It’s an error in the 1980 film. The Despecialized Edition reproduces it exactly as it was.
I don’t know much about torrenting, and I believe Harmy also was (and perhaps still is) unable to do it. If enough technically-minded people agree, and Harmy thinks it’d work, that might be fine. Then again, maybe Harmy already has a Plan B.
Tehparadox going down also threw me for a loop.
We experimented once before with some key users getting a download link via PM and then having them all seeding a torrent as a means of handling the high demands of initial distribution. There was some technical fiasco and it didn’t work well at all. Doesn’t mean it’s not worth another shot, but maybe someone would need to document a “you must do it exactly like this” set of instructions to avoid issues. In theory, it seemed like a pretty good idea. Maybe worth another go.
I tend to stay out of this thread, and political discussion in general. Not that I’m apathetic, I’m just not very comfortable in my opinions and am often genuinely scared of being wrong. Not today though. The president says that “some” people who are/ally themselves with white supremacists are “fine people.” I don’t say things like this often, but this is utter bullshit.
As someone who can sometimes be a little a lot on the strident side, let me say that even if I seem like a biter of heads, I do understand not only differences of opinions but also uncertainty and unease about them. It’s just some people (like me) are more comfortable with conflict than others, and we actually are just used to disagreements being a little more on the blunt and maybe even a little rude side. But anyone who posts here is a friend. Unless they’re some Nazi asshole, then fuck em 😉
That said, a good BS detector is a fine thing to have, and yours appears to be in perfect working order. I’d love to hear more from you.
And holy hell, that’s a bad wig.
I’m telling you. You see a partially-deflated topiary on someone’s head, run for cover.
If they’d only had a permit!
You do realize that John Adams defended the British Soldiers in court and got them acquitted, right?
He got some of them acquitted. The two who fired directly into the crowd were found guilty of manslaughter, which was a death penalty offense–reduced later to branding (yoiks!). And permits didn’t enter into it at all. Did I suck all the life out of that or what?
Do any other countries put up monuments and statues to the losing side in a war?
Do any other countries fetishize guns like we do?
Yes. Oh yes yes yes lordy yes some do. But those countries can’t necessarily afford to have 1.13 guns per human, so there’s that.
Do any other countries put up monuments and statues to the losing side in a war?
The South was just ahead of the curve on the concept of participation trophies.
Confederate statues are, to me, more akin to statues of Timothy McVeigh than Washington or Jefferson.
I am not sure it is valid to compare Confederates to the likes of Timothy McVeigh. A lot of people boil the Confederacy down to slavery and racism. I am willing to bet the truth is a bit more complicated.
People retroactively apply all sorts of alternate intentions on the Confederates. Fortunately, the Confederates documented their intentions when they wrote their various Causes for Secession. Slavery and racism were right there in black and white: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world”. “Fighting for southern hospitality and the right to sip sweet tea under the willow oaks” didn’t make the cut. South Carolina even included language explicitly opposing the principle of states’ rights (which is the one thing most commonly retroactively misattributed to the Confederate cause). Not a lot of scholars think the Confederates weren’t truthful when they wrote down their causes for secession, but I suppose the argument’s been made.
But all that is a little beside the point, since the statues were put up long after the Confederates were defeated, during the reign of terror (End of Reconstruction to Civil Rights Act), when Confederate identity was already undergoing changes, and was less about slavery specifically and more about white supremacy in general.
McVeigh isn’t a perfect analog for the Confederates, he’s just the best I could come up with. But the primary difference is he had a much lower body count.
As for Washington and Jefferson, it would not surprise me if some wish to tear down their statues. They were slave owners. I’m sure some view them as nothing but slave owning racists.
Sure, that’s a view of it. A distinction most make, though, is that neither Washington nor Jefferson were so married to the idea of slavery that they were willing to murder US soldiers over it–or if they were, they never actually had the opportunity to prove it. Even Lee’s “the reluctant traitor” image doesn’t wash that part clean. Washington and Jefferson statues also generally were not placed around the nation as part of a broader effort to intimidate the local population into submission (i.e. lynching and the whole hundred-year reign of terror thing), which is why we have the Confederate ones in the first place. It’s more important to me to look at why the statue is there than who the statue is of, if that makes sense.
Confederate statues are, to me, more akin to statues of Timothy McVeigh than Washington or Jefferson. It’s no coincidence that many of the people at this march defending the Confederate statues were also McVeigh admirers–and not particular admirers of Washington or Jefferson.
Season’s Sprinklings Everyone!
God damn it. We had him then we lost him.
Or we never really had him in the first place.
?
There was a lot of wishful thinking that “this time for sure!” Trump would see how awful Nazis were and stop supporting them. But instead he dithered for a bit, released a late and mild statement condemning white supremacists, but continued to employ the ones on his staff. But apparently that was too extremist for Trump, so he walked back the statement part, and echoed some white supremacist talking points while he was at it.
When has anyone ever got into trouble prematurely blaming Nazis?
I called the 1990’s. I want my Godwin’s Law back.
Looks like Nigel Krofta, a Ridgeville, South Carolina Nazi, is out of a job. I am having a pity party right now, Nigel.
And I’ve been around white supremacists before, but one thing I never got was the haircuts. Okay, shaved heads we get, fine, that’s a thing. But what about the strange topiary disaster mop jobs? Is it some sort of a macho statement that you’re manly enough to be comfortable letting your mom cut your hair? Like that guy in Holland. Nazis and weird hair. I just don’t get it.
In the interest of law & order and fair & balanced and all that is right, I hope these people get a stiff fine for littering. Some poor county employee’s got to take all that trash to the dump.
While mistakes being made are unfortunately possible (or even likely), exposing these scumbags for who they are is still an absolutely worthy effort.
Daniel Borden, one of the attackers who beat the man with a pipe in the OTHER white supremacist attack in Charlottesville, has also now been identified.
And this one is going to prison! I only hope he’ll rat more people out for a lighter sentence (and then not get one).
When you’re marching around in public as part of a hate group, people can widely distribute photos of you and ID you via crowdsourcing. First off, a caution–be damned sure about someone’s identity before you tag them with something like this, and secondly, if you actually can positively identify any of these white supremacists, please do. They wanted to tell the whole world what they thought, so it seems proper that the parts of the world closest to them shouldn’t be left out of knowing what they think.
I don’t know what’s more precious–that Cole White lost his job at Top Dog, LLC (ohh, so sorry, it turns out “assclown” is not a legally protected class!), or that Peter Cvjetanovic is now making the media rounds saying “that’s not me in those super-clear photos!” (when it definitely is – it reminds me of when Richard Spencer recently denied he was Richard Spencer because he was too delicate of a snowflake to cope with being disliked in public). It’s like there’s consequences or something. I wonder if he’s also going to deny that’s him in those (not rally-related) photos with US Senator Dean Heller, or vice-versa.
More consequences (preferably law-enforcement-style consequences, but I’m not picky) are needed to make sure this shit gets shut down right now. Or at least make the Klansmen have to wear their goofy hoods again.
Yeah, get those Nazis! Fuck 'em, and what are the chances the angry mob of
losersinternet detectives get the wrong person? Next to none, I’m sure. Oh shit.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxing.html
Hmm, I’m suddenly reminded of /pol/'s mad attempts to find the person who committed the vehicular terror attack that day, only to find the wrong guy.
I wish my warning wasn’t warranted, but thanks for the sad news that it definitely was.
You’ll have to pry Secret Agent Frink from my cold, dead imagination.
Hey, where’s Frink?
[Cut to a scene with Frink in secret agent garb opening a vault door under a doghouse]
What are we going to do about it? Redistribute the wealth?
We do that anyway. All taxation redistributes wealth, maybe not with a social engineering intent, but it redistributes it nonetheless. Even the complete lack of taxation in a market economy redistributes wealth. The only question regarding redistribution is how do you want it done, because it’s going to happen regardless.
As long as Trump’s approval stays above ~32%, they keep the Senate–with no real risk of losing it until 2022.
About two more percentage points until the Senate wakes up and remembers it has a job to do. Two very difficult percentage points – core supporters don’t change their minds easily.
The fact that there are no easy answers doesn’t mean there’s not a problem. It sounds like we actually completely agree on the nature of the problem. You’ve proposed some solutions, but frankly I don’t think they’re very good, nor do I think you really want to implement them, so I don’t see much point in arguing positions nobody supports.
There are people who hunt down ill-gotten gains, passed through generations, and make attempts at some sort of restorative justice. They’re Nazi hunters. The records were better then, and not as much time has passed, so it can and is done. Lots of stories where perfectly innocent Germans hand back stolen paintings they got from their Nazi relatives, and so on. You very correctly point out that money has no label on it saying “I was earned unjustly” – and certainly much of the ill-gotten gains have been diluted to the point where they cannot be reclaimed. But as the Nazi hunters have taught us, sometimes the wealth follows a straight enough line to follow. Not all of the wealth, not even a fraction of the wealth. But if it does, I don’t have a problem following the line.
Well yeah, people are allowed to decide who gets their stuff when they die. So what?
Well, I have lots of opinions on this matter, but the one most topical is this: if you have a time, 50 years ago when redlining was legal, and a time 100 years ago when murder was tolerated and even encouraged in the form of lynching, and 150 years ago when slavery was legal, that is a lot of time to build up a pretty substantial reservoir of unearned, unfair, unjustified advantage. And if you have a system that allows those ill-gotten gains to legally be transferred people living in the present even though the means used to accumulate that wealth is no longer legal… well, you’ve got a problem.
I think it is wrong to simply label everything that white people have today as ill-gotten.
Me too, which is why I so carefully tagged only those gains made via slavery, etc as ill-gotten, though they are substantial. I think this moots the rest of your questions, so I’ll leave it at that.
Would you agree that wealth earned from slavery is ill-gotten wealth? If so, we’re pretty much in agreement.
Well yeah, people are allowed to decide who gets their stuff when they die. So what?
Well, I have lots of opinions on this matter, but the one most topical is this: if you have a time, 50 years ago when redlining was legal, and a time 100 years ago when murder was tolerated and even encouraged in the form of lynching, and 150 years ago when slavery was legal, that is a lot of time to build up a pretty substantial reservoir of unearned, unfair, unjustified advantage. And if you have a system that allows those ill-gotten gains to legally be transferred people living in the present even though the means used to accumulate that wealth is no longer legal… well, you’ve got a problem.
There is no single solution to this problem. However, we are living with the consequences of not solving it.
If you want something nice, you have to earn enough money and buy it. We don’t give mansions away for free.
In our system, you don’t have to earn any money at all to get what you want, due to a thing called inheritance. We do indeed give away mansions for free. After being born a multi-millionaire, you can spend your life pissing it away like Trump (he’d actually be much richer today if he’d just invested the wealth he had as an infant in a diversified fund and spent his life playing golf), or you can be born a multi-millionaire and build on it like Bill Gates. But would you have done as well had you not had multiple millions of dollars when you were still in diapers?
