logo Sign In

CatBus

User Group
Members
Join date
18-Aug-2011
Last activity
15-Jul-2025
Posts
5,971

Post History

Post
#1100769
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

darth_ender said:

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

Think of the benefit of losing Bannon. This could be a way for Trump to lose his alt-right support, without which he has no hope of reelection. I doubt he would govern differently without it, but it also could be an opportunity for Republicans in Congress to throw him off without worrying about their own base. Really, this is a very good thing!

You are very hopeful. I think despite all the commentary that Trump shot himself in the foot over Charlottesville, that man is nothing if not showbiz, and he knows his base. If reports are accurate on this matter, he was planning to put Bannon back into running his propaganda network full-time before Charlottesville so that Bannon could keep pushing the Nazi storyline without becoming the story himself. But Trump couldn’t lose Bannon without losing the Nazis, because he’s been coy about his own leanings. So he arranged a “yes, Trump’s a Nazi just like you” news cycle week so that when Bannon left, the Nazis would stay. He could have done this no matter what happened in Charlottesville, just with non-sequiturs about Washington and Jefferson. It worked, and they’re staying.

I don’t know. The ousting of Bannon was not on friendly terms

It wouldn’t be the first time there was a stage-managed fight between Trump and a senior official. The supposed “fight” between Trump and Sessions went poof the second Murkowski prevented Trump from making a recess appointment replacing Sessions. That’s what the fight was there for. I imagine the fight between Trump and Bannon was to help Bannon assert that he was running a “media outlet”.

Post
#1100667
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

darth_ender said:

Think of the benefit of losing Bannon. This could be a way for Trump to lose his alt-right support, without which he has no hope of reelection. I doubt he would govern differently without it, but it also could be an opportunity for Republicans in Congress to throw him off without worrying about their own base. Really, this is a very good thing!

You are very hopeful. I think despite all the commentary that Trump shot himself in the foot over Charlottesville, that man is nothing if not showbiz, and he knows his base. If reports are accurate on this matter, he was planning to put Bannon back into running his propaganda network full-time before Charlottesville so that Bannon could keep pushing the Nazi storyline without becoming the story himself. But Trump couldn’t lose Bannon without losing the Nazis, because he’s been coy about his own leanings. So he arranged a “yes, Trump’s a Nazi just like you” news cycle week so that when Bannon left, the Nazis would stay. He could have done this no matter what happened in Charlottesville, just with non-sequiturs about Washington and Jefferson. It worked, and they’re staying.

Post
#1100572
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jeebus said:

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

I’m going to probably really get it for this, but I’m going to say it anyway.

Not everyone that upholds Confederate leaders or their statues is in favor of slavery, white supremacy, or racism of any kind. I served my mission in Atlanta, GA, and there were many people who idolized the leadership of the Confederacy and minimizing the slavery aspect.

You see, I believe that a large part of people’s unwillingness to let go of that side of history is due to the very nature of the Civil War and its loss. Sociology is an interesting thing, and people often shape their self-image based on complex factors. After the loss of the Civil War, people had to reshape their thinking. It was a crushing blow to their self-image. As those states were restructuring their laws, economy, and moral outlook, people had to adopt different means of accepting the loss of the War. The South has a very distinct culture, and that loss was a threat to their own culture. Over time, many came to accept that slavery and racism were wrong, but adopted a view that the Civil War was about much bigger things than that, and that slavery was merely a secondary issue. As with any nation’s or culture’s history, a certain amount of apologetics and whitewashing go into it in order to avoid the psychological dissonance one feels of being part of something unethical. Remember, many Germans should have known that their own Third Reich was engaged in an unjust and evil war with accompanying horrors, but they turned a blind eye because they could not believe that they could engage in something so immoral.

My point to this is that there may be good qualities to many Confederate leaders. There are many good qualities of Southerners who uphold them as idols.

BUT

What they and we need to understand is that there really was an evil issue at the heart of the CSA. We need to be understanding of their cultural identity as it is so wrapped up in the good of that short-lived nation. We do need to remove those statues and flags from places of prominence. However, we must do so with respect and with accompanying education so that the people whose identities are threatened understand the true nature of the Confederate cause. This will avoid violent situations and will result in a better educated, and possibly less resentful and racist, nation. When you rip down a deeply ingrained cultural icon, sometimes all it does is validate certain misguided beliefs.

I blame the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan jump-started a period of enormous prosperity in Germany, but only in West Germany. Nazism thrives on the fabrication of a distant past golden age, and the West was simply too prosperous for many to look beyond the present. The East on the other hand jumped from hardship to hardship, and imagining that things were better in the past was an easier thing to swallow.

Why not blame the Communist regime that the East was stuck under that made it impossible for them to attain any level of prosperity?

Blame was the wrong word. But without the Marshall Plan, I feel both halves of Germany would have yearned for the past, so I feel the Communist regime was in many ways beside the point. The Marshall Plan actually solved the problem IMO, just not everywhere. That’s not really a “blame” thing, but I couldn’t think of a better word at the time.

Post
#1100570
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

darth_ender said:

I’m going to probably really get it for this, but I’m going to say it anyway.

Not everyone that upholds Confederate leaders or their statues is in favor of slavery, white supremacy, or racism of any kind. I served my mission in Atlanta, GA, and there were many people who idolized the leadership of the Confederacy and minimizing the slavery aspect.

You see, I believe that a large part of people’s unwillingness to let go of that side of history is due to the very nature of the Civil War and its loss. Sociology is an interesting thing, and people often shape their self-image based on complex factors. After the loss of the Civil War, people had to reshape their thinking. It was a crushing blow to their self-image. As those states were restructuring their laws, economy, and moral outlook, people had to adopt different means of accepting the loss of the War. The South has a very distinct culture, and that loss was a threat to their own culture. Over time, many came to accept that slavery and racism were wrong, but adopted a view that the Civil War was about much bigger things than that, and that slavery was merely a secondary issue. As with any nation’s or culture’s history, a certain amount of apologetics and whitewashing go into it in order to avoid the psychological dissonance one feels of being part of something unethical. Remember, many Germans should have known that their own Third Reich was engaged in an unjust and evil war with accompanying horrors, but they turned a blind eye because they could not believe that they could engage in something so immoral.

My point to this is that there may be good qualities to many Confederate leaders. There are many good qualities of Southerners who uphold them as idols.

BUT

What they and we need to understand is that there really was an evil issue at the heart of the CSA. We need to be understanding of their cultural identity as it is so wrapped up in the good of that short-lived nation. We do need to remove those statues and flags from places of prominence. However, we must do so with respect and with accompanying education so that the people whose identities are threatened understand the true nature of the Confederate cause. This will avoid violent situations and will result in a better educated, and possibly less resentful and racist, nation. When you rip down a deeply ingrained cultural icon, sometimes all it does is validate certain misguided beliefs.

While I disagree with a few points of this*, I’d like to add more nuance to the counter-argument than you’ll typically find. The easy counter-argument is: the Germans as a whole eventually owned up to their terrible past, didn’t whitewash nearly as much as we still do, and came out of this truthful soul-searching a decent people with a strong sense of national identity in spite of their history. The nuance: more in the West than the East. You see, Nazism is on the rise in Germany as well, but it’s far more prevalent in the East. I blame the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan jump-started a period of enormous prosperity in Germany, but only in West Germany. Nazism thrives on the fabrication of a distant past golden age, and the West was simply too prosperous for many to look beyond the present. The East on the other hand jumped from hardship to hardship, and imagining that things were better in the past was an easier thing to swallow.

I’d also like to strongly agree that the South has a very distinct identity from the rest of the nation. It also extends beyond the historical boundaries of the Confederacy–I’d say the portions of the Voting Rights Act that were recently excised probably form a much more accurate boundary, sometimes going very far north indeed. The so-called melting pot bubbles a lot less in this part of the country. The idea of waves of immigrants bringing prosperity is something they read about happening elsewhere, with suspicion. The history of military victories starting with the Revolution and only failing in Vietnam was nonsense – the South has been losing battles far longer than that, what was one more defeat to add to the pile?

Taken in combination, I think the South needs a Marshall Plan. They may take it as a second Reconstruction, and I suppose in many ways it could be fairly called that. But the point is that as long as so much of the South is left out of economic prosperity, the past will keep beckoning, as it does in the former East Germany. But this is only part one – the Democrats pulled this off already once before with the upper midwest, using unions as the foothold to prosperity, which for a time overrode the inherent racism there. The problem is, like good socialists (and I include myself as a self-critical member of that group), they thought that once they solved the economic problem, the racial problem would solve itself. And that was baloney.

* Specifically, I’d say that at some point, self-delusion and denial adds up to effectively justifying slavery, white supremacy, and racism (because turning a blind eye to the past is not so much different than turning a blind eye to the present, and the motivations can be similar). And I’d add there’s more going on than self-delusion and denial in many or even most cases, such as our current Attorney General, who is a Confederate-botherer of the first order.

Post
#1100386
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Not being able to pay for Secret Service protection anymore: it’s a feature.

Trump has his own private bodyguards in addition to the Secret Service. If he taps out all of the Secret Service funding and they are no longer able to protect everyone in his circle, his people will then be able to move and meet freely without witnesses that haven’t sworn personal loyalty to Trump. That has in fact been the primary benefit of the Secret Service in the age of Trump – a cadre of nonpartisan witnesses always close at hand.

If I were Congress, I’d remove the annual pay caps and maybe provide extra people from the FBI or US Marshalls, since they’re likely going to need to be nearby eventually. But then I’m not Congress.

Post
#1100309
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Agreed, the whole Antifa movement is IMO just crawling with the same anarchists who take over any protest for the past twenty years and make it into their own “Let’s smash some windows and burn something” event. Very unhelpful, but not that particular to the anti-Nazi protests either. But it is complicated by the fact that punching Nazis is, in theory, a very attractive proposition to most of the country, so they finally have a message that resonates a bit. There may be some sort of core legitimate Antifa movement, but at least from here they look outnumbered by anarchist jerkwads, and the non-organized aspect of it makes it pretty impossible to distinguish one from the other.

It also makes them kinda hard to reject by name, since they’ll just show up to smash windows and start fights under some other name (Were they called Antifa at the WTO? Nope). So IMO all the Left can do is reject the violence, and any individuals who get caught.

Post
#1100304
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Yep, that’s BLM in my experience. Very disciplined and restrained in their own actions (physically – they do try to grab headlines verbally), and unafraid to venture into hotspots where shit is likely to explode into violence on a hair trigger. It’s a sort of Rorschach Test to the observer – either it’s “Wow they are disciplined/always on-message for the media!” or “What were they doing there in the first place if they knew there was going to be rioting? They must have wanted/triggered it!”

Post
#1100200
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

Question is it know how many of the nazis that were there were actually from the Charlottesville area?

Well, I doubt many of the Nazis that killed Anne Frank were from Amsterdam, so their birthplaces don’t matter so much as where they choose to do the awful things they do. In that sense, an “Up yours, Nazis!” statue is warranted in both Charlottesville and Amsterdam, even if not a single Nazi was born in either place.

Post
#1100192
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

But what does she have to do with the history of Charlottesville?

There was this march there, recently. It’s been in the news. There were Nazis.

But seriously, I don’t know much about Charlottesville. If there are local Jewish figures up for consideration, I’d say move them to the top of the list. Just to remind the Nazis that they absolutely will be replaced, every last one, with the very people they want to murder.

Post
#1100165
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jerrod Kuhn, Nazi from Honeoye Falls, New York, has denied he’s a Nazi. His account on a Nazi website was a wacky lark, you see, and the torch he was holding was just a much less fussy light source than a flashlight. The “Jews won’t replace us” chant, er, that was, um… OK, maybe he’s a Nazi after all.

Maybe I’ve watched too many Indiana Jones movies, but didn’t these guys used to be a little less delicate?

Post
#1099801
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

vandalized and tore down was just of a nondescript soldier, not even standing in a glorified position and it was dedicated to the war dead.

There are other ways to memorialize the dead. I’d definitely argue that statue was a glorification.

even though he said the soldier was not standing a in a glorified position?

WTH is a glorified position? A soldier can be downtrodden & grieving, and it doesn’t mean the statue wasn’t designed to symbolize the nobility (no matter how dear the price) of their cause.

Example:

Post
#1099773
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Regarding where to draw the line on statues: generally speaking a very easy line to draw is “Was the statue erected during a period of domestic terror as a means of further intimidating the citizens targeted by that terrorism?” T

So now we are comparing General Lee to Bin Laden?

The domestic terror campaign I’m talking about was kicked off when Reconstruction ended, and lasted about a hundred years (i.e. the period when the statues were erected). I’m not sure General Lee was involved in any of that.

EDIT: If I were to compare Lee to any contemporary figure, I’d say the best match would be one of the Iraqi Republican Guard leaders who went on to fight for ISIS, not because of a great deal of ideological allegiance (the Baathists were not Islamists), but because that’s the way the sectarian split of Iraq went.

Post
#1099735
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Regarding where to draw the line on statues: generally speaking a very easy line to draw is “Was the statue erected during a period of domestic terror as a means of further intimidating the citizens targeted by that terrorism?” That could apply to more than just Confederate statues, but it should take care of most of them. I’m sure there are other tests for harder cases.

Post
#1099704
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

NeverarGreat said:

We’re members of a forum about preserving art, why not make the argument that for their preservation for future generations, our Confederate monuments are being placed in museums where they will be safe from the destructive forces of nature?

That’s exactly what being proposed in many of the “removal” scenarios. Although I suspect they’ll be “placed in museums” where they can be looked after by top men. Top. Men. But still, only some are being destroyed. The rest are headed for the crate beyond.

The best way to demonstrate we’re not ignoring the lessons of history is to replace these statues with statues of MLK or Gandhi or some such figure. To the contrary, it would show we’re finally starting to learn the lessons of history.

Post
#1099531
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

yhwx said:

How would you explain the presence of many women in the early years of computer science, then?

Many occupations have undergone complete reversals in gender preference, so any statement about a bias should probably be read as a “current bias”. For example, secretaries and schoolteachers used to be fairly exclusively male professions. Now (at least in the US), it’s almost entirely reversed. And completely coincidentally I’m sure the status and relative wages of those occupations have dropped.

Post
#1099362
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Romney finally called on Trump to apologize (yeah, that’s gonna happen). While I do think he is a little late to the party and focusing a little too much on how all of this makes America look rather than the actual content of what was said, “a day late and a dollar short” seems a petty criticism when so many haven’t even gone this far. So yay for Romney, what’s everyone else’s excuse now?

“You can depend on Americans to do the right thing when they have exhausted every other possibility.” We’ve been out of other possibilities for a while now, Winston.