The ultimate COVID thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted59964
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
FFP said:
I think it was easier there, because it was done immediately after WWII. Same with toppling Communist symbols and statues in Eastern Europe, or traces of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq. It's much easier when a huge part of the population feels like that, and there is a form of revolution.

It's harder when, to some people, that confederate flag or statue means cultural identity and traditions, to others it's just a symbol of slavery and racism. To many Southerners the Civil War the North fought was about money and power, not human rights. I assume to some of them, banning the confederate flag (including from state flags) is like saying Americans are not allowed to fly the Stars And Stripes because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the many other atrocities we have committed around the world. It's not as easy as with Nazi symbols, which where there for like 10 years, and had no traditional meaning for the German nation.

And people are complex and imperfect. Just because Wagner was an antisemite, he was still a great composer. Just because Jefferson owned slaves (like most people in the South at that time), he was still a great mind and one of our Founding Fathers. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, so this kind of cultural cleansing should be done by the entire community with a cold head, and trying to hurt as few people as possible.

We shouldn't judge past actions based on modern standards. It's like punishing them for thinking the Earth was flat. That's how they were raised and educated, that's what seemed normal (let's not mention the HUGE role of social pressure and need for conformity).

I think African Americans would gain tremendous points with Southern whites if they tolerated those confederate flags and other similar symbols, and saw them mostly as signs of cultural pride, not racism. Same for the heroes the Southerners worship for fighting for those lands (or at least those who haven't been horrible people). People don't like other people messing with their traditions, history and legends, even if delusional or morally wrong.
Click to expand...
I think African Americans have tolerated more than enough in this country. And I highly doubt they would gain many points by continuing to accept the status quo.
 
chocomorsel said:
I think African Americans have tolerated more than enough in this country. And I highly doubt they would gain many points by continuing to accept the status quo.
Click to expand...
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

BLM should focus on the big things (i.e. human rights, law enforcement, voting), not symbols. People are not racist because of the flags or statues or institution names; they are racist because they don't know better. Don't give them more reasons to dislike you. And they are just distractions; don't try to change everything overnight, because many people will dislike you for that (even those who otherwise would be neutral), especially where African Americans are still in minority.

Every revolution will be followed by a counter-revolution, sooner or later. Trump after Obama. Constant pressure, squeaky wheel, not looting and toppling. Gandhi, not Lenin. I guess I am getting too old to sympathize with the latter. 😉

P.S. And I meant the points in the long-term historical perspective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chocomorsel said:
I am not going to agree with LeBron than Blacks are "hunted", no...However, just because I disagree with LeBron, does not mean what he feels is in fact wrong.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...yes it does. It is as wrong and bigoted as me saying that whites are hunted by blacks. What you pulled there is an impressive example of double speak.

You keep bringing up Baltimore and East St Louis but you yourself are glossing over what happened in Camden NJ.
Click to expand...

You missed the post (4234) where I completely endorsed the Camden model. A modeled that was partially conceived and implemented by a white, Republican governor. Who woulda thunk it. However, central to those reforms were certain union-busting measures that are not popular with many liberal politicians of color. It also DOUBLED the number of cops in Camden which is something that would make the BLM heads explode. But imagine that, minority leaders and militants resisting measures that would improve minority lives and opportunity to consolidate a power base.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com


I never said ALL racial inequity is due to racism. A large majority of the racial inequity in this country stems from racism. That is hard fact no matter which way you try to spin it.
Click to expand...

That will just have to be the fact that we disagree on...too bad because I suspect that it goes to the heart of our differences.
You seem to like to live in a world of extremes. Every time someone brings up a point you want to make it an all or none phenomenon in order to attempt to prove your point.
Click to expand...

The feeling is mutual.
 
Last edited:
ShockIndex said:
Hmmm...yes it does. It is as wrong and bigoted as me saying that whites are hunted by blacks. What you pulled there is an impressive example of double speak.



You missed the post where I completely endorsed the Camden model. A modeled that was partially conceived and implemented by a white, Republican governor. Who woulda thunk it.




That will just have to be the fact that we disagree on...too bad because I suspect that it goes to the heart of our differences.


The feeling is mutual.
Click to expand...
And where have I tried to say that it's all or none like you have repeatedly? And how many times was the Camden model brought up by me and @vector2 before you finally decided to speak on it after ignoring the question/topic repeatedly.

And I am not going to discount someone's view of what they feel. If that's what he felt that day, that is what he felt. I am not a black man and understand my privilege as a black woman when it comes to the police.

If you don't think that a large reason racial inequities exist in this country today is because of centuries of racism, then yeah, let's stop right there cuz we got no where else to go.
 
chocomorsel said:
And where have I tried to say that it's all or none like you have repeatedly? And how many times was the Camden model brought up by me and @vector2 before you finally decided to speak on it after ignoring the question/topic repeatedly.

And I am not going to discount someone's view of what they feel. If that's what he felt that day, that is what he felt. I am not a black man and understand my privilege as a black woman when it comes to the police.

If you don't think that a large reason racial inequities exist in this country today is because of centuries of racism, then yeah, let's stop right there cuz we got no where else to go.
Click to expand...
Your privilege versus LBJ's. That's really funny.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chocomorsel said:
It may be funny, cuz he's rich and famous as hell, but he's a lot more likely to get pulled over than I am. When he's in a place where people don't know who is. That's just a fact.
Click to expand...
Because somebody who's worth is in the hundreds of millions really has to worry about that.
 
FFP said:
Because somebody who's worth is in the hundreds of millions really has to worry about that.
Click to expand...
He is a big black man. Are you serious?
If he were driving a car (not registered to him most likely) in the Deep South, or country Midwest or anywhere really where people can't see that it's him approaching, and some suspect fit his description (male, tall, black) do you think they wouldn't pull him over? And then maybe check themselves when they realize who he is? Or maybe he calls ahead and has his "people" call the police station and uses his privilege as a wealthy black man to not get pulled over. I don't know.
 
Last edited:
chocomorsel said:
He is a big black man. Are you serious?
If he were driving a car (not registered to him most likely) in the Deep South, or country Midwest or anywhere really where people can't see that it's him approaching, and some suspect fit his description (male, tall, black) do you think they wouldn't pull him over? And then maybe check themselves when they realize who he is?
Click to expand...
Again, I doubt that he's at higher risk than you are. I would be surprised if one can even see who's inside that car.

And it's not just the big black man that matters. It's also the attitude. One must be polite and non-threatening with the uniformed bureaucratic little (not in size) people, if one is big (even if white). If you want to know somebody's character, give him power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
FFP said:
I think it was easier there, because it was done immediately after WWII. Same with toppling Communist symbols and statues in Eastern Europe, or traces of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq. It's much easier when a huge part of the population feels like that, and there is a form of revolution.

It's harder when, to some people, that confederate flag or statue means cultural identity and traditions, to others it's just a symbol of slavery and racism. To many Southerners the Civil War the North fought was about money and power, not human rights. I assume to some of them, banning the confederate flag (including from state flags) is like saying Americans are not allowed to fly the Stars And Stripes because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the many other atrocities we have committed around the world. It's not as easy as with Nazi symbols, which where there for like 10 years, and had no traditional meaning for the German nation.

And people are complex and imperfect. Just because Wagner was an antisemite, he was still a great composer. Just because Jefferson owned slaves (like most people in the South at that time), he was still a great mind and one of our Founding Fathers. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, so this kind of cultural cleansing should be done by the entire community with a cold head, and trying to hurt as few people as possible.

We shouldn't judge past actions based on modern standards. It's like punishing them for thinking the Earth was flat. That's how they were raised and educated, that's what seemed normal (let's not mention the HUGE role of social pressure and need for conformity).

I think African Americans would gain tremendous points with Southern whites if they tolerated those confederate flags and other similar symbols, and saw them mostly as signs of cultural pride, not racism. Same for the heroes the Southerners worship for fighting for those lands (or at least those who haven't been horrible people). People don't like other people messing with their traditions, history and legends, even if delusional or morally wrong.
Click to expand...


Whether or not it's easier or when it's done temporally has nothing to do with the underlying ethical or moral argument associated with celebrating atrocity, right? Are you saying if Germany decided to ban swastikas now because say they didn't do it earlier then all of a sudden their choice would be wrong today? No- that would be ridiculous, and thus better late than never becomes the prevailing logic.

Also, the narrative that the Civil War was about solely about money and power and not related to slavery, or that the modern people who love Confederate flags and statues only do so because of its association with sweet tea and cornbread and all things Southern is a bunch of pseudo-historical bull**** invented by the United Daughters of the Confederacy and other racists.




----

During the period 1880–1910, the UDC was one of many groups that celebrated Lost Cause mythology and presented "a romanticized view of the slavery era" in the United States.[3] The UDC promoted white Southern solidarity, allowing white Southerners to refer to a mythical past in order to legitimize racial segregation and white supremacy.[44] The UDC worked to "define southern identity around images from an Old South that portrayed slavery as benign and slaves as happy and a Reconstruction that portrayed blacks as savage and immoral.".[45] Their lost cause narrative was codified in their “Measuring Rod to Test Text Books and Reference Books,” [46] which UDC chapters unanimously endorsed and used to infect their false, white supremacist views in school curriculum across the South.[47] Historian James M. McPherson has said that the present-day UDC promotes a white supremacist and neo-Confederate agenda,[48] saying

I think I agree a hundred percent with Ed Sebesta, though, about the motives or the hidden agenda not too deeply hidden I think of such groups as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of the Confederate Veterans. They are dedicated to celebrating the Confederacy and rather thinly veiled support for white supremacy. And I think that also is the again not very deeply hidden agenda of the Confederate flag issue in several Southern states.[49]
Click to expand...
The Southern Poverty Law Center considers the UDC as part of the Neo-Confederate movement that began in the early 1980s, which the Center states is "a reactionary conservative ideology that has made inroads into the Republican Party from the political right, and overlaps with the views of white nationalists and other more radical extremist groups."[50][51] In August 2018 their website still stated that ""Slaves, for the most part, were faithful and devoted. Most slaves were usually ready and willing to serve their masters."[52]
------
 
vector2 said:
Whether or not it's easier or when it's done temporally has nothing to do with the underlying ethical or moral argument associated with celebrating atrocity, right? Are you saying if Germany decided to ban swastikas now because say they didn't do it earlier then all of a sudden their choice would be wrong today? No- that would be ridiculous, and thus better late than never becomes the prevailing logic.

Also, the narrative that the Civil War was about solely about money and power and not related to slavery, or that the modern people who love Confederate flags and statues only do so because of its association with sweet tea and cornbread is a bunch of pseudo-historical bull**** invented by the United Daughters of the Confederacy and other racists.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that swastikas don't have any other historical meaning for the Germans (AFAIK). It's like banning the sickle and the hammer in a former communist country. Big deal! It's the symbol of a party, not of a nation. I don't know the history of the Confederacy well enough to be able to say whether the flag is associated with the area, or slavery. I am not sure whether the flag was always associated with white supremacy, or it was adopted by white supremacists (like the OK sign).

I am reading this:
en.wikipedia.org

Modern display of the Confederate battle flag - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Of course the South would not have been as prosperous without black slaves. And of course the North did not go to war just to free them. Even back then there were rich people and corporations who were competing with each other. The truth is always in the middle.

P.S. Also, don't forget our First Amendment, which Germany doesn't have.

My conclusion about the meaning of the Confederate flag: it depends on the context.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
crash2500 said:
Senator Rick Scott(R) of South Carolina recently said he was pulled over 7 times in one year as an elected official for no other reason than he was a black man.
Click to expand...

It's Tim Scott. Rick Scott is the Trump ally in Florida
 
FFP said:
I'm saying that swastikas don't have any other historical meaning for the Germans (AFAIK). It's like banning the sickle and the hammer in a former communist country. Big deal! It's the symbol of a party, not of a nation. I don't know the history of the Confederacy well enough to be able to say whether the flag is associated with the area, or slavery.

Of course the South would not have been as prosperous without black slaves. And of course the North did not go to war just to free them. Even back then there were rich people and corporations who were competing with each other. The truth is always in the middle.
Click to expand...

It shows- because it's clear you're speaking about something about which you are miseducated. And it is absolutely absurd to claim that the banning of all Nazi symbology (including statues) is only a "symbol of a party." I mean, just LOL. The term "Fatherland" to this day still makes most Americans and Brits with any education in history immediately associate it with the entirety of Nazi Germany. The Nazis were not just a party- they were a unification of the entire nation (Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer) in the furtherance of one absolutely sick objective. The Confederacy is no different.



And since you're always espousing how much personal experience you have with communism, let me assure you that as a non-white person growing up in the South, proudly flying the Stars and Bars has very little to do with "cultural" pride unless that culture has white supremacy near the forefront.
 
vector2 said:
It shows- because it's clear you're speaking about something about which you are miseducated. And it is absolutely absurd to claim that the banning of all Nazi symbology (including statues) is only a "symbol of a party." I mean, just LOL. The term "Fatherland" to this day still makes most Americans and Brits with any education in history immediately associate it with the entirety of Nazi Germany. The Nazis were not just a party- they were a unification of the entire nation (Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer) in the furtherance of one absolutely sick objective. The Confederacy is no different.



And since you're always espousing how much personal experience you have with communism, let me assure you that as a non-white person growing up in the South, proudly flying the Stars and Bars has very little do it with "cultural" pride.
Click to expand...
I am not "miseducated". I may be misinformed, but I don't need anybody's "education". I am not some ***** who needs to be told how/what to think.

Seriously, you think all Germans were nazis, by choice? Really? I bet all Russians were also enthusiastic communists, in your mind.

The Nazis were a single-party dictatorship and personality cult, North Korea-style. You're either in, or dead. They made everybody commit atrocities, so that nobody was innocent.
 
FFP said:
Because somebody who's worth is in the hundreds of millions really has to worry about that.
Click to expand...
www.nationalgeographic.com

For Black Motorists, a Never-Ending Fear of Being Stopped

Minorities are pulled over by police at higher rates than whites. Many see a troubling message: You don't belong.
www.nationalgeographic.com www.nationalgeographic.com

Apparently the wealthiest Black man in America has been pulled over more times than he cares to remember. Robert F Smith. He's the guy who paid off all those loans for the Morehouse Students recently for those who don't remember. Sure he's not LeBron famous, but he's rich as hell.
 
vector2 said:
And since you're always espousing how much personal experience you have with communism, let me assure you that as a non-white person growing up in the South, proudly flying the Stars and Bars has very little to do with "cultural" pride unless that culture has white supremacy near the forefront.
Click to expand...
OK.
 
FFP said:
I am not "miseducated". I may be misinformed, but I don't need anybody's "education". I am not some ***** who needs to be told how/what to think.

Seriously, you think all Germans were nazis, by choice? Really? I bet all Russians were also enthusiastic communists, in your mind.

The Nazis were a single-party dictatorship and personality cult, North Korea-style. You're either in, or dead.
Click to expand...

Hitler came to power under massive popular support (just like how secession was massively popular with almost everyone in the antebellum South), but regardless, individual persons' allegiances are irrelevant to the point you made. You claimed that the swastika was just a symbol of a party. This is wrong, considering there was only one party and the swastika was the flag of the entire nation of Nazi Germany and intimately tied to its identity.
 
vector2 said:
Hitler came to power under massive popular support (just like how secession was massively popular with almost everyone in the antebellum South), but regardless, individual persons' allegiances are irrelevant to the point you made. You claimed that the swastika was just a symbol of a party. This is wrong, considering there was only one party and the swastika was the flag of the entire nation of Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...
Hitler came to power with less support than Trump. Then he manipulated democracy to install himself as dictator (the Germans were scared by the communist threat, sounds familiar?). 😉

The swastika was the symbol of Nazi Germany, same as MAGA is of Trumpism. You can make MAGA the national flag, for 10 years, still it won't mean ****.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
FFP said:
Hitler came to power with less support than Trump. Then he manipulated democracy to install himself as dictator. 😉

The swastika was the symbol of Nazi Germany, same as MAGA is of Trumpism. You can make MAGA the national flag, for 10 years, still it won't mean ****.
Click to expand...

Pretty disingenous to compare absolute percentages with 2 parties vs 10 parties

1591993504431.png



And no, the swastika was the symbol of the entire nation of Nazi Germany. Just like the Stars and Bars was of the Confederacy and all it stood for. MAGA is a symbol of a political party.
 
www.sciencedaily.com

Police stop fewer black drivers at night when a 'veil of darkness' obscures their race

After analyzing 95 million traffic stop records, filed by officers with 21 state patrol agencies and 35 municipal police forces from 2011 to 2018, researchers concluded that 'police stops and search decisions suffer from persistent racial bias.'
www.sciencedaily.com

Apparently I need to tell the men in my family to drive at night. The old adage of "nothing good happens at night" has finally been proven false!!!
 
vector2 said:
How dare you, what an insult! 😛
Click to expand...
Let me ask you something: as a non-white person who grew up in the South, do you think everybody flying a Confederate flag is a racist (versus just a rebel spirit, for example)?

Appalachia was founded historically by very freedom-minded self-sufficient people, who hated to be told what to do (natural contrarians). Totally different from the Barbadian plantation owners of the Deep South.
 
FFP said:
Let me ask you something: as a non-white person who grew up in the South, do you think everybody flying a Confederate flag is a racist (versus just a rebel spirit, for example)?

Appalachia was founded historically by very freedom-minded self-sufficient people, who hated to be told what to do (natural contrarians). Totally different from the Barbadian plantation owners of the Deep South.
Click to expand...

West Virginia (another place where the Confederate flag is very ironically very popular) is one of the most racist places I've ever been in my life.

I've found that people who proudly fly the Confederate flag range anywhere from those mostly apathetic about how horrible the Confederacy was for blacks to people who use the n-word frequently and who I'm almost certain are in an internet or RL white supremacy group. Even in the former cases where the flying of the flag is mostly based on ignorant casual racism vs malicious racism, I consider it as inappropriate as someone plastering swastikas all over their car and then telling me it's cause they're a "World War II buff"
 
chocomorsel said:
And where have I tried to say that it's all or none like you have repeatedly? And how many times was the Camden model brought up by me and @vector2 before you finally decided to speak on it after ignoring the question/topic repeatedly.


If you don't think that a large reason racial inequities exist in this country today is because of centuries of racism, then yeah, let's stop right there cuz we got no where else to go.
Click to expand...

I never said that. I do think that racism is significant. Some might call it large. In fact, I think that the historical context of racism explains a majority of the poverty in the past. Where we differ is in your use of the words majority and systemic now as it applies to police shootings. There is an interesting piece on this by Walter Williams here (don’t worry, he checks all the racial and gender prerequisite to have a valid opinion):

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com


In 1965, there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate, nor were there any black governors. And only six members of the House of Representatives were black. As of 2019, there is far greater representation in some areas -- 52 House members are black. Nine black Americans have served in the Senate, including Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts, Carol Moseley Braun and Barack Obama of Illinois, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Kamala Harris of California. In recent times, there have been three black state governors.

The bottom line is that today's black Americans have significant political power at all levels of government. Yet, what has that meant for a large segment of the black population? Democratic-controlled cities have the poorest-quality public education despite their large, and growing, school budgets. Consider Baltimore, Maryland. In 2016, in 13 of Baltimore's 39 high schools, not a single student scored proficient on the state's math exam. In six other high schools, only 1% tested proficient in math. Only 15% of Baltimore students passed the state's English test. That same year in Philadelphia only 19% of eighth-graders scored proficient in math, and 16% were proficient in reading. In Detroit, only 4% of its eighth-graders scored proficient in math, and 7% were proficient in reading. It's the same story of academic disaster in other cities run by Democrats.

White liberals and black politicians focus most of their attention on what the police do, but how relevant is that to the overall tragedy? According to Statista, this year, 172 whites and 88 blacks have died at the hands of police. To put police shootings in a bit of perspective, in Chicago alone in 2020 there have been 1,260 shootings and 256 homicides with blacks being the primary victims. That comes to one shooting victim every three hours and one homicide victim every 15 hours. Three people in Chicago have been killed by police. If one is truly concerned about black deaths, shootings by police should figure way down on one's list -- which is not to excuse bad behavior by some police officers.
 
Last edited:
ShockIndex said:
In 1965, there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate, nor were there any black governors. And only six members of the House of Representatives were black. As of 2019, there is far greater representation in some areas -- 52 House members are black. Nine black Americans have served in the Senate, including Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts, Carol Moseley Braun and Barack Obama of Illinois, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Kamala Harris of California. In recent times, there have been three black state governors.

The bottom line is that today's black Americans have significant political power at all levels of government. Yet, what has that meant for a large segment of the black population? Democratic-controlled cities have the poorest-quality public education despite their large, and growing, school budgets. Consider Baltimore, Maryland. In 2016, in 13 of Baltimore's 39 high schools, not a single student scored proficient on the state's math exam. In six other high schools, only 1% tested proficient in math. Only 15% of Baltimore students passed the state's English test. That same year in Philadelphia only 19% of eighth-graders scored proficient in math, and 16% were proficient in reading. In Detroit, only 4% of its eighth-graders scored proficient in math, and 7% were proficient in reading. It's the same story of academic disaster in other cities run by Democrats.
Click to expand...


It's always interesting when thoughts like this are thrown out with nary a mention of white flight or the economic decimation of urban areas in the 1960s and 70s as the tax base evaporated. White people, who still had a monopoly on all the high-paying jobs simply kept those jobs, moved to a different zip code, and then started commuting or moved the offices to the burbs.

Also, "Democratic-controlled cities" is not being specific enough. I think the author meant Democratic majority-black cities where white flight was the worst. If not, you'd have to include economic powerhouses like NYC, SF, LA, Seattle etc (at least in regard to GDP, not necessarily education). The phrasing "Large, and growing, school budgets" also does a disservice considering Westchester, NY districts spend ~30k per pupil whereas the Bronx is around 18k
 
Last edited:
vector2 said:
It's always interesting when thoughts like this are thrown out with nary a mention of white flight or the economic decimation of urban areas in the 1960s and 70s as the tax base evaporated. White people, who still had a monopoly on all the high-paying jobs simply kept those jobs, moved to a different zip code, and then started commuting or moved the offices to the burbs.
Click to expand...

Read the entire article that I posted. “White flight” is becoming just “flight.”

Academic liberals, civil rights advocates and others blamed the exodus on racism -- "white flight" to the suburbs to avoid blacks. But blacks have been fleeing some cities at higher rates than whites. The five cities whose suburbs have the fastest-growing black populations are Miami, Dallas, Washington, Houston and Atlanta. It turns out that blacks, like whites, want better and safer schools for their kids and don't like to be mugged or have their property vandalized. And like white people, if they have the means, black people cannot wait to leave troubled cities.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
ShockIndex said:
Read the entire article that I posted. “White flight” is becoming just “flight.”

Academic liberals, civil rights advocates and others blamed the exodus on racism -- "white flight" to the suburbs to avoid blacks. But blacks have been fleeing some cities at higher rates than whites. The five cities whose suburbs have the fastest-growing black populations are Miami, Dallas, Washington, Houston and Atlanta. It turns out that blacks, like whites, want better and safer schools for their kids and don't like to be mugged or have their property vandalized. And like white people, if they have the means, black people cannot wait to leave troubled cities.
Click to expand...

No, I get it. My wife's friend moved a long time ago to the burbs because she said she wasn't going to raise a black son in our city. That doesn't negate the "original sin" (when it was only white people moving out) that was directly responsible for the situation we're currently in. The fact that some black people have finally caught up 40 years later and want to move just proves the point that the original economic devastation was just that bad and has had lasting consequences wrt to generational poverty. In Democratic urban areas where the economic devastation from white flight never occurred to a significant degree and/or was mitigated by other factors (e.g. NYC), minorities who can afford it are staying put and in fact their numbers as a percentage of the population are increasing.
 
vector2 said:
Pretty disingenous to compare absolute percentages with 2 parties vs 10 parties

View attachment 309779


And no, the swastika was the symbol of the entire nation of Nazi Germany. Just like the Stars and Bars was of the Confederacy and all it stood for. MAGA is a symbol of a political party.
Click to expand...
That chart shows a shocking ignorance of history. Both of the 1933 elections were heavily rigged in favor of the Nazis. Prior to that the highest representation they had was around 37%.
 
vector2 said:
What do you think about Germany's ban of Nazi symbology anywhere outside the contexts of "art or science, research or teaching" ?
Click to expand...
I think a few things
- they don't have a 1st Amendment
- that ban hasn't really inhibited their current batch of fringe Nazis
- limiting individual speech or expression is always harmful in the end
 
QUOTE="vector2, post: 21937000, member: 129287"]
Pretty disingenous to compare absolute percentages with 2 parties vs 10 parties

View attachment 309779


And no, the swastika was the symbol of the entire nation of Nazi Germany. Just like the Stars and Bars was of the Confederacy and all it stood for. MAGA is a symbol of a political party.
[/QUOTE]
WHERE do you find this stuff? I am in awe of your search capabilities.:=|:-):
 
Angus Avagadro said:
QUOTE="vector2, post: 21937000, member: 129287"]
Pretty disingenous to compare absolute percentages with 2 parties vs 10 parties

View attachment 309779


And no, the swastika was the symbol of the entire nation of Nazi Germany. Just like the Stars and Bars was of the Confederacy and all it stood for. MAGA is a symbol of a political party.
Click to expand...
WHERE do you find this stuff? I am in awe of your search capabilities.:=|:-):
[/QUOTE]
If you want more data read this and this. They are good reads with some amazing data on the period.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
pgg said:
I think a few things
- they don't have a 1st Amendment
- that ban hasn't really inhibited their current batch of fringe Nazis
- limiting individual speech or expression is always harmful in the end
Click to expand...

I agree that limiting individual speech or expression is harmful too. Private citizen racist shtheads should have every opportunity for free speech and to promote their *****ic ideology in a non-violent, orderly way.

I draw the line when public federal or state institutions such as capitols and court houses and military bases glorify and idealize racist human rights abusing traitors who almost destroyed the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pgg
VA Hopeful Dr said:
That chart shows a shocking ignorance of history. Both of the 1933 elections were heavily rigged in favor of the Nazis. Prior to that the highest representation they had was around 37%.
Click to expand...

You already brought up that point ages ago in the other thread and were silenced when I pointed out to you by posting that same table that 1932 was still a wave. And just like FFP earlier you're trying to make 37% sound like a small number even though there were TEN+ parties. 37% when there are ten parties is not a majority but it is a MASSIVE plurality and supports the notion that NSDAP policy and rhetoric was popular even before the totalitarian dictatorship.


E:

I would also suggest, please consider how the post-Depression economic expansion affected the Nazis popularity for the better

jaren-dertig.png


"
Just consider the sequence of events: The Nazis were receiving between 2% and 3% of the vote from 1924 to 1928. Then the government sent the economy into a veritable deflationist depression in 1930-1933, as unemployment peaked to 30% in 1932. The Nazis then skyrocketed to 37.3% of the vote in the elections of July 1932, 33.1% in November of the same year and finally 43.9% in March 1933.

Faced with the parallel rise of the German Communist Party (the descendants of the Spartacists) who were at the time far more revolutionary than their modern peers, President Hindenburg decided to appoint Hitler Chancellor of the Republic on 30 January 1933. This surge in extremist formations may recall some events of today.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

"
 
Last edited:
vector2 said:
You already brought up that point ages ago in the other thread and were silenced when I pointed out to you by posting that same table that 1932 was still a wave. And just like FFP earlier you're trying to make 37% sound like a small number even though there were TEN+ parties. 37% when there are ten parties is not a majority but it is a MASSIVE plurality and supports the notion that NSDAP policy and rhetoric was popular even before the totalitarian dictatorship.
Click to expand...
I can't remember why I didn't respond back then, but I'm fairly certain that's not why.

No one is saying the Nazi party was unpopular, but the key point is that they never had more than just a shade over 1/3rd of the voters' support.

Yes there were 10+ other parties, that doesn't change the fact that at it's highest, 2/3rds of Germans didn't actively support the Nazis. In fact the next 2 most popular parties had roughly 20 more seats than the Nazis (about 10% of the total Nazi seats)

And despite this "massive plurality", the Nazis weren't even able to form a coalition government so not only did the remaining 2/3rds not support the Nazis, the couldn't even convince 14% of the other members of the Reichstag to stand with them.

I also think it's telling that in the March 1933 elections despite massive Nazi interference, they still could break 50%.
 
VA Hopeful Dr said:
No one is saying the Nazi party was unpopular, but the key point is that they never had more than just a shade over 1/3rd of the voters' support.
Click to expand...

This "shade over 1/3rd" argument is totally ridiculous and I don't know why people keep making it instead of just leaving it at the historical fact that the Nazis were pretty popular.

So why is the 1/3rd argument ridiculous? Take a guess at how many times the Imperial Reichstag between 1871 to 1919 had a one-party majority. Take another guess at how many times the Weimar Reichstag had a one-party majority between 1919 and 1933? It's a big. fat. zero.

Popularity only means something within the local, state, or national context. Was there zero opposition to the Nazis? Of course not. Did they have coalition building problems just like literally every other Reichstag of the 20s and 30s? Sure. But by any reasonable measure of how the numbers looked, the Nazis did well during their initial rise in the last free and fair elections of the Weimar.

Arguing otherwise is somewhat analogous to claiming that Reagan's 1980 489 EV victory wasn't a landslide or that he wasnt massively popular because he "only" got 50% of the vote and the Dems still ended up holding the House.
 
Last edited:
nimbus said:
The Belgians removed a statue of King Leopold II in Brussels.

rarehistoricalphotos.com

Colonial Belgian Congo: A Slave Father Gazing at His Daughter's Severed Hand and Foot, 1904 - Rare Historical Photos

In the 23 years (1885-1908) Leopold II ruled the Congo he massacred 10 million Africans by cutting off their hands and genitals and flogging them to death.
rarehistoricalphotos.com rarehistoricalphotos.com
Click to expand...
Interesting they don’t really talk about this in World History like they talk about the Holocaust.
Learned about this as an adult on my own. Certainly didn’t learn it in school.
 
vector2 said:
No, I get it. My wife's friend moved a long time ago to the burbs because she said she wasn't going to raise a black son in our city. That doesn't negate the "original sin" (when it was only white people moving out) that was directly responsible for the situation we're currently in. The fact that some black people have finally caught up 40 years later and want to move just proves the point that the original economic devastation was just that bad and has had lasting consequences wrt to generational poverty. In Democratic urban areas where the economic devastation from white flight never occurred to a significant degree and/or was mitigated by other factors (e.g. NYC), minorities who can afford it are staying put and in fact their numbers as a percentage of the population are increasing.
Click to expand...

If we crucify Ted Nugent can we consider the debt from that original sin forgiven?

Just say the word as I have some colleagues who will serve him up with hammer and nails.
 
ShockIndex said:
If we crucify Ted Nugent can we consider the debt from that original sin forgiven?

Just say the word as I have some colleagues who with serve him up with hammer and nails.
Click to expand...

LOL, if only.


But what would actually help poor inner cities? Equitable distribution of education tax dollars within a state to the various cities (even if it means more charter schools- just distribute those geographically equally). Police reform. Robust social benefits for babies, pre-K. Paid family leave. Some kind of basic universal health care. Agriculture subsidies that make healthy food affordable, not just line big ag's pockets. Affordable housing too. Free public higher education or trade school since not every kid needs or wants a 4 yr degree. Increased tax breaks for small business entrepreneurs and prioritization of more minority loans. Etc.

You know. Stuff that helps people put their boots on before you yell at them to pull up on the straps.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DrAmir0078
10-Second Anesthesia Pearls — Feedback Thread
Replies
4
Views
1K
DrAmir0078
DrAmir0078
U
Covid vaccine Jama
Replies
32
Views
3K
Arch Guillotti
Arch Guillotti
B
2024-2025 ACCM fellowship thread
Replies
1
Views
2K
NicholasPavona
N
C
New, annoying debate thread?
2
Replies
84
Views
6K
arsene19
A
Doc mu
What's the deal with the disrespect for anesthesiologists by surgeons/ancillary?
Replies
46
Views
5K
pgg
pgg
Top Bottom