Another terrible race motivated attack.

[Montmorency]

I'm not going to see St George's Cross as a racist symbol because a couple of EDL assholes used it.

But it could become one, you see? Are you one of those people who says that no one should have a problem with openly-displayed swastikas because it 'meant something else' in Asia? The fact is that the swastika has become strongly associated with the Nazi regime and its values, just as the cross became a symbol of Christianity, and so on with every geometrical or pictorial symbol ever used by humans. This is quite literally how symbols work.

Why should the south pay such heed to the KKK's usage?

Well, that's exactly what they did, according to Ironside's source...Now, you could claim that the symbol was re-oriented toward some different evaluation or connotation, but this is largely untrue or irrelevant, because where it is not directly linked to white supremacy it is directly linked to an identity predicated upon opposition to the Union and to the federal government, which even in itself should be quite an issue.

What flag the capitol flies is irrelevant.

Er, no, it's extremely relevant, and if you're some kind of super-libertarian devolutionist type like ICSD then it's exactly what you want to see. On the other hand, for unionists it's quite repugnant.

You really think most southerners are using the flag with the KKK in mind?

What they "have in mind" isn't even ultimately the point. The point isn't even that its usage contributes to a culture of Southern exceptionalism that can easily recreate or reinforce perceptions of the Otherness of non-Southerners and non-whites in general.

The flag is really small-fry. However, as part of a larger program of social reconstruction, it obviously has to be re-evaluated (i.e. devalued) by Southerners, even leaving aside the goal of reducing racial animosity. What it represents to those who flaunt it is automatically problematic without even bringing racial history into it.

[Gilrandir]

Are you one of those people who says that no one should have a problem with openly-displayed swastikas because it 'meant something else' in Asia? The fact is that the swastika has become strongly associated with the Nazi regime and its values, just as the cross became a symbol of Christianity, and so on with every geometrical or pictorial symbol ever used by humans.

During WWII the collaborative Russian liberation army used tricolor and St. Andrew's flags which are now adopted as the National flag of Russia and Russian Navy respectively.

Does it mean that modern Russia glorifies nazi collaborators?

[Greyblades]

But it could become one, you see? Are you one of those people who says that no one should have a problem with openly-displayed swastikas because it 'meant something else' in Asia? The fact is that the swastika has become strongly associated with the Nazi regime and its values, just as the cross became a symbol of Christianity, and so on with every geometrical or pictorial symbol ever used by humans. This is quite literally how symbols work.

I am one of those people who say that asians shouldnt have to change thier symbols just because someone warped the swastika's meaning in the eyes of the public. Same with the Rebel standard, to quote office space "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."

Well, that's exactly what they did, according to Ironside's source...Now, you could claim that the symbol was re-oriented toward some different evaluation or connotation, but this is largely untrue or irrelevant, because where it is not directly linked to white supremacy it is directly linked to an identity predicated upon opposition to the Union and to the federal government, which even in itself should be quite an issue.

BBC's magazine is such a great source and speaks for everyone, just ask the "canada's ugly secret" thread.

I find most interpritation and connotation claims to be worthless in general; mixes of confirmation bias and agenda pushing. What matters is the intent of the ones flying that flag. That intent will be different between every flag waver and I doubt anyone here can be trusted to identify any universally applicable intent without lying or toeing a party line.

Er, no, it's extremely relevant, and if you're some kind of super-libertarian devolutionist type like ICSD then it's exactly what you want to see. On the other hand, for unionists it's quite repugnant.

It is irrelevant to this argument because if the united states capitol takes down a flag they put up it isnt imposing thier will on anyone but themselves. The issue I have is ACIN's desire to impose that will on the entirety of the the south, specifically to make them comply with his political views. If nothing else but because none of his proposed edicts will have his stated effect.

[Montmorency]

I am one of those people who say that asians shouldnt have to change thier symbols just because someone warped the swastika's meaning in the eyes of the public. Same with the Rebel standard, to quote office space "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."

Again, no - terrible analogy. It should be obvious that modern Southerners are more continuous with 19th century Southerns than Nazis are with centuried Asian symbols. A far better analogy would be that we in the West frown upon people marching around with a red armband with swastika, and would frown upon it a hell of a lot more if those people claimed that this sort of symbolism was part of their cultural identity, but no it doesn't have anything to do with Nazi ideology why are we goose-stepping no reason just exercising...

BBC's magazine is such a great source and speaks for everyone, just ask the "canada's ugly secret" thread.

says Bill Ferris, founding director of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture at the University of Mississippi

You're really reaching here, aren't you?

It is irrelevant to this argument because if the united states capitol takes down a flag they put up it isnt imposing thier will on anyone but themselves.

Congratulations, you are now even more libertarian than ICSD. So why were you critical of the Scottish independence movement again?

The issue I have is ACIN's desire to impose that will on the entirety of the the south, specifically to make them comply with his political views.

Right now, any government building in the United States that flies a Confederate flag is giving an official endorsement of a separatist regime and separatist ideology more generally. That this would trouble anti-secessionists (who are also a majority in the South anyway, by the by) should neither surprise you nor invite your indignation.

Also, repugnant? It's just a flag, coloured cloth, the north's interpritation of it's meaning may be repugnant (to them) but frankly I find most outside interpritations in general to be worthless; mixes of confirmation bias and agenda pushing. What matters is the intent of the ones flying that flag and I doubt anyone here can be trusted to tell us without toeing a party line.

What? Completely-backwards paragraph. The North and the South share an interpretation, it's just that many in the South value it positively while elsewhere it is usually valued negatively.

[Greyblades]

Again, no - terrible analogy. It should be obvious that modern Southerners are more continuous with 19th century Southerns than Nazis are with centuried Asian symbols. A far better analogy would be that we in the West frown upon people marching around with a red armband with swastika, and would frown upon it a hell of a lot more if those people claimed that this sort of symbolism was part of their cultural identity, but no it doesn't have anything to do with Nazi ideology why are we goose-stepping no reason just exercising...

Except for alot of them it is part of thier cultural identity, Thier ancestors marched under it, it's been included in ther history books since the war ended and it's been used in reenactments without shame since 1913.

You're really reaching here, aren't you?

No I'm dismissing with a pithy comment, I couldnt care less about this man's opinion of what meaing the denizens of the south takes from the flag, especially when his comment is proceeded by:

He likens it to the swastika but others see it very differently. Indeed, the flag has been compared to a Rorschach blot because it means several things at all at once, depending on who is looking at it.

"All symbols are liable to multiple interpretations but this is unique in its power and ability to inflame passions on all sides, and the volume of interpretations and preconceptions about it make it unique in American history," says John Coski, author of The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem. He has even seen it displayed in Europe, where it has become shorthand for "rebel".

It means different things to different people, the article showed that at least there were differences between these two men.

Congratulations, you are now even more libertarian than ICSD. So why were you critical of the Scottish independence movement again?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Right now, any government building in the United States that flies a Confederate flag is giving an official endorsement of a separatist regime and separatist ideology more generally. That this would trouble anti-secessionists (who are also a majority in the South anyway, by the by) should neither surprise you nor invite your indignation.

Never said it surprised me and the invitation was putting it on a public forum.

I stand by my statment that ACIN's an idiot if he thinks outright cultural suppression will in any way make things better, and he's a worse idiot if he thinks it is even warranted.

Call me when they stop paying taxes and start shooting feds.

What? Completely-backwards paragraph. The North and the South share an interpretation, it's just that many in the South value it positively while elsewhere it is usually valued negatively.

...How can they have the same interpritation if they differ in interpriting it's value?

Read strikes post again, the north and south dont share an interpritation on why teh war started let alone the meaning behind the war's flags.

[PanzerJaeger]

I certainly don’t support the killer’s disgusting act, but I do understand it. The statistics shown in the infographic posted earlier in this thread are collected and published by our own government, and yet they never seem to make it into the ever present national discussion on race. In a rational, logic-based society, police would be encouraged to use data and statistics to target those groups most prone to criminal activity. In America, that’s called police brutality. In a rational, logic-based society, policing strategies based on such statistics that have proven successful would be standardized and duplicated throughout the country. In America, politicians are dismantling them. In a rational, logic-based society, it would be assumed that a group disproportionately prone to criminal activity would also be disproportionately represented in the prison system. In America, that’s institutional racism. In a rational, logic-based society the existence of a group that consists of 13% of the population yet commits 52% of the nation’s homicides would result in more policing of said group. In America, the problem of ‘over policing’ of the black community is common knowledge. In a rational, logic-based society, the fact that whites are 25 times more likely to be victims of black violence than the reverse, yielding 300,000+ victims annually, would result in significant public outcry. And yet in America, the #blacklivesmatter movement has swept the nation. It’s like we live in some Orwellian nightmare where everyone is aware of the reality surrounding them but no one is willing to acknowledge it for fear of reprisal from the thought police.

Having lived in a black majority city that was built by whites and once prospered under their leadership, I can understand the frustration and hopelessness of standing by while once proud institutions crumble, a once strong economy falters, and once beautiful and safe neighborhoods transform into drug and crime infested hellholes, without being able to utter a word because racism. The attack is a tragedy. However, it is just a symptom of the distorted way in which Americans have been conditioned to think about race.

[Montmorency]

Ignoring even the fact that the infographic is quite simply false and a gross example of statistical malpractice, you speak of logic and reason, yet I see you are careful to tiptoe around both the etiology of the problem and the indications for treating it.

Go back to SBPDL, please.

[Beskar]

That was the biggest load of hogwash I have seen in a long time and writing "rational logical-based society" four times doesn't make what you said either rational nor logical-based, considering the lack of awareness for basic socio economic factors are being thrown out the window.

Considering crime-rate is higher for people in poor situations, and that 'black' people are disportionately poorer than 'white' people, a rational logic-based society would be aware of this, and act in the interest of reducing crime by improving living standards and giving opportunity to those who need it most. As such, people who use logic and think rationally would come to the conclusion that scapegoating over race is silly and pro-actively encouraging segregation and victimising of a populace based on amount of melanin in their skin cells would not decrease crime-rate but by inverse, increase it, exasperating the issue, leading to a stronger self-fulfilling cycle.

A rational logic-based society would actually conclude "treat others how you would like to be treated yourself" and actually start to promote a society based on these tenets, and improve the situation for everyone. As such, a rational and logical-based society wouldn't victimise people into a detrimental underclass, unless they are actually some kind of sadist and enjoy the thought of being trampled over by society, which in their case, they should volunteer to be in that position without putting others in it.

[PanzerJaeger]

You're proving my point. You've been conditioned to think of any and all racial disparities as purely a function of socioeconomic condition without bothering to apply, pardon my repetition, a rational, logic-based approach to verifying your assumption. While controlling for socioeconomic factors can bring other ethnic groups to parity with whites, statistical analysis simply does not prove that out for blacks. I'm sorry.

Go back to SBPDL, please.

Such intellectual insularity and close-mindedness towards other points of view isn't healthy, and is actually the same kind thinking that caused this tragedy.

[Ironside]

In America, that’s called police brutality. In a rational, logic-based society, policing strategies based on such statistics that have proven successful would be standardized and duplicated throughout the country. In America, politicians are dismantling them. In a rational, logic-based society, it would be assumed that a group disproportionately prone to criminal activity would also be disproportionately represented in the prison system. In America, that’s institutional racism. In a rational, logic-based society the existence of a group that consists of 13% of the population yet commits 52% of the nation’s homicides would result in more policing of said group. In America, the problem of ‘over policing’ of the black community is common knowledge.

Do you trust the police?

Would you trust a police using you as a piggy bank by giving you random fines?
Would you trust a police that randomly arrest you to fill a quota?
Would you trust a police were an arrest commonly ends up with a hospital visit or even death?
Would you trust a police who arrest you on bogus charges and then later admits to lying in civil court and ends up with no consequences at all?
Would you trust a police that made SWATing an actual thing in internet harassment?
Would you trust a justice system that keeps you imprisoned for years without conviction on a crime that amounts to shoplifting?
Would you trust a justice system where you get out quicker by confessing and sitting off the time than await the case to even come to trial?


A rational, logic-based society knows that people trusting to police makes wonders for reducing the crime ratio and generally improve the situation in the area. There's strategies that does just that, which includes a heavy police presence in the area, but since the police is friendly, the population now trust the police.

Most of the US police does not employ these methods, as they're expensive in manpower. And doesn't involve idea's such a black youths are thugs that deserves what are coming for them, when they are shot to death.

In a rational, logic-based society, the fact that whites are 25 times more likely to be victims of black violence than the reverse, yielding 300,000+ victims annually, would result in significant public outcry. And yet in America, the #blacklivesmatter movement has swept the nation. It’s like we live in some Orwellian nightmare where everyone is aware of the reality surrounding them but no one is willing to acknowledge it for fear of reprisal from the thought police.

A rational logic-based society calls that utter stupidity.

Hi, I'm from 20% minority Blue and have a rage issue. If I attack a random guy on the street, I'll attack the 80% majority Green 80 times out of 100.
Hi, I'm from 80% majority Green and have a rage issue. If I attack a random guy on the street, I'll attack the 20% minority Green 20 times out of 100.

Blue does 20 random assults a year. 16 will hit Green, 4 Blue.
Green does 80 random assults a year. 64 will hit Green, 16 Blue. So with the same crime ratio, Blue vs Green is the same number as Green vs Blue, despite Blue being a minority. This will always happen, no matter the size of the minority.
Now, because Blue are a minority, we have to multiply that 16 with 4 to get the "true number". Suddenly Blue commits 4x times as many Blue vs Green compared to Green vs Blue, due to a statistical lie.

In the case of blacks, they do have more assults in general so their number will be higher. For the murder ratio, you have the total number making it possible to see if there's any targeting effects or a side effect of a higher base number. The targeting effect is negative (as in black vs white murders are rarer than random) in that case.

My flaw from yesterday was mentally running with 100 assults for both groups and missing that is defaults to a higher baseline for the minority.

[naut]

The attack is a tragedy. However, it is just a symptom of the distorted way in which Americans have been conditioned to think about race.

I have no words. And neither it seems, do you.

[Papewaio]

FYI the Nazi Swatizka looks as much like the Buddhist one as a cross (t) looks like an x

As for the confederate flag. Apart from reenactment and dramas I would have put its usage in the same category or worse than burning the flag of the USA. The confederates lost in rebellion to the USA. So showing any official allegiance to it should be treated like showing allegiance to an enemy of the state like Al Qaeda.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But it could become one, you see? Are you one of those people who says that no one should have a problem with openly-displayed swastikas because it 'meant something else' in Asia? The fact is that the swastika has become strongly associated with the Nazi regime and its values, just as the cross became a symbol of Christianity, and so on with every geometrical or pictorial symbol ever used by humans. This is quite literally how symbols work.

There's nothing wrong with Swastikas, and they're everywhere in Europe, on Greek temples, in Churches, on a mass of public buildings from the late 18th Century up to the 1930's.

The question of St. George's Cross is a pregnant one because during the 1990's it was seen as a somewhat crass and possibly racist, or isolationist, symbol. In the last 15 years there has been a reaction against that and the Cross is now regularly displayed on houses, Pubs, Town Halls etc.

The Nazi Swastika is only seen as a Nazi symbol because everyone else stopped using it at the outset of WWII to avoid confusion, hence its removal from the US 45th Infantry Division.

Personally, I think we should put Swastikas on everything, and we should especially encourage the JEwish Community to integrate the design into the floors etc of Synagogues - it historically appears in some texts and art associated with Judaism.

If we did that it would cease to be an effective Neo-Nazi standard.

Moving on...

You are advocating the destruction of Southern Culture, symbolism, traditions... etc. because of a perceived ingrained racism. Such a destruction would necessarily have to be complete, it would require a program similar to the residential schools one discussed in our other thread. It would not just be a question of flags, but of social conventions, cultural institutions, traditions, history and even dialect.

It would be necessary to utterly suppress both white and black culture in the region for a couple of centuries to final wipe it out, if you are saying that Southern culture is inherently racist.

Such projects have been tried with varying levels of success in the Old World, English suppression of Welsh, Cornish, Irish and Scots; French suppression of the Bretons and Occitans; Spanish suppression of Basques and Catalans; Swedish suppression of the Sami.

In Spain and the UK this resulted in multiple flare-ups of rebellion and more recently terrorism, in France it has been more successful (I recall something about Brenus being Occitan but looking down upon them) but still causes tension, the Sami are not a particularly happy people these days but I know less about that to be fair.

DeNazification worked because it only had to scrape off a Nazi veneer which had persisted for around a decade and a half, even then if didn't excise Germany of its sense of superiority or its natural prejudices, it just redirected them - both reappeared with the Eurozone crisis. No, what DeNazification did was make everyone ashamed of what they and/or their parents had done. The strategy was effective in neutering the movement but it wasn't really healthy for Germany and they're only no getting over it.

So, Nazi's were around for at most two decades and the shock delivered to expunge them has taken 70 years and counting to get over. The South has a history stretching back about four centuries, how long do you think it would take to wipe the culture clean and rebuild it?

[Husar]

So, Nazi's were around for at most two decades and the shock delivered to expunge them has taken 70 years and counting to get over. The South has a history stretching back about four centuries, how long do you think it would take to wipe the culture clean and rebuild it?

Around the same time because that is about the time it takes for the people who lived under the former wrong system to die out?

[Greyblades]

Only if you go the slash and burn, rip children from thier mothers breast method that takes you from the moral high ground and straight into the laurentian abyss.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Around the same time because that is about the time it takes for the people who lived under the former wrong system to die out?

If that were true we would have succeeded in wiping out the Welsh and the Cornish over a century ago.
The South is not a "system" it is a culture.

Compare to the Roman attempts to wipe out Christianity, or the multiple vigorous attempts to wipe out Judaism.

Nazism itself was a relatively short lived political ideaology, so it was relatively easy to wipe out, because you didn't have to attack Germany's underlying culture (which remains largely intact).

[Husar]

Only if you go the slash and burn, rip children from thier mothers breast method that takes you from the moral high ground and straight into the laurentian abyss.

If that were true we would have succeeded in wiping out the Welsh and the Cornish over a century ago.
The South is not a "system" it is a culture.

Compare to the Roman attempts to wipe out Christianity, or the multiple vigorous attempts to wipe out Judaism.

Nazism itself was a relatively short lived political ideaology, so it was relatively easy to wipe out, because you didn't have to attack Germany's underlying culture (which remains largely intact).

The Nazis also had children, the turning point was when the whole population was forced to admit the crimes they let happen in their country. Some were forced to walk through concentration camps and "clean them up", bury the dead etc. A similar method would have to be found for the south so that they realize how wrong their ideas are and begin to not teach their children the old and wrongful ways. Currently the federal government does not put enough effort into crushing the racist myths like the ones we have seen in this thread.
It's not about wiping it out, it's about making them face the problems with their culture so that they will want to change themselves. At the moment they perpetuate the myths about how great it is and noone really opposes or challenges them.

That you think about ripping children away from mothers is worrying though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Nazis also had children, the turning point was when the whole population was forced to admit the crimes they let happen in their country. Some were forced to walk through concentration camps and "clean them up", bury the dead etc. A similar method would have to be found for the south so that they realize how wrong their ideas are and begin to not teach their children the old and wrongful ways. Currently the federal government does not put enough effort into crushing the racist myths like the ones we have seen in this thread.
It's not about wiping it out, it's about making them face the problems with their culture so that they will want to change themselves. At the moment they perpetuate the myths about how great it is and noone really opposes or challenges them.

Except that, again, you're only talking about things a generation deep, and only a small proportion of Germans were actually involved in Nazisim directly, or actively supported Nazi genocides. There's ample evidence from the diaries of German soldiers that they were disgusted by the Nazis, but they were honourable to a fault and loyal to their country.

That's completely different to crushing hundreds of years of history - something the North actually tried with "Reconstruction". They flat out failed and Southern Stats had to be forced to integrate by Federal Law.

That you think about ripping children away from mothers is worrying though.

Don't make this about my character, this has nothing to do with what I believe, I'm telling you how it can be done - if you feel it's justified.

I know the history, I didn't make this up - it was a common practice in most the world until about 50 years ago, the aim being to create homogeneous nation-states out of disparate peoples. One of the best expressions of the phenomenon and its impact on children and their families was an Australian Film called "Rabbit Proof Fence", there was also a US film about the residential schools there, but I can't remember the name of it.

[Pannonian]

I know the history, I didn't make this up - it was a common practice in most the world until about 50 years ago, the aim being to create homogeneous nation-states out of disparate peoples. One of the best expressions of the phenomenon and its impact on children and their families was an Australian Film called "Rabbit Proof Fence", there was also a US film about the residential schools there, but I can't remember the name of it.

Or even cultural genocide in its purest form, as practised by Genghis Khan. Kill all males above a certain height (and thus age). Enroll all remaining males in a homogenised culture defined by you. Go and do stuff under the name of the new culture.

[Husar]

Except that, again, you're only talking about things a generation deep, and only a small proportion of Germans were actually involved in Nazisim directly, or actively supported Nazi genocides. There's ample evidence from the diaries of German soldiers that they were disgusted by the Nazis, but they were honourable to a fault and loyal to their country.

That's completely different to crushing hundreds of years of history - something the North actually tried with "Reconstruction". They flat out failed and Southern Stats had to be forced to integrate by Federal Law.

History is only in peoples' heads and we have far more modern ways to mess with them than the people in any of the previous attempts had at their disposal. At one point it may become possible to just overwite their memories with different ones.
Either way I was talking about a very big and proactive effort, not just dropping some leaflets.

Something like switch all the TV programs to federal propaganda and facts about how evil the south was half the day. Some may resist at first but once they are crushed the others will slowly start to change their beliefs. Korea was one country at some point and now the entire north is brainwashed to believe the Kims are angels and everybody else is an enemy. Don't pretend it is not possible.

You could start to strip them of benefits, make shops that you can only enter wearing a union flag etc.

Don't make this about my character, this has nothing to do with what I believe, I'm telling you how it can be done - if you feel it's justified.

You keep misreading me. I quoted both you and Greyblades and that part was especially aimed at Greyblades, indicated by the fact that I used the same words he did.

[Montmorency]

Personally, I think we should put Swastikas on everything, and we should especially encourage the JEwish Community to integrate the design into the floors etc of Synagogues - it historically appears in some texts and art associated with Judaism.

If we did that it would cease to be an effective Neo-Nazi standard.

Oh yeah, that's such a trivial undertaking right there, compared to taking fresh oaths of allegiance from one-time traitor-provinces.

You are advocating the destruction of Southern Culture, symbolism, traditions... etc.

Technically for all cultures everywhere.

because of a perceived ingrained racism.

No. Again, the radical reorganization of human civilization on the planet isn't pertinent to what we're trying to describe in the moment.

Anyone can display any flag they like - unless they happen to be public properties or institutions. That's really not a lot to ask, and anyone who protests that it is must essentially admit themselves willing to submit to the most radical devolution any organization might be willing to institute within any set of borders - because despite contemporary shenanigans and grumblings, there is no country in the world with a stronger central government than the United States. Nowhere in the world are local, regional, and national (i.e. federal) so tightly-enmeshed and interwoven as they are in the US - and don't even think to bring up some edge cases like mini-islands and city-states.

I am not joking when I say that the very concept of central authority is at stake here. The American executive must not waver.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh yeah, that's such a trivial undertaking right there, compared to taking fresh oaths of allegiance from one-time traitor-provinces.

My understanding is that, at the time, the Federal Government had no legal mechanism to prevent a state secededing.

Anyway, that was my personal opinion, but I understand why it's not likely to catch on. That doesn't change the fact that if Israel really wanted to stick it to the Nazi's they'd surround the Star of David with a Halo of Swastikas.

Technically for all cultures everywhere.

Except yours - your culture is like your accent, you think you're the baseline and everyone else is deviant.

It's your culture that makes you want to wipe out all cultures.

No. Again, the radical reorganization of human civilization on the planet isn't pertinent to what we're trying to describe in the moment.

Everybody who tried such a "radical reorganisation" is remembered a monster because everybody resisted and they had to kill thousands to cow the rest.

Anyone can display any flag they like - unless they happen to be public properties or institutions. That's really not a lot to ask, and anyone who protests that it is must essentially admit themselves willing to submit to the most radical devolution any organization might be willing to institute within any set of borders - because despite contemporary shenanigans and grumblings, there is no country in the world with a stronger central government than the United States. Nowhere in the world are local, regional, and national (i.e. federal) so tightly-enmeshed and interwoven as they are in the US - and don't even think to bring up some edge cases like mini-islands and city-states.

I am not joking when I say that the very concept of central authority is at stake here. The American executive must not waver.

Sorry, is the Executive currently doing something?

[Montmorency]

Except yours - your culture is like your accent, you think you're the baseline and everyone else is deviant.

It's your culture that makes you want to wipe out all cultures.

Playing fast and loose with terms like that only leads to trivial tautologies.

Everybody who tried such a "radical reorganisation" is remembered a monster because everybody resisted and they had to kill thousands to cow the rest.

Connected to the above, my position on the issue is simply that if the perpetuation of humanity for its own sake is the baseline objective, then absolute autocracy is the most effective long-run form of governance. Autocracy and social reorganization have been attempted before, but never absolutely and never on a global scale.

Sorry, is the Executive currently doing something?

Come again?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I love how removing symbols of oppression, renaming streets and removing racist police forces is akin to ripping babies from their mothers.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hope some people actually look at the policies of radical reconstruction during the 1860s and 1870s. It was because of these attempts at destroying southern culture that blacks achieved for the first time representation in office. Moderate Republicans at the time felt that simply encoding into law the rights of blacks would be enough to protect blacks once the South re-integrated into the Union. What became of that was Jim Crow and the perversion of the law through inaction by racist police and loopholes written into law by racist state governments. There are more than a few districts in the deep south who still have not elected a black representative since the 1880s, despite the demographics of the area.

You people have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the insidious nature of racism against blacks in the South and midwest.

[Greyblades]

I love how removing symbols of oppression, renaming streets and removing racist police forces is akin to ripping babies from their mothers.

...a way to misread my post. You wanna do it within your lifespan you gotta get nasty, taking their flags and place names will do nothing but poss people off.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Playing fast and loose with terms like that only leads to trivial tautologies.

Using more words doesn't seem to get through to you so I'm mostly just trying to discredit your ideas in view of everyone else.

It's important to oppose totalitarian ideas, in fact it is essential.

You are the product of a certain culture, something you will be largely unaware of unless you have studied it. Your particular reaction to your culture is to want to "destroy all culture" but that's not actually possible, and what you would merely be doing is forcibly homogenising all cultures so that they are indistinguishable.

Such has been tried before in the Old and New World and pretty much every attempt qualifies as state brutality.

Connected to the above, my position on the issue is simply that if the perpetuation of humanity for its own sake is the baseline objective, then absolute autocracy is the most effective long-run form of governance. Autocracy and social reorganization have been attempted before, but never absolutely and never on a global scale.

Absolute Autocracy is the best form of government when the Autocrat is enlightened, the worst when he is a Tyrant.

Compare Augustus and Caligula.

Come again?

What is the American Executive doing about racism in the US?

Anything?

at all?

[Husar]

Absolute Autocracy is the best form of government when the Autocrat is enlightened, the worst when he is a Tyrant.

Computers can be very enlightened.

[Papewaio]

Everybody who tried such a "radical reorganisation" is remembered a monster because everybody resisted and they had to kill thousands to cow the rest.

I think there are quite a few examples of reorganization that overall reduced friction within a nation. Look at the UK with both the Magna Carta and its derivatives, and the formation of the Church of England.

We remember the more violent changes that have occurred as that is often how we measure history. But there has been a lot of changes that have occurred over the last hundred years that haven't required killing off the old school followers.

In Australia we managed to include aboriginals as people in 1967 by referendum. We didn't then need to mass murder the opponents to the referendum to change things.

Most law is small layers of change and are often quite boring compared with the broad brush strokes of history.

For instance after seeing the impact of the American Civil War the Australian Consitution had it written in that secession is not an option to cut off any momentum. Note that Australia Federated in 1901 and inbetween the Civil War and that time we had a lot of Americans come in for the gold rush.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think there are quite a few examples of reorganization that overall reduced friction within a nation. Look at the UK with both the Magna Carta and its derivatives, and the formation of the Church of England.

Well, John signed Magna Carter at sword point and it and its "derivatives" continues to be an issue until Charles II took the throne in the Restoration after the brutal oppression of the Republic. As to the Church of England - many protestants and Catholics were burned at the stake during its birth and Catholicism continued to be officially suppressed until about a hundred and fifty years ago - so those were not "peaceful" changes.

We remember the more violent changes that have occurred as that is often how we measure history. But there has been a lot of changes that have occurred over the last hundred years that haven't required killing off the old school followers.

That's true, but only in the last hundred - really the last fifty - years.

In Australia we managed to include aboriginals as people in 1967 by referendum. We didn't then need to mass murder the opponents to the referendum to change things.

This is also true, but Aboriginals were never sub-human slaves and are still discriminated against today - a lot of them also still lead wretched lives having been forcibly removed from their hunting grounds onto reservations.