Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

and even without that peace of paper and the entire war slaavery would've been gone fifty or so years later.

How can you say this like fifty more years of people living in slavery isn't important?

I didn't say so! Freeing the slaves during the civil war certainly was better than freeing them at some later point in time. All I'm arguing is that the proclamation itself is not overly important compared to the changes to people's ways of thinking. Radical change can only happen after the groundwork has been layed; and if there's an acceptable bit-by-bit alternative to radical change, it's a good idea to take it.

Better than waging war and having Lincoln free all the slaves, for example, would've been revoking hereditarity of slave status, freeing all children twelve (or ten or six, whatever was appropriate back then) and under, giving all slaves the most basic human rights, and then starting a buy-back program. It would've taken longer, and it wouldn't have been as 'moral' (mind the quotation marks), but it would've made it much easier for Southern society to adapt to the change.
Of course there was never any chance of such a thing happening, but still.

[penguinofhonor]

I feel like trying that would have started a civil war.

[lijacote]

I do not refer to any specific instance, I refer to the discourse of denial. "There is no sexism in the West", and other examples. Now I can add "it will fix itself" to that set.

Are you referring to some other argument a while back, or to the current one?
If it's the latter, I'm not seeing it.

I said that I am referring to discourse -- the whole tendency of denying oppression and the impacts of slavery. Throughout this thread, various people have used remarkable imagination in trying to justify or hide wrongness. If you want, I can start compiling this apologetics of oppression.

Edit: damn mobiles.

[Helgoland]

I feel like trying that would have started a civil war.

Then take the thing farthest in that direction that would not have started a civil war! Just the revocation of hereditarity and the buy-backs, then. Or even just the buy-backs, if they result in sufficiently high slave-prices that slaves become too valuable to use as farmhands!

[Neonivek]

I don't want to get involved in the discussion, but I have a question. Does anyone know why it's taken so long for her to release 6 out of 12 episodes?

Or has this thread moved beyond it's original topic, and I'm just making myself look like a fool.

Naw it is just that it takes SOOO dang long for her videos to come out that people wander a bit... and discussing ANY video of hers without getting to the end of the discussion is mostly fruitless. For example one of the things I criticized her part 1 of was that she never brought up the difference between male and female damsels (who aren't also main characters) but she never did... But I wouldn't know that until she finished part 1.

As for why it takes her so long... It is because she likely isn't working on them full steam.

The original topic still exists... people will discuss it if you whole heartedly bring it up. As soon as she is done part 2 I am going to do a overall review of what she said so far as well as give my opinions on it.

Though from what little I heard of it... I am not going to like part 2... While I thought part 1 was just lacking.

If you really want to discuss the first video of part 2... I can look it over and we can go over it point for point.

Would anyone be interested in that?

[penguinofhonor]

Then take the thing farthest in that direction that would not have started a civil war! Just the revocation of hereditarity and the buy-backs, then. Or even just the buy-backs, if they result in sufficiently high slave-prices that slaves become too valuable to use as farmhands!

I can't see anyone responding to revocation of heredity well. That's a pretty definitive killing blow for slavery, even if it might take 60+ years. But keep heredity and you're letting slavery continue on for longer.

I don't think there was a clear right action in this situation.

[Neonivek]

Wait... did she complete part 2 entirely? If that is the case I actually have to start the discussion... or is she still on the first part of part 2?

[Rolan7]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

People who propose that racism and sexism are over. People that replace analysis with... nothing. I am driven to despair - I thought you better, Bay 12. I thought you better.

No one said sexism or racism is over. The major argument you are referring to is the belief that sexism or racism has gotten to the point where it is repairing itself without the need for radical action.

Except nobody really said that either, and the post is just condemning the entire community for a perceived case of wrongthinking.  Frustrating.

That pretending to be a woman is the important part here, and not somebody attempting to manipulate/scam people. This points to the underlying entitlement issues men have over women in that "gifts" are assumed to lead to sex or romantic favor. It's pretty manipulative in itself to give people stuff in an attempt to "purchase" access of their body or affection when there isn't a clean line being drawn about what is expected of the situation.

Chivalry and traditional dating procedure are awful.  We're taught to be gentle and kind to girls "because they're weak and emotional".  We're taught to pay for dates and buy gifts (at regular culturally-proscribed intervals) because "men are suitors who must earn attention from women, who don't earn money".  It's all very backwards, and it trains us to believe those false rationales.

I wouldn't say anyone who gets indoctrinated that way is "manipulative" so much as "an upstanding member of a diseased society who tries to do the right things as he's been taught".  But we do agree that the whole mess is terrible and we need awareness about it, to change it.

A woman (cis or trans) could also manipulate people in the fashion feared, but it's misogynistic to couch the incident in terms of her being a woman or that being a woman inherently allowed this rather than a culture that sees favors deserving affection as the status quo. The misogyny arises when people automatically assume a woman's sexuality is to obtain social advantage as if it were a commodity rather than her sexuality. There are people who attempt to seduce for benefits but it is far too often that a woman would be accused of seduction by default whereas masculine people experience almost none of that scrutiny in their sexual behavior.

I've been struggling with how to respond to this.  It's really made me think about my position...

I think it just depends a lot on the community.  In a truly anonymous place like 4chan, claiming to be female serves almost no purpose other than seeking the instant goodwill and attention.  That's why the community there is famously "skeptical" of all women on the internet.  It's not actually a denial of women, but a denial of egotistic attention-seeking.

And it's great!  People can speak bluntly and on equal footing.  Any respect comes from being persuasive, and is instantly lost once the conversation is deleted in a few days.  So there's no place for girls, boys, PHDs, whatever.  Concise argument or gtfo.

Comment sections on articles/blogs/youtube used to be the same, essentially anonymous.  Without the 4chan culture of skepticism, people claimed whatever in order to "win".  But, now everything's getting tied in to Google and Facebook, or to some extent Disqus, which mitigate the effectiveness of lying.

In the /tg/ Space Station 13 community, we kept elements of 4chan's culture of skepticism.  People tell ridiculous stories of "their life" for laughs.  Actually opening up is derided.  Respect comes from either being a creative player, a fair admin, or a coder.  Like on 4chan, gender - real life status in general - doesn't exist, it's a total meritocracy of masks.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

One of the game admins claimed to be a retired air force officer.  It was a perfect ploy for his role as a moderator and banhammer.  It also worked because he played the part seriously - no claims of airstrikes or ranger teams or other nonsense.  He was a somewhat severe, but reliable and unemotional administrator.  He actually was.  The problem was he was actually about 16, and technically shouldn't have been playing the game at all.  So for over a year he maintained the charade.  It actually worked out well when he revealed the truth, because he'd built up such a body of respect based on his actions... actions he wouldn't have had a chance to take if he hadn't lied initially.

People who made a fuss over being female have generally turned out to be male attention seekers (the most famous being Penny) and massive sources of drama.  None of them claimed to actually be trans, that I know of.

There are a few community members who are female, though.  They get female pronouns (except from a few particularly obnoxious trolls who use male ones out of disrespect) and don't make a fuss about it - just like nobody else makes a fuss about being male.

And then there's this community.  It's frankly weird to see how people can be well-known, and discuss their real life, without being attention-seekers.  Any more than a bunch of people trading stories at a party are seeking attention.  It's *weird*, also great.

So basically I'm used to places where claiming to be female is just a ploy.

[scrdest]

Indeed;
Once someone has made up their mind, you cannot change it. The way our psychology works, we hate to admit we're wrong, so if someone challenges us, even if they have proof and shit, it makes uf dig in our heels harder and resist. It's sucky, but it's true; the only real way to be productive is to influence the people who haven't made a decision yet either way. There are, of course, a few minor exceptions to this, but by and large I've found it to be true; look at this, I mean, nearly 300 pages of arguing and no one has shifted their position so much as an inch.

Actually, you may recall that Neonivek did - a pretty big one too, an U-turn.

Also, that claim is factually inaccurate (not quite incorrect, but not quite correct either) as you admitted yourself. Conceding that 'pah, no point in trying, I'm right and you're wrong' is YOU digging your heels in.

The basic assumption in entering a discussion is that your opponent is willing to change his/her mind - otherwise it's not a discussion. Once you argue for viewers instead of for the opponent, the whole thing breaks down into appeals to various nasty things.

Yes, it is easier to persuade someone without a contrary belief - but that's because someone neutral has no motivation to believe either way so he doesn't have much of a reason to be skeptical towards anyone persuading him towards a belief.

[Eagle_eye]

I feel like trying that would have started a civil war.

Then take the thing farthest in that direction that would not have started a civil war! Just the revocation of hereditarity and the buy-backs, then. Or even just the buy-backs, if they result in sufficiently high slave-prices that slaves become too valuable to use as farmhands!

Doing that would have left vastly more people to suffer in slavery than were killed in the civil war, and would have left the plantation system intact, just with people trapped in cycles of debt and defacto slavery instead. Of course, the latter happened after the civil war anyway, but only because the South was allowed to administer itself again far too quickly.

[Neonivek]

would have left the plantation system intact

Didn't mass industrialization remove the plantation system?

[GreatJustice]

Slavery was in trouble by the 1860s anyway, but probably the most "moral" thing of the North to do (if morality/freeing the slaves was their main priority as opposed to a practical way of depriving the seceding states of potential allies) would be to act against slavery, let the South secede, and then abolish fugitive slave laws and punishments for anyone involved in freeing slaves. Slaves would have a much easier time escaping to the North as opposed to Canada, and abolitionists acting in the South would generally have an easier time supporting the rescue of slaves. Within about 10-15 years, the South would either have to declare a war of aggression that they would surely lose to protect slavery, or they would ultimately abandon it peacefully and either remain independent or integrate back into the Union with no hassle. No Civil War, slavery (probably) ends peacefully (as indeed it did nearly everywhere else), no Reconstruction meaning no KKK and probably no Jim Crow or virulent racism as existed in the American South.

But this seems to be drifting a bit off topic.

[Ghills]

I think it just depends a lot on the community.  In a truly anonymous place like 4chan, claiming to be female serves almost no purpose other than seeking the instant goodwill and attention.  That's why the community there is famously "skeptical" of all women on the internet.  It's not actually a denial of women, but a denial of egotistic attention-seeking.

And it's great!  People can speak bluntly and on equal footing.  Any respect comes from being persuasive, and is instantly lost once the conversation is deleted in a few days.  So there's no place for girls, boys, PHDs, whatever.  Concise argument or gtfo.

Comment sections on articles/blogs/youtube used to be the same, essentially anonymous.  Without the 4chan culture of skepticism, people claimed whatever in order to "win".  But, now everything's getting tied in to Google and Facebook, or to some extent Disqus, which mitigate the effectiveness of lying.

In the /tg/ Space Station 13 community, we kept elements of 4chan's culture of skepticism.  People tell ridiculous stories of "their life" for laughs.  Actually opening up is derided.  Respect comes from either being a creative player, a fair admin, or a coder.  Like on 4chan, gender - real life status in general - doesn't exist, it's a total meritocracy of masks.

I promise you, people who are openly female online face a lot of things you never see.  There's such a thing as PMs, for starters.  And yes, being 'skeptical' is part of the problem, not part of the solution (see https://xkcd.com/322/ for a pithy take on the issue).   

For you, 4chan is a great place of anonymity and equality.  For someone else - who has has a vastly different life and social conditioning - it could easily be a pit of despair and degradation.  This is called inequality; the experiences are not equal, and one is much worse. Dismissing that worse experience because it differs from yours is the root of all bigotry, and one thing that feminists have to fight especially hard because Western culture propagates the myth that women are 'too sensitive' and their concerns can be dismissed.

And 4chan as anonymous? It's a huge gateways into blackhat hacking.  If someone is creepy enough to find you IRL 4chan is one of the places to start.  It's as anonymous as B12 is. No more and no less. 

[Ghills]

Slavery was in trouble by the 1860s anyway, but probably the most "moral" thing of the North to do (if morality/freeing the slaves was their main priority as opposed to a practical way of depriving the seceding states of potential allies) would be to act against slavery, let the South secede, and then abolish fugitive slave laws and punishments for anyone involved in freeing slaves. Slaves would have a much easier time escaping to the North as opposed to Canada, and abolitionists acting in the South would generally have an easier time supporting the rescue of slaves. Within about 10-15 years, the South would either have to declare a war of aggression that they would surely lose to protect slavery, or they would ultimately abandon it peacefully and either remain independent or integrate back into the Union with no hassle. No Civil War, slavery (probably) ends peacefully (as indeed it did nearly everywhere else), no Reconstruction meaning no KKK and probably no Jim Crow or virulent racism as existed in the American South.

But this seems to be drifting a bit off topic.

The problem is that the South's economic structure was wholely dependent on slavery.  They were never, ever going to let it go.  Splitting up the US would have been a horrible move, and greatly weakened us at a point when other nations were in the middle of an imperialistic expansion.  In fact, Britain took the South's side in an attempt to weaken the whole continent and potentially get their colony back.  Letting the south secede simply wasn't a viable option.

[Rolan7]

I promise you, people who are openly female online face a lot of things you never see.  There's such a thing as PMs, for starters. 

I can tell you're implying something here, but not exactly what, nor what it has to do with what I said.

And yes, being 'skeptical' is part of the problem, not part of the solution (see https://xkcd.com/322/ for a pithy take on the issue).   

XKCD is a great comic, but that one is ridiculous.
Hat Man claims that women are rare on the internet.
Hat Man has Joanna punish the guy who jokes about women being rare on the internet.
Hat Man "Likes nerdy girls"
Hat Man has Joanna punish the guy who expresses interest in the nerdy girl.

Sure, Hat Man gives a nice wordy speech while the victim speaks like a bro.  That's because Hat Man is acting as an author insert in this ridiculous caricature.

The problem isn't "There are no girls on the internet" or being skeptical of attention-seekers.  The problems are attention-seekers making the gender appear bad, and also people sexually harassing women just for being women.  Which I'm sure does drive people away.  I used to play L4D with a couple of young ladies who used voice modulators in public matches to avoid that.  It's a real actual problem...

Which is why when someone does insert their gender in a discussion, I have to wonder "why?"

For you, 4chan is a great place of anonymity and equality.  For someone else - who has has a vastly different life and social conditioning - it could easily be a pit of despair and degradation.  This is called inequality; the experiences are not equal, and one is much worse. Dismissing that worse experience because it differs from yours is the root of all bigotry, and one thing that feminists have to fight especially hard because Western culture propagates the myth that women are 'too sensitive' and their concerns can be dismissed.

But, people have no identities on 4chan except what they type, and even that is incredibly transitory.  Unless you wear a tripcode, which is just a nametag you can take off at any time...  There's a reason most people don't use them.

Actually, no, you're starting from me claiming that 4chan is anonymous and equal (which it literally is), and equating that to bigotry.  That's not right.

And 4chan as anonymous? It's a huge gateways into blackhat hacking.  If someone is creepy enough to find you IRL 4chan is one of the places to start.  It's as anonymous as B12 is. No more and no less.

Eh, technically you're right about privacy.  Bay12 encourages people to hide less, but neither really gives hackers any way to find you.  It's the information you volunteer, or the links you click on, which are dangerous.  Protip:  Photos from many cameras and most phones contain GPS information.  That and reverse-image-searching is the main kind of "hacking" that exposes people who accidentally threw away their privacy.