Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Here
is an article by the New York Times that goes into some more detail about Lee’s views, in particular regarding a letter that Lee himself sent to the Times.
This in particular seems to be what is being referred to:
But he added that slavery was “a greater evil to the white man than to the black race” in the United States, and that the “painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction.”
Edited by KarkatTheDalek on Dec 21st 2020 at 3:34:56 PM
Oh God! Natural light!"Oh, shit, man, slavery was harder on whites than on blacks, because now the whites are getting punished for it by the will of God. Damn, doesn't it suck to be us?"
That doesn't make Lee against slavery. It just makes him feel guilty about it.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I never claimed he was against slavery.
but he wasn't the pro-slavery ideologue a lot of folks think he is either.
He was just a guy with some really screwy viewpoints that worked out to have him on the Confederate side. Not exscusing him at all. They were wrong, but demonizing the guy isn't helpful either. i mean, hell, the vast majority of Confederate soldiers weren't slave owners. Lot of 'em either signed up to protect their homesteads, or because it was steady pay.
Very much like how the Wehrmacht (and Germans in general) took (and still occasionally take) flack over crap the Nazis did.
Edited by Pendrake on Dec 21st 2020 at 12:45:54 PM
Semper Fi. Semper Paratus. Vigilo Confido.@Forenperser
To be fair, from my experience as a Conservative, that's less hypocrisy and more Broken Base. Conservatives don't have a unified opinion on the CSA and tend to either be pro-Confederate or view the Confederacy as evil and The Civil as a patriotic crusade against slavery.
Leviticus 19:34Pendrake, you're on very slippery ice here with this rationalization of the South (never mind the Nazis). Watch it.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The Civil War happened, in large part, because Southern views changed from the Jeffersonian “necessary evil” to Calhounian advocacy of it as as “positive good”. The North, by and large, wanted to limit slavery to the states where it already existed; the South wanted to expand it all the new states that were admitted. (Leading to the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc. splitting the new states between slave and free.) The South continually pushed the boundaries to try to make all states slave states and to compel northern states to forcibly return fugitive slaves to the South - so in reality, in was the South that was trying to use the federal government to enforce its will on other states.
Outright abolitionism was a minority, though growing, point of view in the North, and was not something Lincoln had as a political objective when he was elected. The South seceded out of fury at not being permitted to expand slavery.
The most accurate summation I’ve read of the Civil War is that it had three sides: the South was pro-slavery, the North was pro-Union, and black people were (obviously) anti-slavery.
The Union was not fighting a moral crusade against slavery. The South was fighting a crusade for slavery. They were the ones who seceded. They were the ones who fired the first shots. They were the ones who chose war over peace. They had no grounds to complain of being “invaded”.
It’s not about the ethics of secession. (There were abolitionists who advocated secession of the Northeast states if the Fugitive Slave Law was not repealed, and I can see a moral case for that.) It’s about the South seceding in service to an evil cause.
Edited by Galadriel on Dec 21st 2020 at 4:14:12 AM
Personally, I care less about his nuanced personal feelings than I do about his actions and what they supported. Whether or not he privately felt that slavery was an evil practice that should be ended, the fact is that he opposed abolition, fought for the Confederacy in defense of slavery, and rebelled against the nation he had sworn to protect in doing so.
No one gets to say "well actually he was anti-slavery and a patriot". Patriots don't take up arms against their own government. People who are anti-slavery don't join the side defending slavery. Robert E. Lee was, by his own actions, pro-slavery and a traitor to the United States.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.So the spending bill? They snuck the anti-streaming bill into it.
Sweeping new copyright measures poised to pass in spending bill
Congress’ $2.3 trillion spending and relief package includes controversial measures previously introduced as the CASE Act, the Trademark Modernization Act, and a felony streaming proposal — all significantly expanding the rights and powers of intellectual property owners.
Most controversially, the CASE Act would create a quasi-judicial tribunal of “Copyright Claims Officers” who would work to resolve infringement claims. As outlined in the bill, copyright holders could be awarded up to $30,000 if they find their creative work being shared online.
Proponents of the CASE Act, like the Copyright Alliance, argue that the bill would make it easier for independent artists to bring about copyright claims without having to endure the lengthy and expensive federal courts process. Still, critics of the bill, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight for the Future, argue that the CASE Act could fine ordinary internet users for engaging in everyday online behavior like sharing memes.
“The CASE Act is a terribly written law that will threaten ordinary Internet users with huge fines for everyday online activity. It’s absurd that lawmakers included these provisions in a must-pass spending bill,” Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, said in a statement Monday. “We’re facing a massive eviction crisis and millions are unemployed due to the pandemic, but Congressional leaders could only muster $600 stimulus checks for COVID relief, but managed to cram in handouts for content companies like Disney?”
The multitrillion-dollar package also includes a provision authored by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) that would allow the Justice Department to charge businesses for felony copyright infringement if they intentionally stream copyrighted material online. The Trademark Modernization Act would allow third parties to request the Patent Office to reject trademark applications in an effort to combat “trademark trolls” who make money off of trademarks they never planned to use.
As congressional leaders have worked to finalize this package over the last few weeks, a coalition of tech trade groups and advocacy organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Internet Association urged lawmakers to refuse inclusion of these measures.
These groups claimed that the proposals could “have negative impacts on small- and medium-sized businesses, creators, libraries and their patrons, students, teachers, educational institutions, religious institutions, fan communities, internet users, and free expression,” in a letter first reported by Protocol earlier this month.
Restreaming someone's original content without permission or Fair Use is a copyright violation. I'm not sure how this is even a question. If this is used to go after Let's Players and reaction videos... yeah, that's a problem, but not all such use is cut from the same cloth.
If we're back to the RIAA trying to kill music sharing... this is one place where I stand with the corporate overlords, at least in principle.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 21st 2020 at 4:20:55 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"As for sympathetic people on the Confederate's side, I always point to the white youngsters from poor families who got manipulated by the slavers to fight their war for them, a war against their very own best interests.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianThe idea is, I think, that this is the inevitable conclusion of the bill: that anybody streaming video games online, regardless of size or income, will end up either having to pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines, or (from what I've heard, don't quote me on this) potentially be arrested.
i'm tired, my friend
Hasn't that idea already been killed on First Amendment principles? Congress can try to bring it back but it'll fail hard in court.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 21st 2020 at 4:21:48 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The concern is that someone could get a criminal record for having a copyrighted ringtone go off in the background of a stream, major companies have issues false copyright claims in the past and giving them the power to send in the FBI would likely make things worse.
Though I’m not seeing the amendment as part of the bill, the linked bill in the articule is only the senate version, we had this before and the house simply passed a clean version that the senate then okayed.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAndrew Johnson was picked as a favor to War Democrats. This was very much a situational move unique to mid-1864. Sherman hadn’t yet taken Savannah so there wasn’t a big banner victory to carry Lincoln to re-election over the peace faction.
If the North kicked ass sooner, the Republican ticket would have probably wouldn’t have changed. The National Union stuff was just there to check any possibility of Mc Clellan getting substantial support.
ALSO: I spotted a reference to the Clean Wehrmacht myth. That one is absolutely false. War crimes were institutionalized at every level of Nazi war planning, period.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Dec 21st 2020 at 4:25:23 AM
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

This is the line from Lee that Pendrake is referring to:
Lee: "I think [slavery] however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, and while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, and I hope will prepare and lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known and ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influence of Christianity, than the storms and tempests of fiery Controversy."
Translation: Slavery sucks, sure, but it's God's will. It's good for you, too. You're welcome."