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
Yeah considering the widespread support the CIA has for pointless tourture, killing civilians and other atrocities I'm not sure if the American public get to say the CIA has gone rouge, the CIA is doing what the Anerican people want, that just happens to be fucking horrible shit.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
That doesn't make what they're doing okay. I'd stop short of calling them "evil", but there are definite problems with the way the CIA is conducting itself. The problem is basically that the CIA is a friggen intelligence agency. Why are they even doing any strikes themselves? They should be gathering intelligence and then passing it along to the actual military to make the strike, if necessary.
Most of the drone strike bullshit that's gone on is because the CIA doesn't hold itself to the same standard that the military does in terms of making strikes.
edited 6th Dec '15 2:35:45 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I agree that the CIA is too overpowdered to be allowed to go rouge.
![]()
Hardly, the CIA's illegal methods are horribly ineffective, the tourture fails to produce results, gives false positives and makes a ton of enemies, likewise the CIA drone strikes create more terrorists then they kill, due to how the relatives of the civilian casualties tend to become terrorists.
No it's the issue of efficacy compared to short term quantifiable results. It's easy to show that you've blown up 100 terrorists, it's much harder to show that you've prevented 100 terrorists from becoming terrorists.
We don't want results from the intelligence services, we want to be made to feel like we're winning. We chose feeling like we're winning over actually winning.
edited 6th Dec '15 4:05:35 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyranedited 6th Dec '15 5:27:28 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.The end of the Age of Marble.
Oh boy I knew this would come about at some time or another. I don't know how we should handle this. Whatever comes of it I say we keep Abe around as an icon. And yes I know how all of this looks to foreigners, "look those stupid Americans are still worshiping neo fascist idols of long dead racists."
How does Europe handle it's history? I know the Spanish named Warships after Conquistadors, the British still refer to various things as "Imperial" and the Belgium's still have statues of King Leopold up for some reasons. Nevertheless I assume they do it in a much more politically correct and enlightened way.
edited 6th Dec '15 6:18:22 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Jack, you need to stop putting words in other people's mouths. For one, I highly doubt that is even the opinion of the majority of Europeans. I'm pretty sure that most of them don't actually care what we think about our historical figures because it doesn't have anything to do with their lives.
And it's not a bad thing to re-evaluate those people either, which seems to be what that article was aiming at. It even warns against painting them as totally bad.
Nobody on this forum has said that certainly, but I've heard it said in other places. And I wouldn't necessarily about the whole thing not reminding me to a certain extent of North Korea's reverence of the Kims.
Edit: I guess your right, I'm just really touchy and paranoid when it comes to History.
Edit 2: Speaking of Historical Figures in need of revaluation: Jimmy Carter beats cancer.
![]()
edited 6th Dec '15 6:53:15 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
There's a difference between wanting to commemorate people you perceive as "great" and what's basically idolatry. North Korea's reverence of the Kims is the latter. They turned their former (and present) leaders into idols to be worshipped.
I don't know enough about your former presidents to judge them; that's up to you. But if it helps, we still have a lot of statues commemorating Bismarck and several German kings and other nobles, at least outside the former GDR.
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyYou've mentioned that you get touch and paranoid before, Jack, so maybe you ought to reconsider your posts once you've written them. In any case, there was nothing in that article that was particularly condemnatory about anyone. It was just noting about the trend of reevaluating how we've commemorated and how some don't think that's appropriate anymore. Which is fair, even if I don't think it's all that big a deal. (A bust is a relatively small thing so I guess I don't see what the point is in moving it, unless it's going to a museum or something. I like museums.)
I'm sure in two hundred year's time they'll be having the same conversation about different commemorative artworks.
The wholesale condemnation of historical figures because there are negative aspects to them strikes me as silly. The bad things they did in their lives don't completely blot out the good any more than the good things completely blot out the bad. It's entirely possible to view them as what they were — men who in many ways shaped history, and in many ways were shaped by it. We can appreciate and respect the positive impact they had on history while still understanding that they were not perfect and many of the views they held we would find abhorrent if expressed today.
In particular, failing to publically denounce slavery in the 1700s does not make you a Complete Monster, especially since that particular issue took another century and a civil war to resolve (and more than a century after that, we're still dealing with the fallout in many ways).
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I've been thinking about starting a thread on that topic but not really sure what to call it.
I think it's really YMMV as to which commemorations of "dead white guys" should stay and which should go. It probably comes down to the degree to which the person was fair for their day coupled with the extent to which what they are being commemorated for involves their problematic aspects.
So like for example, I'm very much in favor of removing H.P. Lovecraft's image from the World Fantasy Awards but not so much in favor of taking Woodrow Wilson's name off of a school involved with foreign policy (since while Wilson was horribly racist, that played less of a role in his foreign policy than it did his domestic policy).
This issue with a Harvard logo is a tough one. Because it's the coat of arms of a guy who literally founded the law school through selling slaves- so not sure how to balance his importance to the school with the slave trading. And at least speaking personally, wonder how the logo personally harms Harvard students. Like as a contrast, part of why the Lovecraft removal seems a good idea is because of his association with elements of the community that are hostile to minorities. I don't doubt that there are people who are hostile to minorities at Harvard, but the fact that the logo is a slaveholder's coat of arms seems more like a symptom than a cause.
edited 6th Dec '15 9:08:16 PM by Hodor2
Merry Gun-toting Christmas everyone!
One thing that really bothers me is celebrating Christmas in places like Phoenix and Las Vegas. It's too far from the pole, it completely dilutes the meaning of Yule. You know, A New Hope, and so on.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
The CIA is doing exactly what the US government tells them to do. Just a few years ago Obama was bragging about how his drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan and defeated Al Qaeda. Hell it was a key component of his re election campaign. Call the CIA evil if you like, but they are doing what they do with the full knowledge and approval of the White House.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.