Censorship? There is no censorship!

[Sander]

It would be bad for those involved with and affected by the southern american economy. Not all white people. And not all american white people either. Most white people in the south maybe. But choosing to mention their race over anything else is. . .

I thought it was obvious from context that I was talking about white people in the Southern United States. Apparently not. So: that's who I was talking about.

Also of course race is a dominant factor here because the entire system of transatlantic slavery was built on racial distinctions.

Though you could probably make a pretty convincing argument that much of the white/'Western' world's wealth is built on various forms of slavery, anyway.

Fighting corruption is the opposite of fighting corruption?

Advertising influencing coverage is the number one most blatant form of journalistic corruption there is. And that's what GamerGate is encouraging.

There's plenty of websites that post social justice articles that aren't targeted by gamergate. The targets of gamergate's emails are not based on whether they support social justice or not. If you believe that, you've been misinformed.

How is this even a response to what I said?

Continue. My feelings will surely be hurt if you continue to repeat yourself. You can do it! I believe in you!

See, in case you didn't know yet: this is why people outside GamerGate think it's shit.

 

[Akratus]

It would be bad for those involved with and affected by the southern american economy. Not all white people. And not all american white people either. Most white people in the south maybe. But choosing to mention their race over anything else is. . .

I thought it was obvious from context that I was talking about white people in the Southern United States. Apparently not. So: that's who I was talking about.

Also of course race is a dominant factor here because the entire system of transatlantic slavery was built on racial distinctions.

The system was, duh, that's why it's slavery. Now explain to me again how the white race as a whole is hurt by the removal of slavery from the american south. Note: There was another america, that was anti-slavery, and also predominently white. Also: There lived white people outside of countries with instituted slavery. Just fyi.

Fighting corruption is the opposite of fighting corruption?

Advertising influencing coverage is the number one most blatant form of journalistic corruption there is. And that's what GamerGate is encouraging.

There's plenty of websites that post social justice articles that aren't targeted by gamergate. The targets of gamergate's emails are not based on whether they support social justice or not. If you believe that, you've been misinformed.

How is this even a response to what I said?

Because gamergate, with it's e-mails, isn't trying to influence the coverage of said sites in any way but to make them less corrupt and biased.

Continue. My feelings will surely be hurt if you continue to repeat yourself. You can do it! I believe in you!

See, in case you didn't know yet: this is why people outside GamerGate think it's shit.

Because I don't put feelz before realz. I know.

I invite you to try to make me feel as bad as possible and witness the effect it won't have. I'm still here, having fun, hanging back with a smooth beverage.

---

Havoc gives us some food for thought:

Feminism doesn't get to distance itself from the harassment perpetrated in its name and as a result of its actions, because it can't. Going "yeah but we don't like it" doesn't matter when a part of your movement explicitly engages in it. It does nothing. You can't expel those people because of how you're set up. And you're giving them a platform consistently, by promoting assholes, harassers and stalkers like Big Red and FEMEN. This is how your movement functions. You joined that movement. That is toxic as fuck. You, however, can distance yourself from this: by not being a part of Feminism!

Note how I don't think feminism is bad as a whole, even if some bad apples give it a bad name nowadays. Wish some people would be so kind.

I guess I'm very much anti-social justice though.

Your idea that gamergate is irredeemable also sorta goes against your whole 'improving communities by calling out those who do bad stuff' ideal.

 

[Sander]

The system was, duh, that's why it's slavery. Now explain to me again how the white race as a whole is hurt by the removal of slavery from the american south. Note: There was another america, that was anti-slavery, and also predominently white. Also: There lived white people outside of countries with instituted slavery. Just fyi.

Re-read what you're responding to, please.

Becuase gamergate, with it's e-mails, isn't trying to influence the coverage of said sites in any way but to make them less corrupt and biased.

Indeed. Sam Biddle saying something offensive about bullying is corruption. Gamasutra publishing a piece you don't like: corruption. Polygon addressing social justice in a review: corruption.

This framing is so ridiculous, I have no words.

Because I don't put feelz before reelz. I know.

Yes. I know you think it's all just words on the internet. I know you don't understand that emotional harm is actual harm. That words actually hurt people. That we have a ridiculous amount of psychological research supporting that. That you think people should just deal with harassment because it's a fact of life. That is what GamerGate stands for. And that's exactly why people like Jimmy Wales think GamerGate represents the worst of the internet. Because it does.

 

[Akratus]

Becuase gamergate, with it's e-mails, isn't trying to influence the coverage of said sites in any way but to make them less corrupt and biased.

Indeed. Sam Biddle saying something offensive about bullying is corruption. Gamasutra publishing a piece you don't like: corruption. Polygon addressing social justice in a review: corruption.

This framing is so ridiculous, I have no words.

What was that you once said about strawmen?

Because I don't put feelz before reelz. I know.

Yes. I know you think it's all just words on the internet. I know you don't understand that emotional harm is actual harm. That words actually hurt people. That we have a ridiculous amount of psychological research supporting that. That you think people should just deal with harassment because it's a fact of life. That is what GamerGate stands for. And that's exactly why people like Jimmy Wales think GamerGate represents the worst of the internet. Because it does.

That you think people should just deal with harassment because it's a fact of life.

You think people should actively choose not to deal with bad things happening to them?

Reasonable people usually take action when things don't go their way.

 

[Sander]

Fun fact: feminism has many, many different, explicitly differentiated forms specifically because people within feminism disagree with each other and with the actions of others. "I don't want to be associated with those people" leads to people starting splinter groups. That's how normal movements handle these kinds of things. So, nope, you fail again.

You think people should actively choose not to deal with bad things happening to them?

I think we should strive to improve the internet and society to a point where they don't have to alter their behavior because horrible people are bothering them. I think we should not be going "well that's just the way it is", throw our hands up and then rationalize, defend and minimize the horrible things happening to people, like you've been doing. Because that is harmful behavior.

 

[BigBoss]

The Civil War and the Confederacy were both about slavery. Explicitly. That's what every single declaration of secession or equivalent document talked about. The South walked away from the Union because they wanted to preserve slavery. Not because of states' rights -- they had no problem with federal power as long as it supported slavery. But because they believed that establishing a society based on the inferiority of the black race was what they had to do. Because they believed, correctly, that their entire economic structure was built on slavery and would be severely harmed without it -- or at least, the white people in the South would be harmed without it.

Incidentally, this is a clear and obvious consensus among academic historians. It's not remotely controversial. And yet, I know that many high schools (especially in the South) teach, effectively, bullshit history about states' rights. Nope. No state seceded because of federal overreach. You will not find any reference to states' rights in declarations of secession that are not in the context of slavery. It is genuinely that simple.

I'm not saying change is impossible. I'm saying change in the unwashed mashes of the internet is impossible. It's always gotta be absolute with you?

It doesn't have to be absolute, Akratus. But here's the thing: people are trying to limit the damage the "unwashed mashes" of the internet are doing through a variety of means. You, on the other hand, have consistently aligned yourself with them. As has GamerGate. And that is harmful.

Also just to add, you didn't say that at all. You said that, and I quote, "social justice has never stopped anyone from being a dick on the internet". It has, though. It's helped limit platforms for assholes, it's helped sharpen terms of service, it's helped raise awareness both on and off the internet which has led to increased legal means to stop harassment. As I noted above.

But you have to admit, you're on the far left side of things. You are advocating strict moral code. I am advocating the free spirit of man, ugly-side and all, as far as speech goes. You can't deny, that's the truth of this.

Far left and conservative liberal are two completely different things. And yes, I am advocating that people should not behave like assholes. I would not call that a "strict moral code" -- people can do whatever the hell they want, as long as they're not harming others. But mental harm is as real as physical harm, and harassment is no less harmful because it happens on the internet.

Incidentally, you have not been consistently in favor of free speech at all. You've advocated using advertisers to pressure publishers to not publish speech you disagree with.

You're talking about the confederate government's given reason. I'm talking about public support of the government. For example take a look at Robert E. Lee. He saw that a man's patriotic duty was to his state, not to the federal (or even confederate) government. He was a southerner of high position who opposed slavery, but still fought for the confederacy. Also I wasn't raised in the South/Southeast (New Mexico is not counted as a "Southern" nation, but rather as a state in the South west (four corner states, Nevada, Southern California). The culture of the south west is very different from that of the South/Southeast). My English teacher of the eight grade was Mexican-American, and we were still taught that southerners fought the civil war over the belief in state's rights. It's why the confederate government got the support they did from the populace. No one is doubting why the governments of the states defected. But the reason the men of the south fought in the war was of different status. The entire army wasn't made up of racist hillbillies. And this is coming from someone who dislikes hillbillies.

 

[Akratus]

Fun fact: feminism has many, many different, explicitly differentiated forms specifically because people within feminism disagree with each other and with the actions of others. "I don't want to be associated with those people" leads to people starting splinter groups. That's how normal movements handle these kinds of things. So, nope, you fail again.

You also just described gamergate.

You think people should actively choose not to deal with bad things happening to them?

I think we should strive to improve the internet and society to a point where they don't have to alter their behavior because horrible people are bothering them. I think we should not be going "well that's just the way it is", throw our hands up and then rationalize, defend and minimize the horrible things happening to people, like you've been doing. Because that is harmful behavior.

I'm not saying one shouldn't do anything. I'm saying that when it comes to places where comments are open to any internet user, you can't change the way people think.

 

[TorontoReign]

I am offended by all this talk of hillbillies.

 

[BigBoss]

You think people should actively choose not to deal with bad things happening to them?

I think we should strive to improve the internet and society to a point where they don't have to alter their behavior because horrible people are bothering them. I think we should not be going "well that's just the way it is", throw our hands up and then rationalize, defend and minimize the horrible things happening to people, like you've been doing. Because that is harmful behavior.

I'm not saying one shouldn't do anything. I'm saying that when it comes to places where comments are open to any internet user, you can't change the way people think.

THANK YOU. That's what I tried to tell Crni and he started on this "no one is talking about changing thoughts" crap.

I am offended by all this talk of hillbillies.

Chicken Huntin'.

 

[Sander]

You're talking about the confederate government's given reason. I'm talking about public support of the government. For example take a look at Robert E. Lee. He saw that a man's patriotic duty was to his state, not to the federal (or even confederate) government. He was a southerner of high position who opposed slavery, but still fought for the confederacy.

Lee's position is significantly more complicated than that. Lee was someone who may have had some personal misgivings about slavery (though, y'know, that's far from certain), but he made no effort to oppose or abolish it, and in fact supported its continuation at every step. He owned slaves, recaptured those slaves of his that ran away, and the only slaves he freed he did so because the will that gave him those slaves also obligated him to free those slaves within five years -- and he freed them at the latest possible moment. He not only fought in a war that was explicitly and realistically about defending slavery, but he did so in a leading role. He gave up his post on the side that at least nominally opposed the expansion of slavery to do it. He opposed giving black people the vote after the war. The man's actions speak to his support of slavery.

The one reason people have to believe that Lee was opposed to slavery is a letter from 1856, in which he said that "slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil", but he noted just two sentences later that "the painful discipline [black people] are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

In other words, he thought it was not up to man to end slavery. He thought it was necessary: willed by God and Providence. This was a very common belief at the time, and an oft-cited reason to oppose abolition. Slavery would end naturally when it had to, they believed, and thus any attempts to legislate it out of existence were nonsense and should be opposed as going against God's will.

Like most of the Lost Cause mythology told primarily (but not exclusively, as I noted and you affirm) in the Southern United States, this is a myth meant to make people feel better about their environment, to not have them confront that the country they love and live in was built on slavery. As a myth, it's comforting and oft-repeated. But it's a myth nonetheless.

Also I wasn't raised in the South/Southeast (New Mexico is not counted as a "Southern" nation, but rather as a state in the South west (four corner states, Nevada, Southern California). The culture of the south west is very different from that of the South/Southeast). My English teacher of the eight grade was Mexican-American, and we were still taught that southerners fought the civil war over the belief in state's rights. It's why the confederate government got the support they did from the populace. No one is doubting why the governments of the states defected. But the reason the men of the south fought in the war was of different status. The entire army wasn't made up of racist hillbillies. And this is coming from someone who dislikes hillbillies.

Not the entire army, no. Most of the army was probably racist, though. As was most of the north, because most white people at the time were racist. The point isn't to morally condemn individual Southerners or anyone else for what they did -- they all had many cultural, social and economic reasons to support slavery. This does not make them horrible people, just people of their time and circumstances. The point is to be historically accurate. And it is a fiction to suggest that most people who supported the Confederacy did so because of something other than slavery. If you look at primary sources from the time, everything -- everything! -- speaks of slavery. People knew the war was about slavery when it was happening. They knew in the lead-up to the war. They knew after the war. This was the primary conflict that drove US politics for decades. This was it: there was nothing else.

You also just described gamergate.

Nope. Because GamerGate doesn't splinter. It doesn't split. It doesn't organize. Feminism does and has, frequently. It has tons of organizations and institutions, which enforce their regulations and ostracize those that display behavior they find abhorrent. It has a slew of separate movements that divorce themselves from those they don't like. But while GamerGate has multiple outlets, it never divorces itself from anyone. It doesn't have any organization, and it can't enforce anything. Again: fundamentally different.

I'm not saying one shouldn't do anything. I'm saying that when it comes to places where comments are open to any internet user, you can't change the way people think.

Aside from the fact that you have repeatedly defended harassment just over your last few posts, "that's just the way it is" is a bunch of horseshit. There's no reason why Twitter and Facebook need to be open to harassment. There's no reason why we can't treat internet harassment the way we do stalking: as illegal, something to be stopped. You have so absorbed the status quo that you can't even think that things could possibly change, even though the internet is new and we have plenty of untapped tools left to curb this behavior.

Most powerfully, consistently speaking up against harassment and ostracizing those who do it creates social pressure to conform, which is actually very, very good at changing the way people think. But instead you'll just defend it and join movements that harass. Again: you joined a toxic movement. You are defending behavior that actively harms people. You are contributing to problems.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The system was, duh, that's why it's slavery. Now explain to me again how the white race as a whole is hurt by the removal of slavery from the american south. Note: There was another america, that was anti-slavery, and also predominently white. Also: There lived white people outside of countries with instituted slavery. Just fyi.

Without getting too much into your and Sanders typical bickering.

But historically speaking only a relatively small part of the US population, regardless if South or North have been actually anti-slavery, the abolitionism movement was never the dominant factor. The idea to end slavery in all of the United States actually, was not the primary target behind the war when it started.

The war between the South and North was if anything a war between two cultures and two opposing economies, where the North was very much about its growing industry and protecting it with their tariffs where the South was based largely on agriculture, mainly cotton for the British market, the south actually was culturally relatively close to the British, or at least what they thought to be British.

Slavery was a part of that culture, but when you compare the North and the South with their different ideas than you realize relatively quickly how the question about slavery was just on the surface, the real conflict was much deeper rooted. The very conception of what a typical Southerner or Yankee was. It was just a matter of time when those two economies would clash together.

Slavery played in some parts a very big role, but I have no doubts if the North had the chance to win the war early by keeping slavery, if only for the south, they probably would have chosen this way, in fact there are comments about this by Abe himself.

There was not so much a pure hate in the US society regarding the black population though, but more the general idea that the black man was simply inferior to the white man. And this concept was very dominant in the North just as in the South. Very few had really the intention to fight against the South to free the slaves. Definitely not most of the soldiers.

I think it is wrong to see the Civil War about slavery. Slavery became a nice chariot at some point. But the background was more the conflict between the cultures, and their different economies.

 

[Sander]

The North's goal was not to end slavery: it was to preserve the union of the United States of America. But the war was still about slavery. The South seceded to preserve slavery, because they saw federal politics as moving slowly but surely toward the abolition of slavery. Because they did not think they could survive without expanding slavery into more states, without having more Northern enforcement of the capture of fugitive slaves. Because they felt they needed more help to stop people like John Brown and Harriet Tubman. Because they wanted to construct a society based on slavery as a foundational principle -- really, there are a ton of sources that talk about that.

It was not about different cultures. It was not about industry vs agriculture. Those were differences between North and South, but you're overstating them. And they were not the reason a war erupted. A war erupted over slavery. It really, really is that simple.

The tariffs stuff is pure fiction, by the way, promulgated by the same Lost Cause revisionism I talked about earlier. Stop getting your history from wherever the hell you're getting it from, and start looking at actual academic work. You're genuinely spouting nonsense.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It was not about different cultures. It was not about industry vs agriculture. Those were differences between North and South, but you're overstating them. And they were not the reason a war erupted. A war erupted over slavery. It really, really is that simple.

Look, befor we start again a silly "no you are wrong - no YOU are wrong!" quote battle, let's just agree that it had many reasons. How important each reason was? Depends on which interpretation you believe in and which source materials you see as more important, I have no doubt that slaverly was a big thing, for both sides but we are looking here at a conflict that grew over no clue how many decades into a war. Anyway, the incredible amount of historians with different ideas and in disagreement about certain historical events and their conclussion speaks vollume. There is a lot of academic work out there with different opinions and views on that matter, that is simply history. And while I don't claim to be an expert, or hell, maybe I mixed things up? I will not come up and say that what you learn/know is simply nonsense because I believe in something different. I see this part as more imortant you see that part as more important as far as the historical context goes. So be it. Because honestly, I am getting slowly tired of always ending up in those lengthy discussions with you.

 

[Sander]

Crni, the stuff you're talking about is scholarship that is half a century old and older still -- primarily based on Charles Beard's work in the 1920s. There is no real academic disagreement over the Civil War among modern, academic historians. There really, genuinely isn't. I can't stress this enough, because you want to talk about interpretation and beliefs: that is not a realistic portrayal of the academic views of the Civil War. It just isn't. This is why Wikipedia, while paying some lip service to more complexity, continues to constantly go back to slavery in explaining the causes of the Civil War. To quote this The Atlantic article from last year:

"The last century's revisionists thought the war was avoidable because they didn't regard slavery as a defining issue or evil. Almost no one suggests that today. The evidence is overwhelming that slavery was the "cornerstone" of the Southern cause, as the Confederacy's vice-president stated, and the source of almost every aspect of sectional division."

This is not about believing one version, nor is it about interpretation. It's not a question of reasonable, multi-faceted debate. This question was settled decades ago among scholars of the Civil War. None of the academic debate on the civil war revolves around the causes of the South's secession. None of it. Your interpretation has, genuinely, been completely discredited. The suggestion that "there is a lot of academic work out there with different opinions and views on that matter" is utter nonsense. There is not. You will not find any published, peer-reviewed scholarly articles from the past two decades (possibly even the past three decades) suggesting that slavery was not the root cause of the Confederacy.


That is not to say that the North's primary objective was to end slavery. It was not: the North wanted to preserve the Union for a variety of reasons (mainly economic) and was not initially particularly interested in ending slavery. But slavery was why the South seceded. The Confederacy fought a war to preserve the institution of slavery.

The discussions and interpretations you think exist, do not exist among academic historians. Not at all. They exist in popular history, they exist in the public's mind, they exist in politics and elsewhere. But to actual historians, this is a fairly ridiculous debate. The wealth of research and material we have is incredibly vast, and all of it points in one, singular direction: it was about slavery.

 

[TorontoReign]

This thread should be called "Sander talks down to people for 40 pages."

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Hey guys whats.....


Fuck you all.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Crni, the stuff you're talking about is scholarship that is half a century old and older still -- primarily based on Charles Beard's work in the 1920s. There is no real academic disagreement over the Civil War among modern, academic historians.

So? For the longest time historians quoted roman sources when it came to ancient civilisations like the gauls, untill someone got the idea that the romans might not be always the best source. And I know of several situations where they revised/disputed historical events in WW2.

History isn't math. Or Physics. Where you come up with laws that count for eternity. I am not an academic, but you can't tell me with a straight face that there is never ever "academic disagreement". That it never happens that two historians have two different opinions about the same source.

Look. Do you get a boner every time you lecture people? I am not trying to convince you from your opinion. I just see the importance of slavery in the Civil war in a different light then you. With all respect to your academic knowledge. Granted, and you probably know more about all the details than I do. But for some reason you kind of sound a lot like some of my teachers in school. As some of them had to be right about everything as well and loved the sound of their own voice.

 

[Akratus]

You also just described gamergate.

Nope. Because GamerGate doesn't splinter. It doesn't split. It doesn't organize. Feminism does and has, frequently. It has tons of organizations and institutions, which enforce their regulations and ostracize those that display behavior they find abhorrent. It has a slew of separate movements that divorce themselves from those they don't like. But while GamerGate has multiple outlets, it never divorces itself from anyone. It doesn't have any organization, and it can't enforce anything. Again: fundamentally different.

See, Sander, making authroitative, definitive statements like you love doing every post, hell every sentence, is ok as long as it's factual. Kind of doesn't work when you show you don't know anything about what you're saying.

 

[BigBoss]

Yeah I'm pretty sure GamerGate does have splinter factions. Like #notyourshield, for example.

 

[Tagaziel]

See, Sander, making authroitative, definitive statements like you love doing every post, hell every sentence, is ok as long as it's factual. Kind of doesn't work when you show you don't know anything about what you're saying.

I'll give Sander that he doesn't know much about doxxing, making death threats to people he disagrees with, stalking, promoting corruption in journalism by affecting the money flow to a web site depending on how much it disagrees with you, or claiming that a war about the preservation of slavery wasn't about the preservation of slavery, but states' rights. The problem is that the GaGa you write about doesn't exist. It never did. It's a toxic blob designed to perpetuate harassment, for no positive net gain.

That's why the comparison to the Confederate States (ignoring the difference of scale) is so apt. The noise, whitewashing, and propaganda perpetrated by the GaGa movement is virtually identical to the methods of Southern Cause revisionists: Blab, bullshit, bitch to obscure the real underlying cause of the movement. Slavery become states rights, harassment and misogyny become "ethics in journalism" (lol), all to draw in poor, gullible fools who will become zealous advocates of the smokescreen.

By the way, that GamerGhazi thread went into a fun direction. I particularly like this comment:

I've already said before that harassment is not okay.

SO THERE OKAY
ALL HARASSMENT IS OVER
I HAVE SPOKEN

So? For the longest time historians quoted roman sources when it came to ancient civilisations like the gauls, untill someone got the idea that the romans might not be always the best source. And I know of several situations where they revised/disputed historical events in WW2.

History isn't math. Or Physics. Where you come up with laws that count for eternity. I am not an academic, but you can't tell me with a straight face that there is never ever "academic disagreement". That it never happens that two historians have two different opinions about the same source.

But the problem here is that you are wrong. The American Civil War is not an ancient war, it's a conflict that's barely 150 years old. It's one of the first wars on an industrial scale, documented in extreme detail (for the time), with a plethora of primary and secondary sources available. You can read many of them online and they're damning:

South Carolina was the first state to secede and has explicitly stated that the reason for it was the federal government's interference with the institution of slavery. Nothing else! The same is true for Georgia. Texas. Mississipi. That's just a cursory search of source documents for the immediate causes of the secession and the resultant civil war. In fact, Mississippi was blatant what caused them to try and destroy the Union:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Slavery was the crucial difference between the North and the South. Yes, its abolition would ripple throughout the Southern states, but that's due to the fact how central it was to their economy and society. You can't claim that the South waged war on the North because of economy and culture, without addressing the core of the matter: That their economy and culture were different because they were built on slavery.

Look. Do you get a boner every time you lecture people? I am not trying to convince you from your opinion. I just see the importance of slavery in the Civil war in a different light then you. With all respect to your academic knowledge. Granted, and you probably know more about all the details than I do. But for some reason you kind of sound a lot like some of my teachers in school. As some of them had to be right about everything as well and loved the sound of their own voice.

Crni, Sander (and possibly I) may sound like teachers, because you are factually wrong. I don't think you are sympathetic to slavery or systemic racism, but when you claim that the ACW was based on something else than defense of slavery by the South, a claim that's fundamentally wrong, you are going to get corrected.