Skwirl posted:

Again, people running for congress with no chance in hell of winning. I looked her up she's running in John Lewis' district.

Also a former Real Housewife star and served time for running a stolen car ring (later pardoned by Trump). She also apparently gave birth to her child while in jail, handcuffed to a hospital bed, which is deeply hosed up but I would think it would make her guiding principle prison reform, not being anti-abortion.

Skwirl posted:

Again, people running for congress with no chance in hell of winning. I looked her up she's running in John Lewis' district.

Also a former Real Housewife star and served time for running a stolen car ring (later pardoned by Trump). She also apparently gave birth to her child while in jail, handcuffed to a hospital bed, which is deeply hosed up but I would think it would make her guiding principle prison reform, not being anti-abortion.

StillFullyTerrible posted:

Strasserites aren't leftists

Absurd Alhazred posted:

https://twitter.com/tereseaimee/status/1275381209523052544

Will no-one rid us of economic anxiety concern trolling from self-avowed leftists?

MizPiz posted:

Divorced from context, this is a WorstPersonMadeAGoodPoint.txt

d3lness posted:

But the economic reason was literally "slavery makes our economy work and we'll collapse without blatantly violating basic human rights" though.

MizPiz posted:

And the north's response was "we can have a functioning economy and blatant violations of basic human rights without overt slavery". While it's true that the south wanted to keep slavery even though all the evidence showed that it made production significantly more inefficient, the north's concerns were with inefficiencies of slavery, not the inhumanity. The fact that the southern aristocracy was left largely intact after the war should clue you into how little the war was about fighting injustice.

EL BROMANCE posted:

Just walking around with a t-shirt with a massive valknot on it. Definitely not for Nazis and just worn by people with Norwegian roots I’m sure.

Skwirl posted:

The North's opinions on slavery being inefficient are mostly immaterial since they aren't the ones who started the loving war.

MizPiz posted:

And the north's response was "we can have a functioning economy and blatant violations of basic human rights without overt slavery". While it's true that the south wanted to keep slavery even though all the evidence showed that it made production significantly more inefficient, the north's concerns were with inefficiencies of slavery, not the inhumanity. The fact that the southern aristocracy was left largely intact after the war should clue you into how little the war was about fighting injustice.

Ugato posted:

The United States as a whole saw Africans as lesser people, yes. This does not change the fact that the north’s seemingly majority opinion was that slavery was in fact wrong. And the back and forth of enacting/enforcing abolition was what incited secession, which is why the war started. It also became the sort of stated goal of the war.

The entire thing is full of lovely people with lovely motives, but it was all absolutely rooted in the fight over whether the United States would continue to allow slavery.

MizPiz posted:

It's pretty material given the fact that when they won the war, they basically gave the south carte blanche on what a "slaveless economy" looks like. There even concerted efforts by former Union-supporters who fought against Reconstruction and supported Jim Crow laws. You can't pretend a war was fought for justice when the injustice still exists and the people responsible for the injustice still retain all their power.

T-man posted:

I wish the north won the civil war

MizPiz posted:

And the north's response was "we can have a functioning economy and blatant violations of basic human rights without overt slavery". While it's true that the south wanted to keep slavery even though all the evidence showed that it made production significantly more inefficient, the north's concerns were with inefficiencies of slavery, not the inhumanity. The fact that the southern aristocracy was left largely intact after the war should clue you into how little the war was about fighting injustice.

seiferguy posted:

Hollandia posted:

I mean you could focus on the valknot or you could just look at the pattern of swastikas around it. Unless I’m missing something.

Karia posted:

Inefficient? Not in any respect they actually cared about. Sure, lots of slaves died, but from the south's perspective that was totally acceptable. Growth-wise, they still had massive swathes of under-used land, and as I recall there was also starting to be a push to use slaves in more non-agricultural sectors. Efficiency was not a limit on economic growth in the slightest: if you were a wealthy land-owner who wanted to make more money, you didn't worry about how to optimally use what you already had. You just bought more land and more slaves.

Don't kid yourself: slavery was massively profitable. The idea that slavery was on the path to getting pushed out for economic reasons was invented as part of the Lost Cause mythology, and has no basis in reality.

Powered Descent posted:

I often visit a hundred-year-old office building that has that exact same pattern molded as trim around the elevators in the lobby.

Powered Descent posted:

I often visit a hundred-year-old office building that has that exact same pattern molded as trim around the elevators in the lobby.

EL BROMANCE posted:

I am an ELEVATOR ENGINEER and I eat MAC AND CHEESE and if you don’t also work for OTIS then you wouldn’t understand!!

Powered Descent posted:

I often visit a hundred-year-old office building that has that exact same pattern molded as trim around the elevators in the lobby.

MizPiz posted:

And the north's response was "we can have a functioning economy and blatant violations of basic human rights without overt slavery". While it's true that the south wanted to keep slavery even though all the evidence showed that it made production significantly more inefficient, the north's concerns were with inefficiencies of slavery, not the inhumanity. The fact that the southern aristocracy was left largely intact after the war should clue you into how little the war was about fighting injustice.

Skwirl posted:

The North's opinions on slavery being inefficient are mostly immaterial since they aren't the ones who started the loving war.

Hollandia posted:

Bit of a difference from a 2020 t-shirt, but yeah that must be a bit

luxury handset posted:

source your quotes


economic efficiency is such a staggeringly online dumbfuck way to interpret the causes of the civil war that i'm surprised bitcoin hasn't been mentioned yet

regardless, racists have used the "wage slavery is the same as chattel slavery" argument for decades so i'm not surprised to see it popping up among twitter theorists who generally produce more words than they consume

sneakyfrog posted:

https://twitter.com/DeAnna4Congress/status/1274903862176964608

Bugsy posted:

If this is what I think it was it was full of awful people telling stories about how their families don't want to spend time with them anymore and people making fun of them. Too bad she deleted it.

https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1275431018581934085

Somebody asked a couple pages ago about her, and she a grifter who ran in the primary for Pelosi's seat. She did not do anything close to well, but that just makes the grift stronger.

Skwirl posted:

It's also sorta bullshit because Samus Aran 1) probably isn't the first female protagonist either, and 2) no one knew she was a woman in the first game unless they beat it and I call bullshit that anyone actually beat it before another game with a female protagonist came out.

Cleretic posted:

I mean, Ms. Pac-Man beat all three of them.

Also Mach Rider, weirdly enough.