-space is very difficult to oversee by comparison. It becomes cheaper to just hire workers than own them.

See, you say this is something that would happen with industrialisation...but history tells us otherwise because this is exactly what happened when industrialisation hit. The factory bosses didn't care about having skilled labour because if that one guy broke his arm and couldn't work anymore because he didn't know how the machine he was using worked, well then, there's a dozen more people lining up to take his job. People who took time and effort to actually take care of their workers (George Cadbury is always the one who leaps instantly to mind) were outliers not the norm. And if most industrialists were happy to let people work themselves to death with no training and little pay when they didn't have a slave labour work force to draw on, what makes you think that would change if they did and suddenly they no longer even have to pay their workers?

Abomination:

Saelune:
Slavery. The South's grievances was they wanted to keep slavery. I personally think it is fine for a region to break free when it is because they are being oppressed and abused, such as say, every colonial territory ever, but when your reason is to defend the dehumanization of entire peoples, fuck off. The Confederacy was evil, no one on their side was justified, and they got what they deserved, a rightful ass-kicking.

Robert E. Lee was a racist, every Confederate was a racist, and Southern Pride is built inherently on racism.

Yet, they democratically wished to leave the Union and the Union saw fit to use force to get them to stay.

I am not justifying slavery, but a rebellion is one for any reason the rebellers feel is justified. One person's right is being taken from them no matter which way this is cut.

The right being (theoretically) taken away was the right to own other people, and they "democratically" seized federal military bases and weapons caches before opening fire on a federal military force.

How the f would you expect that to go down. We went easy on them by not hanging everybody over the rank of colonel.

Palindromemordnilap:

See, you say this is something that would happen with industrialisation...but history tells us otherwise because this is exactly what happened when industrialisation hit. The factory bosses didn't care about having skilled labour because if that one guy broke his arm and couldn't work anymore because he didn't know how the machine he was using worked, well then, there's a dozen more people lining up to take his job. People who took time and effort to actually take care of their workers (George Cadbury is always the one who leaps instantly to mind) were outliers not the norm. And if most industrialists were happy to let people work themselves to death with no training and little pay when they didn't have a slave labour work force to draw on, what makes you think that would change if they did and suddenly they no longer even have to pay their workers?

Because slaves are expensive? Especially in a theoretical world where the CSA is the only major slave owning nation and the output of slaves from Africa has died down to a trickle due to the Colonial enterprises of the European powers. The harsh truth is that even if the CSA had won the civil war and established themselves as a separate state, their economic system relied on a steady supply of slaves from Africa and that supply was dwindling even by the 1860's and would be all but gone in the 1890's at the latest. So even had they survived and industrialized, they would have been forced to either abolish slavery due to slave shortage or radically change their treatment of slaves because slaves would become a very precious commodity.

Either way, improving workers conditions would eventually be a priority to the CSA just like it was to all industrialists in the 20th century. Not because you care for your workers, but because once the initial boom of laborers died down in the early 20th century and when industrial machinery became more advanced you need to retain laborers for maximum efficiency. That's on top of the inevitable adoption of marxist ideals by the slaves, who would undoubtedly embrace communism as much preferable to Confederate slave-based capitalism.

Finally, if you want examples of slave labor in modern times, look no further than Germany during WW2. Their industry after 1943 relied largely on slave labor and both the actual output and the quality of the output of slave labor (not counting the extensive sabotage) was atrocious compared to an employed German or semi-volunteer from another European country. Once industry gets past "Pull this lever ever five seconds" and into "drill twenty holes no more then 2mm from the edges of this sheet metal" or even more advanced, you need better educated and motivated workers to sustain efficiency.

undeadsuitor:

Slavery was economically infeasible even before the war of southern aggression started. It actually costed plantation owners more to keep black people as animalistic property than it did to hire free workers.

No. The evidence available is contrary to this notion.

There was a roaring trade in the mid-19th century within the USA for slaves (the tap had been turned off for importing them by then), which indicates they were highly desired for cheap labour. Similarly, evidence of the profitability of slave plantations is unquestionable. For any one individual plantation owner, slave labour was in their best economic interest - and probably would have continued to be so for decades (and maybe even to the modern day).

Slavery is considered potentially to have been economic disadvantageous long-term for the South as a whole for several reasons. Firstly, because access to such cheap labour for agriculture meant the South was less inclined to develop improved production practices and manufacturing, both of which were the future. Secondly, because it drove the wages of free workers very low, it reduced the human development standards (thus education, skills, etc.) of the population which would have supported more complex, productive industries of the future.

However, even with slavery a direct cause of relative economic decline in the South long-term, that's still no reason to assume it would have been ended. After all, they may not have realised that at the time (it was well after the fact economists argued it was unsustainable long-term), or that any number of passions (like racism) and political forces (like domination of the political elites by landowners) would have blocked it even if it were recognised. They may instead have decided to boost manufacturing and make slaves work in factories instead of cotton fields, etc.

undeadsuitor:

Abomination:
One person's right is being taken from them no matter which way this is cut.

r u you really comparing a draft to being inhuman property treated like animals for your entire life until you die

How is it any different?

Storm that hill and likely get shot, or I will shoot you for desertion.

Conscription IS slavery. Taken from your home, forced into service, given a tool, and given a job that will likely see you dead.

trunkage:
It's called real life. Nothing is clean cut. Soceity is meant to triage rights, seeing which is more important. If they dont, the courts and the government will. Around the same time, the Mormons tried to claim land, and the federal government stopped them too. Same with Native Americans.

It's like the current debate around 'Religious Freedom.' Sure you can believe what you want. But if you are inflicting damage onto other people, dont be surpised if people are going to call it out or ask for legisaltion. Your ideas are breaking someone else's Rights.

No matter why the South ceded, the Federal government are allowed to enforce their borders. Any enforcement of border WILL cut into someone's Rights. Even if people cross at the correct checkpoints, there is an assumption of guilt placed on any person entering and thus any officer can check any or all items someone brings in. Irrelevant of whether they are a citizen or not.

I completely understand that in order for rights to be upheld, at times, rights need to be denied. But to just handwave the Civil War as the South being upset that they got the wrong president is seriously clouding their reasons to rebel.

Over half a million combat related casualties and people being willing to die for such things shows there was more going on than #notmypresident.

altnameJag:
The right being (theoretically) taken away was the right to own other people, and they "democratically" seized federal military bases and weapons caches before opening fire on a federal military force.

How the f would you expect that to go down. We went easy on them by not hanging everybody over the rank of colonel.

The South wanted to self-govern for reasons beyond just slavery. They attempted to assert that right by taking up arms. It was a rebellion. Same as the American War of Independence, they wanted the right to take more lands from the natives and took up arms when denied it.

Rebellions are not cut and dry things. But they are a sign that a significant amount of people are upset with the way the government is handling things.

Abomination:

erttheking:
You?ll forgive me for thinking they have more legitimate greviances than ?Wah wah, we lost one election, fuck everything.? Also they didn?t announce their intention to break away and launch unprovoked attacks on Spanish bases. Your comparisons are shallow.

Their "grievances" are as legitimate as they believe them to be. They held them so strongly they were willing to go to war over them. That is how legitimate they were.

Such conviction is not born idly, to dismiss it as a baby's temper tantrum does not do it justice. Over half a million people died as a result of it.

I really don?t care. A passionate trantrum is still a tantrum. They wanted to throw the entire system out the window because it didn?t go their way. That?s the mindset of a self entitled brat.

Oh and let?s not forget how non slave owners basically ended up doing all the fighting while slave owners got an exemption halfway through, see the 20 Negro law.

And let's ESPECIALLY not forget two interesting words. Southern. Unionists. Southerners who were opposed to breaking away from the Union. So if I'm getting you right, we have the North who didn't want the south to break away, parts of the south who didn't want to break away, but you seem to not care about anyone except the southern secessionists.

Abomination:

undeadsuitor:

Abomination:
One person's right is being taken from them no matter which way this is cut.

r u you really comparing a draft to being inhuman property treated like animals for your entire life until you die

How is it any different?

Storm that hill and likely get shot, or I will shoot you for desertion.

Conscription IS slavery. Taken from your home, forced into service, given a tool, and given a job that will likely see you dead.

trunkage:
It's called real life. Nothing is clean cut. Soceity is meant to triage rights, seeing which is more important. If they dont, the courts and the government will. Around the same time, the Mormons tried to claim land, and the federal government stopped them too. Same with Native Americans.

It's like the current debate around 'Religious Freedom.' Sure you can believe what you want. But if you are inflicting damage onto other people, dont be surpised if people are going to call it out or ask for legisaltion. Your ideas are breaking someone else's Rights.

No matter why the South ceded, the Federal government are allowed to enforce their borders. Any enforcement of border WILL cut into someone's Rights. Even if people cross at the correct checkpoints, there is an assumption of guilt placed on any person entering and thus any officer can check any or all items someone brings in. Irrelevant of whether they are a citizen or not.

I completely understand that in order for rights to be upheld, at times, rights need to be denied. But to just handwave the Civil War as the South being upset that they got the wrong president is seriously clouding their reasons to rebel.

Over half a million combat related casualties and people being willing to die for such things shows there was more going on than #notmypresident.

altnameJag:
The right being (theoretically) taken away was the right to own other people, and they "democratically" seized federal military bases and weapons caches before opening fire on a federal military force.

How the f would you expect that to go down. We went easy on them by not hanging everybody over the rank of colonel.

The South wanted to self-govern for reasons beyond just slavery. They attempted to assert that right by taking up arms. It was a rebellion. Same as the American War of Independence, they wanted the right to take more lands from the natives and took up arms when denied it.

Rebellions are not cut and dry things. But they are a sign that a significant amount of people are upset with the way the government is handling things.

You didn't answer my question:

Saelune:

Abomination:

Saelune:
Slavery. The South's grievances was they wanted to keep slavery. I personally think it is fine for a region to break free when it is because they are being oppressed and abused, such as say, every colonial territory ever, but when your reason is to defend the dehumanization of entire peoples, fuck off. The Confederacy was evil, no one on their side was justified, and they got what they deserved, a rightful ass-kicking.

Robert E. Lee was a racist, every Confederate was a racist, and Southern Pride is built inherently on racism.

Yet, they democratically wished to leave the Union and the Union saw fit to use force to get them to stay.

I am not justifying slavery, but a rebellion is one for any reason the rebellers feel is justified. One person's right is being taken from them no matter which way this is cut.

What did the slaves vote for?

erttheking:
I really don?t care. A passionate trantrum is still a tantrum. They wanted to throw the entire system out the window because it didn?t go their way. That?s the mindset of a self entitled brat.

Oh and let?s not forget how non slave owners basically ended up doing all the fighting while slave owners got an exemption halfway through, see the 20 Negro law.

And let's ESPECIALLY not forget two interesting words. Southern. Unionists. Southerners who were opposed to breaking away from the Union. So if I'm getting you right, we have the North who didn't want the south to break away, parts of the south who didn't want to break away, but you seem to not care about anyone except the southern secessionists.

They wanted to throw it out the window because it was an example of imperialism. Law makers from other regions who do not have their current economic model were about to make said model illegal. Had slavery not been the economic method, the South's reaction would have been considered reasonable.

Of course Slave Owners got exemptions, they were the aristocrats. Same in the North, landowners got the same exemption. The South had no hypocrisy in doing so, they were pro slavery.

And yes, there were unionists in the South, but they were not the majority in the South.

Saelune:
What did the slaves vote for?

They didn't vote, because they did not have the right to vote. Just like how women didn't vote.

You think I am excusing slavery here. I am not. It is a horrible practice. But the Civil War was the cost paid to end it in the US, and even then it didn't end racism, just moved the battlefield.

I just find it hilarious how the nation that contributed the most to ending slavery was the very nation America rebelled against for very similar reasons the South rebelled against the Union, and would have been the nation that would have made slavery obsolete for the South anyway without needing the war.

That's the full circle here, a decision was made without accounting for the cost. Nobody wanted to think long term solutions and threw the nation into a massive war. End slavery in one country at the cost of half a million people, many of which were effectively slaves anyway.

Abomination:

erttheking:
I really don?t care. A passionate trantrum is still a tantrum. They wanted to throw the entire system out the window because it didn?t go their way. That?s the mindset of a self entitled brat.

Oh and let?s not forget how non slave owners basically ended up doing all the fighting while slave owners got an exemption halfway through, see the 20 Negro law.

And let's ESPECIALLY not forget two interesting words. Southern. Unionists. Southerners who were opposed to breaking away from the Union. So if I'm getting you right, we have the North who didn't want the south to break away, parts of the south who didn't want to break away, but you seem to not care about anyone except the southern secessionists.

They wanted to throw it out the window because it was an example of imperialism. Law makers from other regions who do not have their current economic model were about to make said model illegal. Had slavery not been the economic method, the South's reaction would have been considered reasonable.

Of course Slave Owners got exemptions, they were the aristocrats. Same in the North, landowners got the same exemption. The South had no hypocrisy in doing so, they were pro slavery.

And yes, there were unionists in the South, but they were not the majority in the South.

Elections not going the way you want is imperialism now? Yeah, this is why I don't give southern apologism an ounce of respect. Also, I have to keep reminding you, nothing had happened by the time the South broke away. A president they didn't like got elected. That's it. That's all it took for the crybabies to start a war.

Then explain why most of the rank and file Confederates were pissed off about the 20 negro law. Also, the Confederacy conscripted twice as many men as the Union AND did it first. Also, the thing you forget about what makes it so hypocritical is that the South broke away because they were so paranoid about slavery being taken away, yet all the people who didn't actually own slaves had to do all the work. "A rich man's war, but a poor man's fight." Going "Oh but the North did it too" completely misses the point I was making.

What I'm trying to say is, fuck the Confederacy and everything it stood for, we didn't burn that pathetic excuse for a nation down fast enough or hard enough. Fuck the traitors, fuck the spoiled little children, and most importantly, fuck the losers for thinking they ever had a chance at winning a war. What the South did was the equivalent of picking a fight when the rules didn't bend to them, getting the shit beaten out of him, and then spending the next century and a half bitching about what a victim they are.

The southerners weren't the majority in the Union. See you can't have it both ways man. Either democracy going the way you don't want it to is imperialism that's worth rebelling over, or democracy not going the way you want it to is something you need to suck up. Pick one.

Gethsemani:

Palindromemordnilap:

See, you say this is something that would happen with industrialisation...but history tells us otherwise because this is exactly what happened when industrialisation hit. The factory bosses didn't care about having skilled labour because if that one guy broke his arm and couldn't work anymore because he didn't know how the machine he was using worked, well then, there's a dozen more people lining up to take his job. People who took time and effort to actually take care of their workers (George Cadbury is always the one who leaps instantly to mind) were outliers not the norm. And if most industrialists were happy to let people work themselves to death with no training and little pay when they didn't have a slave labour work force to draw on, what makes you think that would change if they did and suddenly they no longer even have to pay their workers?

Because slaves are expensive? Especially in a theoretical world where the CSA is the only major slave owning nation and the output of slaves from Africa has died down to a trickle due to the Colonial enterprises of the European powers. The harsh truth is that even if the CSA had won the civil war and established themselves as a separate state, their economic system relied on a steady supply of slaves from Africa and that supply was dwindling even by the 1860's and would be all but gone in the 1890's at the latest. So even had they survived and industrialized, they would have been forced to either abolish slavery due to slave shortage or radically change their treatment of slaves because slaves would become a very precious commodity.

Either way, improving workers conditions would eventually be a priority to the CSA just like it was to all industrialists in the 20th century. Not because you care for your workers, but because once the initial boom of laborers died down in the early 20th century and when industrial machinery became more advanced you need to retain laborers for maximum efficiency. That's on top of the inevitable adoption of marxist ideals by the slaves, who would undoubtedly embrace communism as much preferable to Confederate slave-based capitalism.

Finally, if you want examples of slave labor in modern times, look no further than Germany during WW2. Their industry after 1943 relied largely on slave labor and both the actual output and the quality of the output of slave labor (not counting the extensive sabotage) was atrocious compared to an employed German or semi-volunteer from another European country. Once industry gets past "Pull this lever ever five seconds" and into "drill twenty holes no more then 2mm from the edges of this sheet metal" or even more advanced, you need better educated and motivated workers to sustain efficiency.

All things that would take years or decades to happen. Not quite the wand waving "suddenly slavery is over" effect that Abomination seems to have in mind

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here