Finding Stuff To Make You Angry?

[glennds]

Parody is the ultimate form of flattery.

I think the quote you're looking for is:

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness" - Oscar Wilde

And yes, the irony is staggering.

The full quote I am referring to is:

"Parody is the ultimate form of flattery one can pay to someone who's ideas are absurd but you wish not to call them stupid on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln

Well either Abe was way ahead of his time, or we're now performing a parody of a parody.

I think someone mentioned Poe's law.
But I keep thinking of the Genesis song Land of Confusion.

[Smith1776]

As the local peacekeeper who always tries to keep the union together in these forums, I think ol' Abe is who I'll aspire to be more like.

[Xan]

As the local peacekeeper who always tries to keep the union together in these forums, I think ol' Abe is who I'll aspire to be more like.

You mean, if people try to leave the forum you'll raise an army to force them to stay??

[Smith1776]

As the local peacekeeper who always tries to keep the union together in these forums, I think ol' Abe is who I'll aspire to be more like.

You mean, if people try to leave the forum you'll raise an army to force them to stay??

Yes.

[Mountaineer]

As the local peacekeeper who always tries to keep the union together in these forums, I think ol' Abe is who I'll aspire to be more like.

You mean, if people try to leave the forum you'll raise an army to force them to stay??

I can hear Dixie playing softly in the background.

[Kriegsspiel]

REAL MEN DON'T PLAY SOFT DIXIE

[vnatale]

The civil war was about white supremacy and slavery. Debate me.

100% - Slavery.

[Smith1776]

Yeah, it was definitely about slavery. Although it wasn't about full on emancipation till its later stages.

[vnatale]

Yeah, it was definitely about slavery. Although it wasn't about full on emancipation till its later stages.

The South went to war to preserve slavery. The North went to war to preserve the Union. Emancipation was just a political tool for the North to achieve that goal.

[Smith1776]

Yeah, it was definitely about slavery. Although it wasn't about full on emancipation till its later stages.

The South went to war to preserve slavery. The North went to war to preserve the Union. Emancipation was just a political tool for the North to achieve that goal.

Yeah.

[vnatale]

Yeah, it was definitely about slavery. Although it wasn't about full on emancipation till its later stages.

The South went to war to preserve slavery. The North went to war to preserve the Union. Emancipation was just a political tool for the North to achieve that goal.

Yeah.

By the way....it was only in the last year or so that I learned that Canada was considered a threat to the United States all the way through just a 100 years ago.

Is this widely known by Canadian people? That the United States considered Canada a threat for so long?

Prior I'd always thought that Canada had always been a happy neighbor to the United States.

Also, in the last few weeks, I learned that prior to Benedict Arnold turning traitor, he'd been one of the United States greatest patriots and military people.

[Xan]

Yeah, it was definitely about slavery. Although it wasn't about full on emancipation till its later stages.

The simplistic answer is rarely the right one. Even asking the question isn't so easy. For example, by "the war" are we talking about secession, or the raising and deployment of armies?

Secession wasn't a monolithic event. Taking a very simplified look, there were multiple batches: first there was the batch of states which seceded after the election of Lincoln. Here's where you can argue that they left because of slavery. The other batch didn't secede until after Lincoln raised an army to attack their neighbors. Can you say that those states were seceding and/or fighting primarily because of slavery? That's a harder argument to make.

Also, issues take place on multiple levels. There were definitely other issues besides slavery: the tariffs used to fund the federal government were mostly paid by the South, just for one example. But even if slavery were the only issue, there's a meta-issue, which is what's the role of the federal government in determining the civic order in the states. The proximate issue may be slavery, but the meta-issue is whether or not the states are vassal sub-units of the federal government. In this way, the issue can be both slavery and not-slavery at the very same time.

As far as "preserving the union": a voluntary union can never be preserved by force. It can be changed into a completely different kind of union, which is what happened.

Lincoln was perfectly willing to let slavery continue: he was willing to support the Corwin Amendment, a proposed 13th Amendment which would explicitly permanently allow slavery, in exchange for the South not leaving. Why did he care so much about preserving the union? See above: the tariffs that funded the federal government were paid by the South.

[vnatale]

Yeah, it was definitely about slavery. Although it wasn't about full on emancipation till its later stages.

The simplistic answer is rarely the right one. Even asking the question isn't so easy. For example, by "the war" are we talking about secession, or the raising and deployment of armies?

Secession wasn't a monolithic event. Taking a very simplified look, there were multiple batches: first there was the batch of states which seceded after the election of Lincoln. Here's where you can argue that they left because of slavery. The other batch didn't secede until after Lincoln raised an army to attack their neighbors. Can you say that those states were seceding and/or fighting primarily because of slavery? That's a harder argument to make.

Also, issues take place on multiple levels. There were definitely other issues besides slavery: the tariffs used to fund the federal government were mostly paid by the South, just for one example. But even if slavery were the only issue, there's a meta-issue, which is what's the role of the federal government in determining the civic order in the states. The proximate issue may be slavery, but the meta-issue is whether or not the states are vassal sub-units of the federal government. In this way, the issue can be both slavery and not-slavery at the very same time.

As far as "preserving the union": a voluntary union can never be preserved by force. It can be changed into a completely different kind of union, which is what happened.

Lincoln was perfectly willing to let slavery continue: he was willing to support the Corwin Amendment, a proposed 13th Amendment which would explicitly permanently allow slavery, in exchange for the South not leaving. Why did he care so much about preserving the union? See above: the tariffs that funded the federal government were paid by the South.

Not disputing any of your facts.

However, if Lincoln raised an army to attack....what was the the South's strategy in actually starting the war by attacking Fort Sumter?

Another factor in Lincoln being so keen on preserving the Union was that the Republican party had so recently formed as a party and Lincoln did not want its first presidency to be presiding over a failed presidency.

Finally, if the South was paying the tariffs which funded the federal government.....absent this funding... how was the North able to be such a War Machine compared to the South?

Finally, finally, there was great sentiment in many places of the South to not go to war with the North. I believe I read last year that the majority of the people living in the South at the time were opposed to going to war against the North. It was the state legislators (who had been put there by the Slave Owners) who voted the South into War against the North.

[Xan]

I'm not trying to rehash this entire discussion: mostly I'm pointing out that history is complicated, and we do everyone a disservice when we oversimplify it.

[Smith1776]

I'm not trying to rehash this entire discussion: mostly I'm pointing out that history is complicated, and we do everyone a disservice when we oversimplify it.

Yeah, it's all good.

[Smith1776]

Here's something that miffs me. It's when after confirming they understand the efficient market theory and its implications, coworkers still ask me "So do you think I should put a bunch of money into Peloton stock?" I say, "Well, no, remember that all the relevant information is priced in. To the extent to which there's unpriced information, the time/effort needed to discover that information probably exceeds the benefit."

"..."

"What about Tesla stock then?"

*face palm*

[Smith1776]

The same people understand that eating a diet high in carbs makes them fat as they slurp soda and eat donuts.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[stuper1]

I'm not trying to rehash this entire discussion: mostly I'm pointing out that history is complicated, and we do everyone a disservice when we oversimplify it.

Just as long as we all agree that the civil war was about slavery and was not about "states rights" and it was not "The War of Northern Aggression" it was a war designed to free enslaved blacks from white supremacists.

The above is a political statement and therefore satire according to the rules of parsing tomf's statements. And the satire is very deserved here, as Lincoln didn't even free the slaves from the non-Southern states, so he obviously didn't care a whit about slaves, but just about political issues. The irony of forcing states at the point of a million guns to stay in a union that they don't want to be in supposedly to preserve "freedom" is staggering. It reminds me in some ways of today's peacekeeping missions to force democracy on other countries. I think the U.S. and the world would have been much better off if the U.S. had broken up in 1860. It would have avoided so much bad behavior by the U.S. in the 20th century.

[glennds]

I'm not trying to rehash this entire discussion: mostly I'm pointing out that history is complicated, and we do everyone a disservice when we oversimplify it.

OTOH, the more complicated a rendition of history becomes, the more susceptible the rendition becomes to biases of the presenter. This is a whole other risk.
In this way, almost any aspect of history can be re-told or rationalized in a way that will support any number of preferred, even conflicting narratives.

The Lost Cause narrative that still shapes the understanding of the Civil War for many people is one such example. The complexity of the story provided the camouflage.

[Smith1776]

Almost no American history is taught to us Canadians in our public high schools. There is some, but you would typically only get American history exposure if you specifically started to major in history.

The default history education we get is in our "social studies" classes which definitely focuses on Canada's history. (I'd say 80%.)

To the extent to which I'm familiar with U.S. history it has been through my own curiosity. A lot of it also stems from my interest in investing, which necessitates knowing quite a bit about America generally.

Anyway, aren't you guy's fascinated to know that Hudson's Bay Company is our oldest company? And that our economy got going with the beaver pelt trade?

[Kriegsspiel]

Almost no American history is taught to us Canadians in our public high schools.

Same here for the most part.

Anyway, aren't you guy's fascinated to know that Hudson's Bay Company is our oldest company? And that our economy got going with the beaver pelt trade?

Personally, I think the HBC is pretty interesting. I'm curious to know what you think of Peter Zeihan's take on Canada.

[vnatale]

In 10th grade, we had to take World History, which I did not like. Did like, though, my 11th grade U.S. History class.