- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 1655 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
54 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 13294
>Look at Union propaganda from the time.
Union propaganda is irrelevant to the reasons confederate soldiers fought, by definition if a propaganda cartoon makes the other side choose to fight it has failed. I'm not sure what you are stuck on here, perhaps you're just pig-ignorant of the myriad reasons someone might volunteer to fight in a war or that someone might attach another significance to their father corpse.
>Again, name me a war that can be described as rich man's fight. (Nor, for that matter, do the class inequities of conscription prevent a war being about the right of some men to own other men.)
The description “rich man's war and poor man's fight” does not necessarily entail that only rich men should fight (much as arguments are often made in this sense). It refers to the criticism that the rich can avoid fighting through their wealth as happened in the civil war.
Again though you seem stuck on the concept that political aims of the war don't translate into why people on the ground fight.
|>>|| No. 13302
They should tear down the statues of America's founding fathers. They were also evil slave owners, after all.
|>>|| No. 13311
Typical bloody muslamics. They can't be out of the limelight for more than five minutes without having a hissy fit.
Someone steals their thunder by driving a vehicle into a crowd of people in America so they've got to go and do the same in Spain.
Bloody drama queens. They've got to be the centre of attention.
|>>|| No. 13313
Savage Moors were brought over to fight in Franco's rebellion: they pillaged, tortured and murdered their way across southern Spain. There are Catalans who have vivid memories of this terrible episode (and the scars to prove it), and now they have to deal with cunts like this.
|>>|| No. 13345
Black lives matter or white supremacists?
You've got to remember it's double standards. Trump can't pander to white movements but Obama was given a free pass to pander to the racists in Black Lives Matter and occasions like the chimp out in Ferguson after Michael Brown was shot for attacking a police officer.
|>>|| No. 13346
Alright that's it. I'm drawing a line in the sand here. I'm not going to let .gs turn into another imageboard where it's just OK to be casually white supremacist because it's funny or freeze peach or whatever. It's just not fucking cricket, OK?
|>>|| No. 13348
Is it really a white supremacist position to say that both sides are cunts, although only one really gets called out for it?
|>>|| No. 13351
Neither of them, but:
1) One side fights for equality, the other for supremacy.
2) The leadership of one deplores violence, whereas the whole point of fascism has been, and will always be, violent means toward violent ends.
3) Obama, as much as I dislike him, never "pandered" to racists - ever. Find me one example of him doing so.
4) Phrases like "chimp out" belong in the darkest recesses of the other place, and you don't get to take claim the apparently sacred (to you), sane "middle ground" if you do use such expressions.
|>>|| No. 13354
I can agree with >>13345 getting a ban for using 'chimp out' but if you think casually censoring people for holding a radically different viewpoint is okay then maybe imageboards aren't the place for you.
What I think you're missing is that posts should be eloquent and not resort to the kinds of language you see on 4chan. That simple rule is enough to keep barbarians at bay while still allowing for discussions to run their own course. It is the simple difference between having rules in place to ensure quality and enforcing political orthodoxy. Or to continue your Sancho Panza impression 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater'.
>>13344 here, I think it is fair to call people on both sides massive cunts (to a greater or lesser degree) and we should be honest that they both feed on one-another.
The image I posted actually shows the reality of what went on in Boston where a free speech rally unrelated to Virginia (Boston is in the North) was labelled as white supremacist by the media to whip up outrage when the reality was more generic. It says something that an Indian speaker has racist abused hurled at him by anti-racist protesters.
(his speech is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9X2ZRB9GCU)
It's really a wonder nobody has been shot so far. This is why I don't want it to cross over because it is so toxic that normal people are pushed to extremes because they find one side or another is shouting at them.
|>>|| No. 13355
Chimp out gets infrequently used here. Maybe less so than "ape-like fists", but this place has always had an element of jovial casual racism. Bongo enricher. Spear chucker. You get the picture. Tongue in cheek stuff. Mud in their blood. Shit on their skin.
>This is why I don't want it to cross over because it is so toxic that normal people are pushed to extremes because they find one side or another is shouting at them.
I believe it's already happened. It's part of the reason why Brexit won. The likes of Britain First and Are Nige were happy to welcome with open arms, whilst dragging them further to the right by slowly drip-feeding their rhetoric to them, people who'd been branded racist by "the regressive left" for having any concerns over immigration.
|>>|| No. 13356
My so-left-it-hurts mate is pissed off with me because I said these weren't neo nazis or white supremacists, just fat retards who took memes too seriously.
What are your thought? My mate thinks I'm trying to excuse them somehow. I find it painful to watch someone treating them like the KKK.
|>>|| No. 13357
>a free speech rally unrelated to Virginia (Boston is in the North) was labelled as white supremacist by the media to whip up outrage
If you say so, m7.
|>>|| No. 13358
>just fat retards who took memes too seriously
I agree with the gist of what you're saying - the problem as I see it, is that a lot of chan culture normalises extreme right wing behaviour and gives those people a home to explore those views and the arguments that go with them. It is pitiful to me that we see the same talking points and arguments rehashed over and over, particularly around SJW and BLM - there is a lot of the same old groupthink, on both sides. Some of this is because people want to belong to a tribe, and if you're a lonely fat retard sitting at home in front of a computer, who hardly leaves the house, that sense of belonging and camaraderie is very powerful. See also ISIS.
Whatever happened to people thinking independently? Where is the original thought coming from?
|>>|| No. 13359
I don't think that means what you think it means.
>on both sides
We've been through this before, lad. Stop that.
|>>|| No. 13361
>Nothing says far right extremism like an Indian bloke speaking in front of placards about education, Black Lives Matter and against Monsanto.
Nothing says far right apology like appropriating a discredited Indian bloke speaking in front of placards about education, Black Lives Matter and against Monsanto as if he was a part of the same cause.
|>>|| No. 13362
I've literally posted both pictorial and video evidence of what really went on.
>Whatever happened to people thinking independently? Where is the original thought coming from?
I think these things only come later in life when experience has given you the self-confidence and grit to hold your own views. The thing I have to remind myself when I see these activists is how young some of them really are and how the older ones are obvious losers who just never grew up.
France24 interviewed a punk who called himself 'Frosty' today and while he recited his memorised script like he was in a movie I couldn't help but be reminded of SLC Punk! It's like Momentum I suppose.
What cause would this be then you fucking idiot because it looked to me like he was talking about free speech while fronting his own (Republican supported) run for Senator. Maybe the hooded men who prowl the streets of Boston managed got a rope around this immigrant and dragged him to the podium?
|>>|| No. 13363
>because it looked to me like he was talking about free speech while fronting his own (Republican supported) run for Senator
The US has some of the strongest protections for free speech anywhere in the world. Any protest for "free speech" in the US is almost certainly a front for something else. He looks like he's a token minority invited so the organisers can say "We're not racist, we've got a brown speaker!" particularly since his Senate bid is very obviously not going anywhere.
|>>|| No. 13364
>this place has always had an element of jovial casual racism. Bongo enricher. Spear chucker. You get the picture. Tongue in cheek stuff. Mud in their blood. Shit on their skin.
I know, I've done that myself. But >>13345 is evidently not being tongue in cheek, or trying to take the piss out of the likes of Simon and Nige. When I read his post I felt chills. Not because it's something we haven't seen before; it's because in the context of recent events and the current climate, imageboard fascists aren't something you can take lightly anymore. He could easily have been one of those cunts marching in Virginia. Why should we allow scum like that to sully our doorstep? Why do we apply rigorous standards when it comes to grammar and reaction images, but not genuinely believing non-whites are subhuman? You genuinely wouldn't ban Hitler from posting about der Juden on 1930s .gs? There's something wrong there. Anyway I won't say more about it given the mod team is prepared to give them a platform.
|>>|| No. 13367
>The US has some of the strongest protections for free speech anywhere in the world. Any protest for "free speech" in the US is almost certainly a front for something else.
That's an awful big leap you're making there for someone not providing a shred of evidence. Maybe Americans have some of the biggest protections of free speech precisely because so many people are willing to defend it and who might even dare to want more.
What's wrong with him anyway, are you struggling to get your head around why a minority might have the autonomy to take an opposing political position, even one as apparently dangerous as the right to free speech? Maybe the real problem is people like you whose frankly childish viewpoint leads you to harassing ordinary people who want to be left alone.
>Anyway I won't say more about it given the mod team is prepared to give them a platform.
Maybe you should leave and find somewhere more accommodating to your feelings. Can't have all those mean sentences corrupting your mind can we?
|>>|| No. 13368
>Anyway I won't say more about it given the mod team is prepared to give them a platform.
The mods aren't here to police peoples views or remove things that you might find gravely offensive. They're to remove illegal, spammy or repetitive content and stop us all getting locked up. Please don't bait them like that.
|>>|| No. 13369
Will PREVENT stop young white men getting radicalised? It will be nice to see a white six year old being questioned by the police and MI5 for a change.
|>>|| No. 13370
>people like you whose frankly childish viewpoint
Says Mr They-Can't-Be-Racist-Because-They-Invited-A-Brown-Guy-To-Speak.
|>>|| No. 13372
You leave those strawmen alone. I'm sure we're all well aware that you have written him off as the Indian equivalent of an Uncle Tom but you'll have to somehow justify this attack on his character and that of the organisers with evidence.
|>>|| No. 13373
>you'll have to somehow justify this attack on his character
I don't think so, mate. If you can't be bothered to put his name into Google, I can't be bothered to risk us getting sued for millions of dollars like anyone else that dares provide the details.
|>>|| No. 13376
"I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism.
- Bobby Lee in 1866 in response to a letter from Lord Acton
What do you lads make of this? Is there an argument to be made in support of States' Rights in spite of all the evil slave owning stuff?
|>>|| No. 13377
>They're to remove illegal content
You do realise incitement to racial hatred is indeed illegal in this country?
|>>|| No. 13384
> Is there an argument to be made in support of States' Rights in spite of all the evil slave owning stuff?
Certainly, and we've been seeing it in action since. While I believe there's some merit to be had for federal law, the US is far too large and diverse — ethnically, politically, and otherwise — for all laws and regulations to be enforced from D.C.
While it was certainly one of the catalysts for the Confederacy to rebel against the Union, a lot of leading figures were actually neutral or unspoken on the matter of slavery (obviously not the same as being vocally pro-abolition but certainly not as dichotomous as these acrobatite armchair historians will have you believe.) Piss-poor factions of the US now stereotyped as being overly racist, uneducated, or otherwise apprehensive of "progression" would've been much better off under the proposed devolved system, not least of which the Native Americans who were and have been absolutely fucked by the Union's centralised power structure.
There's no telling for sure if a devolved system would've even survived until the present day and what the ramifications would have been on the development of a First Nation or the American empire but all evidence suggests it would've been a largely fairer system, even if slavery did last a couple more decades until international pressure forced abolition.
tl;dr: Nobody knows for sure. Fuck the "union gud, confeder8 evil" rhetoric. They're both a bunch of bastards in their own right.
|>>|| No. 13385
>Is there an argument to be made in support of States' Rights in spite of all the evil slave owning stuff?
In the historical context, not really. Anything reasonable is already guaranteed by the Constitution, and the instances where it had been asserted basically came down to slavery and discrimination. In modern discourse, it comes into play with issues such as drug policy, where you have states that are allowing cannabis to be prescribed or openly sold and the DEA going after people for it because it's still illegal under federal law.
Nice revisionism, m7.
|>>|| No. 13386
Can't believe Amerifats are still whinging about a war from 150 years ago. It's should make about as much sense as trying to start shit with a Pole because "they" were on Napoleon's side.
|>>|| No. 13387
They don't have very much history so they elevate to an absurd level the little they have to give them a sense of cultural identity. It is the same reason why Argentina is so obsessed with the Falklands.
|>>|| No. 13394
The subject of Native Americans is an interesting one, with regards the Civil War. Many tribes - particularly the so-called Civilised Tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, etc.) - in fact sided with the Confederacy. For one, they owned African slaves (although the relationship was a far more egalitarian one); and two, they feared the North, which they saw quite rightly as dangerously expansive and forceful. (It was the Union that was responsible for the Trail of Tears and Homestead Acts, after all.)
Things, as ever, are complex.
|>>|| No. 13406
I don't think it's that silly though. Taking into account the fact it is a total eclipse, and its path is right through the middle of the continental United States, it makes it a very rare occurrence.
|>>|| No. 13410
Everything is a rare event if you qualify it enough. There's another total eclipse coming their way in 2024, and predictably the town near where the two paths intersect has already declared itself "the Eclipse Crossroads of America".
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]