[andi*pandi]

Apple Pulls Civil War Games From App Store For Images Of Confederate Battle Flag Used In “Offensive” Ways – Consumerist

Yep, apparently so. I think there's a big difference between flying this flag proudly as your own ideology, and displaying it in historical context. As a commenter said, you wouldn't have a WWII game without the german flag or swastikas.

That said, I'm sure our international friends could tell us something about the display of the swastika.

People may still have the RIGHT to fly the confederate battle flag, but it's sure going to be hard for them to buy one.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

As a commenter said, you wouldn't have a WWII game without the german flag or swastikas.

Worse yet, Germany has them removed from games (Wolfenstein)

[andi*pandi]

I didn't know that, hmm.

I know they show it in movies, I don't really see the difference. It reflects poorly on those who display it for pride, either way.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

My minority exposure growing up in rural NEPA has been pretty minimal. Compared to the population numbers in the south, it's a lot more likely they've had more interactions with minorities than I have. I just wasn't raised in a racist atmosphere.

I should clarify: I mean they're limited in their exposure to minorities despite being surrounded by them, AND their social circle seems to be limited to uncover racists who do nothing to broaden their perspective.

Best anecdote I have: My best friend's father once gave me an instructive lesson on the use of the term ****** from his days doing construction in the south. I still bust his balls about the incident to this day.

I've always wondered how Northerners react to that when they move down. We don't hear the word nearly as often these days, but they still have to do a lot of adjusting (on several fronts).

That's bold.

My wife and I looked into Portland about a year ago. My leadership steered me away from moving right now. I think they'd prefer I stay here.

Originally Posted by subego 

Am I imagining the thing where Apple just pulled all its Civil War games because of the flag?

I swear, Apple turns the political correctness to 11 every...single...time.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Apple Pulls Civil War Games From App Store For Images Of Confederate Battle Flag Used In “Offensive” Ways – Consumerist

Yep, apparently so. I think there's a big difference between flying this flag proudly as your own ideology, and displaying it in historical context. As a commenter said, you wouldn't have a WWII game without the german flag or swastikas.

That said, I'm sure our international friends could tell us something about the display of the swastika.

People may still have the RIGHT to fly the confederate battle flag, but it's sure going to be hard for them to buy one.

and now we fall down the slippery slope. Social justice wankers keep winning, and at the same type marginalizing history and dooming us to repeat it. Cracking job, asshats.

This is what happens when you villainize symbols, you dorks*.



(*not directed at anyone here in particular)

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Expand while the % of slaves, even in the most agriculturally-rich areas of the country, was dropping dramatically? How does that work?

Ok. Naturally this is a very sensitive topic for me so I'm going to do my best take a deep breath and resist the temptation to unleash a torrent of snark which you really do make so easy to legitimately hit you with. I'm not going to "slam" you. And I don't say that to fish for "praise" or anything ... I say that because I truly don't want this is devolve into a back and forth of personal attacks. That being said, I am going to expose just how disingenuous your "argument" above really is. Let's first go back to where you first went down this road shall we?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

The US civil war started over states' rights and Lincoln didn't give a runny shit about slavery until it was politically expedient. The fact is, slavery in the South was already on a severe decline before the war ever started and it could have just as easily been sped up with increased economic pressure, saving more than 600k lives and a half century of turmoil over the Reconstruction (and likely a much more smooth transition for former slaves into society, since it wouldn't have been so violently forced).

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

You don't even know why it was fought, slavery was already down >25% in just the 10 years before the civil war even started, All you know is the specious claptrap you've been told.

So those are your words correct? Verbatim? Of course they are. And you doubled down on it with your words I quoted at the beginning of this post. But there's a problem here. The reference you cite in no way supports your "argument". You see the game you are playing here is to misrepresent what your own source actually says .... and then bank on no one actually following the link to see for themselves. Unfortunately for you, I'm not the one ... and I'm going to call you out on it. You linked to page 3 of a 5 page article. So let's review what it actually said shall we?

There are indications that during the last decade before the Civil War slave ownership became increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. As soil erosion and exhaustion diminished the availability of cotton land, scarcity and heavy demand forced the price of land and slaves to rise beyond the reach of most, and in newer cotton-growing regions, yeomen farmers were pushed off the land as planters expanded their holdings. In Louisiana, for example, nearly half of all rural white families owned no land. During the 1850s, the percentage of the total white population owning slaves declined significantly. By 1860, the proportion of whites holding slaves had fallen from about one-third to one-fourth.

Now see what you did there? The author said there was a "decline" in the % of the white slave owning population of up to 25% ... but in this thread you represented like the author said there was a "decline" in the % of slaves or slavery itself of up to 25%. And I'm going to presume that I really don't need to elaborate on the difference for you ok? I mean I could end right there but I want to demonstrate just how deep the rabbit hole goes. In fact, that's the only use of the word "declined" in the entire 5 page article! That you cited! But let's review what your own source had to say elsewhere shall we?

From page 2 ...

The plantation legend was misleading in still other respects. Slavery was neither dying nor unprofitable. In 1860 the South was richer than any country in Europe except England, and it had achieved a level of wealth unmatched by Italy or Spain until the eve of World War II.

The southern economy generated enormous wealth and was critical to the economic growth of the entire United States. Well over half of the richest 1 percent of Americans in 1860 lived in the South. Even more important, southern agriculture helped finance early 19th century American economic growth. Before the Civil War, the South grew 60 percent of the world’s cotton, provided over half of all U.S. export earnings, and furnished 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Cotton exports paid for a substantial share of the capital and technology that laid the basis for America’s industrial revolution.

In addition, precisely because the South specialized in agricultural production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the southern states, including textile and meat processing industries and financial and commercial facilities.

From page 5 ...

By the early 1850s, a growing number of aggressive Southerners had moved beyond earlier calls for separate southern factories, colleges, and churches. Militant nationalists called for the reopening of the slave trade and aggressive annexations of new slave territory in Latin America and the Caribbean.

In a bid to acquire new lands for slavery a filibustering expedition was launched from New Orleans in 1851 to secure Cuba for the South. After this failed, extreme southern nationalists supported the efforts of William Walker, “the gray-eyed man of destiny,” to extend slave labor into Latin America.

In 1853, with considerable southern support, Walker raised a private army and unsuccessfully invaded Mexico. Two years later, he launched the first of three invasions of Nicaragua. On his final foray in 1860, he was taken prisoner by a British officer, handed over to Honduran authorities, and, at the age of 36, executed by a firing squad. In the late 1850s, another group of ardent southern expansionists, the Knights of the Golden Circle, developed plans to create an independent slave empire stretching from Maryland and Texas to northern South America and the West Indies. The only practical effect of these schemes was to arouse northern opinion against an aggressive southern slaveocracy.

So right there in black and white it clearly says that slavery was "neither dying nor unprofitable" and that there were efforts to expand slavery into "Latin America and the Caribbean"! Which is precisely what I stated earlier and backed up with sources. Yet you chose to take issue with that even though your own source says the same damned thing!!

OAW

[OAW]

This really shouldn't be necessary but I think I'll drive some more nails into the coffin of CTP's "slavery was in decline" argument. From other sources that reiterate what his his own source had to say ....

“Slavery in time will not be a speck in our country,” opined Oliver Ellsworth, a delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Indeed, it was that assumption that allowed the anti-slavery delegates to cede easily to a compromise in writing the Constitution: slavery would never be mentioned, but it would be given legal protection. Founding a nation, Ellsworth and others decided, was more important than eradicating a “moral anachronism.”

That assumption, however, proved disastrously wrong, thanks to a new, much more valuable cash crop then still on the horizon: cotton. Over the next 70 years this new cash crop would revolutionize the American economy and breathe new life into the institution of slavery. On the eve of the Civil War, far from facing imminent decline, slavery, and the cotton economy that depended on it, was going strong.

In 1787, there was virtually no cotton grown in America. Two things, however, quickly changed that. Eli Whitney’s cotton gin allowed cotton production to go from a process limited by manual labor to an industrial machine, allowing a person to “clean” 50 pounds, rather than one pound, of cotton a day. And of course, the cotton gin didn’t remove manual labor from the process; it just shifted it. In fact, this labor-saving device extended slavery by creating a labor shortage in the cotton fields.

The mass production of cotton was accompanied by a dramatic 90 percent drop in the price of a cotton textile garment. This in turn led to a consumer revolution whose raw material was slave-produced cotton – 80 percent of which was produced in the South. As a result, American cotton production exploded from almost nothing in 1787 to over 4.5 million bales, at 500 lbs. a bale, by 1860. On the eve of the war, cotton comprised almost 60 percent of America’s exports.

Slavery expanded accordingly. The number of slaves increased from 700,000 in 1787 to over 4 million on the eve of the American Civil War; approximately 70 percent were involved in some way with cotton production.

When Cotton Was King | NY Times

Economic Causes of the War

No one seriously doubts that the enormous economic stake the South had in its slave labor force was a major factor in the sectional disputes that erupted in the middle of the nineteenth century. Figure 1 plots the total value of all slaves in the United States from 1805 to 1860. In 1805 there were just over one million slaves worth about $300 million; fifty-five years later there were four million slaves worth close to $3 billion. In the 11 states that eventually formed the Confederacy, four out of ten people were slaves in 1860, and these people accounted for more than half the agricultural labor in those states. In the cotton regions the importance of slave labor was even greater. The value of capital invested in slaves roughly equaled the total value of all farmland and farm buildings in the South. Though the value of slaves fluctuated from year to year, there was no prolonged period during which the value of the slaves owned in the United States did not increase markedly. Looking at Figure 1, it is hardly surprising that Southern slaveowners in 1860 were optimistic about the economic future of their region. They were, after all, in the midst of an unparalleled rise in the value of their slave assets.

The Northern states also had a huge economic stake in slavery and the cotton trade. The first half of the nineteenth century witnessed an enormous increase in the production of short-staple cotton in the South, and most of that cotton was exported to Great Britain and Europe. Figure 2 charts the growth of cotton exports from 1815 to 1860. By the mid 1830s, cotton shipments accounted for more than half the value of all exports from the United States. Note that there is a marked similarity between the trends in the export of cotton and the rising value of the slave population depicted in Figure 1. There could be little doubt that the prosperity of the slave economy rested on its ability to produce cotton more efficiently than any other region of the world.

The Economics of the Civil War

The most commonly used phrase describing the growth of the American economy in the 1830s and 1840s was “Cotton Is King.” We think of this slogan today as describing the plantation economy of the slavery states in the Deep South, which led to the creation of “the second Middle Passage.” But it is important to understand that this was not simply a Southern phenomenon. Cotton was one of the world’s first luxury commodities, after sugar and tobacco, and was also the commodity whose production most dramatically turned millions of black human beings in the United States themselves into commodities. Cotton became the first mass consumer commodity.

Understanding both how extraordinarily profitable cotton was and how interconnected and overlapping were the economies of the cotton plantation, the Northern banking industry, New England textile factories and a huge proportion of the economy of Great Britain helps us to understand why it was something of a miracle that slavery was finally abolished in this country at all.

Let me try to break this down quickly, since it is so fascinating:

Let’s start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks,” and it was “equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.” As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle.

Now, the value of cotton: Slave-produced cotton “brought commercial ascendancy to New York City, was the driving force for territorial expansion in the Old Southwest and fostered trade between Europe and the United States,” according to Gene Dattel. In fact, cotton productivity, no doubt due to the sharecropping system that replaced slavery, remained central to the American economy for a very long time: “Cotton was the leading American export from 1803 to 1937.”

The Role Cotton Played in the 1800s Economy | African American History Blog | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross

"Cotton is King" was the mantra of the US economy in the South. In fact, cotton was the engine of the US economy as a whole. It quite literally financed the industrial revolution and made the US the economic superpower that it is today. Cotton production was completely dependent upon slave labor. And in 1860 the US had its largest cotton crop ever. So can we please dispense with this foolishness that "slavery was in decline"?

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Ok. Naturally this is a very sensitive topic for me so I'm going to do my best take a deep breath and resist the temptation to unleash a torrent of snark which you really do make so easy to legitimately hit you with.

Why? You weren't a slave, you've never been a slave, you have no idea what that's really like (just as I don't), and what you're relaying is simply progressivist outrage culture BS at its finest. "But, but, my ancestors were slaves!" So what? Some of mine were as well (New York Irish immigrants in the 1780s and 90s). So yeah, take your deep breath and then move on, for God's sake. Modern society shouldn't need to keep patting you on the back and trying to make you feel better about something that never even happened to you.

Slaves were 12.9% of the population in 1860, but 14.7% in 1840. That's the data, the rest of the commentary is pointless and largely conjecture, which, as usual, you use to whatever advantage you can.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Worse yet, Germany has them removed from games (Wolfenstein)

As an aside, I finally had this explained to me. It makes far more sense in the context of a post-war Germany, whereas to an American, it looks like an unnecessary encroachment on civil liberties.

Once the war ended, all the sudden everyone who was a Nazi claimed it was under duress. People knew this wasn't true, but there was no way to make an accurate determination of the truth for the thousands of people for whom the claim was made.

The solution was to let them go free, but make their ideology illegal.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Why? You weren't a slave, you've never been a slave, you have no idea what that's really like (just as I don't), and what you're relaying is simply progressivist outrage culture BS at its finest. "But, but, my ancestors were slaves!" So what? Some of mine were as well (New York Irish immigrants in the 1780s and 90s). So yeah, take your deep breath and then move on, for God's sake. Modern society shouldn't need to keep patting you on the back and trying to make you feel better about something that never even happened to you.

Spoken like someone who is presuming that the only reason the Confederate flag is a sensitive topic is slavery. Its history goes considerably beyond that. And I'm not just talking about distant ancestors. I can speak about a maternal grandfather who was killed by those waving that flag after one of the largest race riots in U.S. history when southern whites attacked and killed thousands of African Americans. I can speak about living relatives trying to attend desegregated schools who were attacked by people waving that flag. I can speak personally about racial slurs being hurled my way by dudes with that flag in the back of a pickup truck. Bitch asses always did that driving in the other direction. Never were man enough to say it to my face. But whatever.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

Slaves were 12.9% of the population in 1860, but 14.7% in 1840. That's the data, the rest of the commentary is pointless and largely conjecture, which, as usual, you use to whatever advantage you can.

Just because the white population increased (in large part due to higher immigration) thereby reducing the slave population as a percentage of the total population ... that doesn't mean the slave population itself wasn't still expanding in number. Again. From your own sources ...

1840: Total Slave Population - 2,487,355

1860: Total Slave Population - 3,950,528

So seriously. Just. Stop. Your initial source did NOT support your claim that "slavery was already down >25%". Nor do these. But if you really are delusional enough to think that an increase in the slave population of 1.46 million is some sort of "severe decline" ... then by all means carry on. I'm simply not inclined to discuss the issue further if you insist on rejecting reason, misrepresenting your own sources, and dismissing the evidence staring you right in the face.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

If you don't understand population growth and the percentages, that's not my problem. Is critical analysis that hard for you? Why don't you ****ing "just stop"? Oh, right, it's about your narrative.

Like the BS about the flag of the army of Northern Virginia (only ignorant bastards call it "the Confederate Flag", because it wasn't) and things that never happened to you. My grandfather also lived through some nasty shit immigrating here from Cuba, was nearly beaten to death a few times by gangs while living in New York. Personally, I don't think you've ever encountered what you said, "racial slurs being hurled my way by dudes with that flag in the back of a pickup truck". Right... I've caught you distorting and fabricating too many times, again to fit your agenda, for you to ever be taken seriously.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

If you don't understand population growth and the percentages, that's not my problem. Is critical analysis that hard for you?

I think I've already aptly demonstrated that the one who doesn't "understand population growth and the percentages" is YOU. I already explained in my previous post how your so-called "decline in slavery" was the result of increased population growth of whites. NOT because of any decrease in the number of black slaves. Again, your own sources indicated a 1.46 million increase in the black slave population. That's not a "severe decline" any way you slice it!

So let's be clear for the record. It was you who said "slavery was already down >25%". And when I called you out because your original source did NOT say that AT ALL ... you doubled down with two additional sources where you said that the % of slaves in the total population in 1840 and 1860 was 14.7% and 12.9% respectively. Well that's only a difference of 1.8%! A far cry from the 25% decline you claimed. Even if you want to calculate the percentage as the change relative to the 1840 figure you are still only talking about a 12.2% difference. So you STILL haven't provided any evidence to support what you SAID. Repeatedly. Even if what you MEANT was "the % of the U.S. population in slavery was already down >25%" .... you STILL haven't even backed that up! But in your mind I'M the one having a hard time with critical analysis. Umm. Yeah. Ok.

In any event, let me put it to you this way. Say you have a working couple and the husband and wife each makes $40k. So total household income is $80k and each accounts for 50% of it. The next year the husband gets a 25% raise so he's now making $50k. The wife OTOH gets a really big promotion and her salary nearly doubles to $75k. So now the total household income is $125k and the husband and wife account for 40% and 60% of it respectively. Follow me?

So even though the husband got a 25% raise and increased his salary by $10k ... by your "logic" his income is in "decline" because his percentage of total household income is 10% lower than what it was the previous year. That, in a nutshell, is what your ridiculous "argument" about slavery prior to the Civil War boils down to!

As is all too often the case you seem inclined to embrace unsupported foolishness with CONVICTION ... despite all evidence to the contrary. As if that is going to magically give you some semblance of credibility on the topic at hand. So please proceed Governor.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

You could have simply said, "no, I don't understand it". But then, you like to hear yourself talk, most people of your ilk do.

[BadKosh]

After all the leftwing BS and whining, emoting and typical behavior, do you actually think blacks will be less violent and over-reacting to every little thing with the Confederate Flag out of sight? Will asses like Sharpton, Jackson and Obama STFU, or will they continue to incite?

[subego]

Incite.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by subego 

Incite.

Thanks! Fixed it. ( I was thinking encode or some such BS)

[Jawbone54]

When social justice warriors make a big deal of something that 90% of us are rolling out eyes at, I completely understand and support the pushback, especially if it's infringing on First Amendment rights or legitimate historical traditions (such as a Ten Commandment statue in a courthouse).

The Confederate flag is not one of those issues. I live in an area where it's only used to intimidate black people, and I've seen fights started because of it on several occasions. It had no business flying above a state capitol.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You could have simply said, "no, I don't understand it". But then, you like to hear yourself talk, most people of your ilk do.

My point here is that your own sources simply don't support the conclusions you are reaching. And you could have simply attempted to offer an actual rebuttal to my arguments. You know like actually demonstrate where my logic was faulty or I was misquoting a source or my numbers were off. But that's pretty difficult to to do when the facts are against you right? Like how this "25% decline" figure you claimed is actually in reference to the number of whites who owned slaves according to your own source. NOT a reduction in the number of slaves, the profitability of slavery, or anything related to the institution of slavery itself. Perhaps you simply aren't familiar with the concept of wealth concentration? Which is quite "odd" given your carefully crafted persona on the forum. So instead you resort to being smug and dismissive. As those of your ilk so often do. But I would expect no less from our Resident Forum Internet Expert. So carry on. Clearly trying to reason with you on this topic is an exercise in futility. I'm done.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

The Confederate flag is not one of those issues. I live in an area where it's only used to intimidate black people, and I've seen fights started because of it on several occasions. It had no business flying above a state capitol.

Exactly. Given its history it has no business in public, taxpayer supported governmental institutions. Museums? Fine. Private businesses want to sell it? Fine. Display it on private property? Fine. This really is a no-brainer.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Like the BS about the flag of the army of Northern Virginia (only ignorant bastards call it "the Confederate Flag", because it wasn't)

You mean the flag of the General-in-Chief of the Confederate Army? You mean the design that was integrated into later revisions of the Confederate Flag? That flag?



Aside from you ignoring my replies to you earlier, and mainly insulting OAW, I also posted relevant parts of the Confederate Constitution that I thought made some damn fine points.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

When social justice warriors make a big deal of something that 90% of us are rolling out eyes at, I completely understand and support the pushback, especially if it's infringing on First Amendment rights or legitimate historical traditions (such as a Ten Commandment statue in a courthouse).

The Confederate flag is not one of those issues. I live in an area where it's only used to intimidate black people, and I've seen fights started because of it on several occasions. It had no business flying above a state capitol.

That's just... listen, we both live in the "deep South", I'd sat LA. and TN. are probably two of the closest states WRT to political/ideological views and I can only count on 2 fingers where I've witnessed direct white-on-black racism with Lee's standard on display and both were Klan rallies that I was protesting (both of the rallies were eerily peaceful, except for the people throwing shit and cursing at the members of the Klan, which pissed me off but is rather understandable).

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

My point here is that your own sources simply don't support the conclusions you are reaching. And you could have simply attempted to offer an actual rebuttal to my arguments. You know like actually demonstrate where my logic was faulty or I was misquoting a source or my numbers were off. But that's pretty difficult to to do when the facts are against you right? Like how this "25% decline" figure you claimed is actually in reference to the number of whites who owned slaves according to your own source. NOT a reduction in the number of slaves, the profitability of slavery, or anything related to the institution of slavery itself. Perhaps you simply aren't familiar with the concept of wealth concentration? Which is quite "odd" given your carefully crafted persona on the forum. So instead you resort to being smug and dismissive. As those of your ilk so often do. But I would expect no less from our Resident Forum Internet Expert. So carry on. Clearly trying to reason with you on this topic is an exercise in futility. I'm done.

OAW

Blah, blah, blah. You've been done for a long-assed time and debating anything with you is, almost literally, a week-long circlejerk with no payoff. However, for others I'll just leave this here:

1800 - black slaves were 16.8% of the population, ~91% of blacks in the US were slaves.
1820 - black slaves were 15.5% of the population, ~85% of blacks in the US were slaves.
1840 - black slaves were 14.6% of the population, ~72% of blacks in the US were slaves.
1850 - black slaves were 13.8% of the population, ~65% of blacks in the US were slaves.
1860 - black slaves were 12.5% of the population, ~57% of blacks in the US were slaves.
In 1870 there were, of course, no slaves (officially), but over 650,000 people died, including ~40-60k blacks (sources are conflicting with regard to the actual number).

Was the decline, relative to overall population, fast enough? Of course not, slavery can never be justified. Is 25% substantial? Yes it is.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You mean the flag of the General-in-Chief of the Confederate Army? You mean the design that was integrated into later revisions of the Confederate Flag? That flag?

Yep, the flag of the soldiers, not the flag of that union. Have you read the book Why We Fight? If you've not you really should, it's free if you have Amazon Prime and I highly recommend it (it beats the shit out of the movie, which was far too political and Cold War-focused). The pride felt by people who are native to the South is centered around the people who fought and died, what they believed they were fighting for (which is what the US was fighting for in the American Revolutionary War) the right to self-determination. That was their reality, despite what the majority of modern history books say about the Confederacy itself.

Aside from you ignoring my replies to you earlier, and mainly insulting OAW, I also posted relevant parts of the Confederate Constitution that I thought made some damn fine points.

If you go back and look at who started that (and practically all of the nastiness between us) you'll see a different picture. By doling out equal measure of distaste I'm often vilified, while he's essentially never taken to task for his part. Is that equality?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Blah, blah, blah. You've been done for a long-assed time and debating anything with you is, almost literally, a week-long circlejerk with no payoff. However, for others I'll just leave this here:

1800 - black slaves were 16.8% of the population, ~91% of blacks in the US were slaves.
1820 - black slaves were 15.5% of the population, ~85% of blacks in the US were slaves.
1840 - black slaves were 14.6% of the population, ~72% of blacks in the US were slaves.
1850 - black slaves were 13.8% of the population, ~65% of blacks in the US were slaves.
1860 - black slaves were 12.5% of the population, ~57% of blacks in the US were slaves.
In 1870 there were, of course, no slaves (officially), but over 650,000 people died, including ~40-60k blacks (sources are conflicting with regard to the actual number).

Was the decline, relative to overall population, fast enough? Of course not, slavery can never be justified. Is 25% substantial? Yes it is.

I see with a little prodding you can actually manage to make a supportable point! Had you simply started off with this post I wouldn't have needed to expose you for COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTING your first source only to flail about with two other sources that STILL didn't support your claim. But if at first you don't succeed .... try try again right?!

Now that part in bold is what makes your statement accurate. Of course, that's not what you said at first where you claimed "slavery was already down >25%". You see when you don't say anything about "relative to the overall population" ... repeatedly .... then that gives the impression that slavery itself as an institution was down more than 25%. Which may or may not have been your intent. But let's roll with the supposition that you were not trying to be deceptive. Again from your own sources ....

1800: Total Slave Population - 893,602

1860: Total Slave Population - 3,953,761

So my point stands. Slavery as an institution in 1860 had increased well over 300% since 1800. While I acknowledge the validity of what you are now accurately stating ... can you acknowledge the validity of what I'm saying which is that from a business perspective that is incredible growth? Come on man ... we are on a Mac forum after all! Can't you see that this is essentially the ongoing iPhone debate? The iPhone business continues to grow year over year like gangbusters. Profits continue to be through the roof. Steadily increasing over time. But some want to claim that "Apple is doomed!" because its overall smartphone marketshare is declining. An Apple investor would be a fool to sell his/her stock when the iPhone business is experiencing that kind of growth rate. Well you are essentially making the same kind of "Slavery is doomed!" argument because its share of the "overall employment market" was declining. Even though the slavery business itself was booming! And those invested in the slavery business were looking to expand it.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Yes, it was what I was saying, but you don't try to look into what a person means, not if it doesn't fit your narrative (then go on for several paragraphs in the other direction).

and No, relative to population, that's not "incredible growth". No business (and slavery was a business) would be excited over a net percentage loss year-over-year. It was a change in tenor in the USA itself, it was becoming increasingly distasteful everywhere, not just the North.

In the South the separation from the Union wasn't billed as a preservation of slavery, it was presented as a war against the undermining of states' rights and due process. The soldiers fighting for the South, by and large, fought for those things, not to keep human beings as property (which almost none of them did, because they were more like the slaves themselves, poor and marginalized). Here we revere the struggle and courage of the people who fought, not the motivations of the then-1% and bureaucrats. Hindsight is 20/20, we now recognize a great deal of what was going on behind the scenes and have access to sources of information they wouldn't be able to imagine.

Lee's battle flag was their flag, the soldiers' standard, and those soldiers were family to the people here. That's why many in these parts respect it today, not because it could be construed as racist by some.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

1800 - black slaves were 16.8% of the population, ~91% of blacks in the US were slaves.
1820 - black slaves were 15.5% of the population, ~85% of blacks in the US were slaves.
1840 - black slaves were 14.6% of the population, ~72% of blacks in the US were slaves.
1850 - black slaves were 13.8% of the population, ~65% of blacks in the US were slaves.
1860 - black slaves were 12.5% of the population, ~57% of blacks in the US were slaves.

This is a case of looking at the wrong stat. If you include the north, that was hiding fugitive slaves and allowing them to live on, of course the % drops rapidly. But what about in the south? What % of the black pop in SC or Virginia was free? Or just the slave states vs. the north?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Yep, the flag of the soldiers, not the flag of that union.

The flag of the lead soldier. Plus, it's part of the Confederate flag! Does that somehow mean for nothing?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That was their reality, despite what the majority of modern history books say about the Confederacy itself.

Ah, your one source is better than everyone else's source.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

By doling out equal measure of distaste I'm often vilified, while he's essentially never taken to task for his part. Is that equality?

Fair enough, but most of the shorter posts I read don't tend to be shitting on you.

Now, about my points about the Confederate Constitution...?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's fair.

Perhaps whoever was in charge of removal played things wide rather than be seen as lax.

Surprise, surprise, they're reinstating some games as predicted.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is a case of looking at the wrong stat. If you include the north, that was hiding fugitive slaves and allowing them to live on, of course the % drops rapidly. But what about in the south? What % of the black pop in SC or Virginia was free? Or just the slave states vs. the north?

People weren't automatically born into slavery, there were many free blacks in the South, despite what popular dogma wants everyone to believe.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The flag of the lead soldier. Plus, it's part of the Confederate flag! Does that somehow mean for nothing?

Yeah, it doesn't mean much. That wasn't until it had been adopted by the infantry.

Ah, your one source is better than everyone else's source.

Or you can try to see this objectively and actually take time to look at the people involved, on the ground (would involve actually reading newspapers and correspondence from that time). I spent years looking at it all, still do, and see no reason to think the common officers and soldiers were fighting to keep slaves.

Fair enough, but most of the shorter posts I read don't tend to be shitting on you.

No, the shitting comes with the long diatribes when he starts pontificating.

Now, about my points about the Confederate Constitution...?

The one that wasn't actually made public record until after the war? It was pinned up in a few places but since there was no distribution and most citizens likely didn't entirely know what was in the damned thing. How many Americans nowadays can quote the US Constitution (including the BoR)?

[OAW]

Let's be clear. My first post directed at CTP was here. I stated explicitly that while it was a sensitive topic and I didn't want things to devolve into personal attacks. I then proceeded to explain how his ARGUMENT was disingenuous because HIS OWN SOURCE didn't support what he was saying. Quite the opposite actually. It simply did NOT say "slavery was down >25%". I said he was misrepresenting what the article stated. Which actually was that the % of whites who owned slaves was down 25%. Now that is a FACT. Nothing personal at all. I was simply sticking to the topic at hand. But in his VERY FIRST reply to me he doesn't address my counter-argument AT ALL. Instead he makes it personal about what he thinks I have and have not experienced individually. But I'm "shitting" on him? Yeah. Ok.

In any event, he then shifted gears and said he meant "# slaves relative to the total population was down >25%". Fine. Whatever. But his original source STILL doesn't say that. A point he refuses to even address let alone acknowledge. I also countered that and gave several analogies of why I thought that particular ARGUMENT was flawed. But instead of even attempting a counter-argument he simply repeated his assertions. Because anyone who is paying attention knows that while CTP has constructed this persona of being an "authority" on just about any given topic of discussion around here ... when he's challenged he is long on DISMISSAL and short on REBUTTAL. Then he tries to make it seem like I'm the one tripping because mind-reading abilities over the Internet isn't really my strong suit ... and therefore my posts were based upon what he SAID and not what he supposedly MEANT. Yeah. Ok.

Now it's no secret around here that CTP isn't particularly fond of me. And I imagine that's because when I engage with him my posts have a way of showing how more often than not he's full of it. As his misrepresentation of his original source and refusal to admit it so clearly demonstrates. So I understand his animus. I get it. My only suggestion is ...

Don't be bitter. Be better.

OAW

[sscreener]

OAW,
Good job.
Tightpants needs to loosen them up a bit.

[Doc HM]

I found this BBC article on the history of the confederate flag and the surprisingly recent use of it as a symbol quite interesting.
Often the received wisdom of why something is as it is is, is not how it is (is there enough it's there?)

Confederate flag: Why it is so potent in the US
Confederate flag: Why it is so potent in the US - BBC News

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by sscreener 

OAW,
Good job.
Tightpants needs to loosen them up a bit.

Hey look, screamer is back!

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now it's no secret around here that CTP isn't particularly fond of me. And I imagine that's because when I engage with him my posts have a way of showing how more often than not he's full of it. As his misrepresentation of his original source and refusal to admit it so clearly demonstrates. So I understand his animus. I get it. My only suggestion is ...

Nope, it's because you repeatedly made shit up about me and then tried to dox me (and failed). If you're too ****ing stupid to realize that, then, shit man, I'm not sure what to say to you. Frankly, you should have been kicked from the forum for the latter, and almost was, but I didn't press it.

[BadKosh]

So when do we start getting rid of the Black Racist organizations like the NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, BET, etc, etc? When will the media start dumping the race baiters like Sharpton, Jackson, et al??
Whats good for the gander is good for the goose.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Apple Pulls Civil War Games From App Store For Images Of Confederate Battle Flag Used In “Offensive” Ways – Consumerist

Yep, apparently so. I think there's a big difference between flying this flag proudly as your own ideology, and displaying it in historical context. As a commenter said, you wouldn't have a WWII game without the german flag or swastikas.

That said, I'm sure our international friends could tell us something about the display of the swastika.

People may still have the RIGHT to fly the confederate battle flag, but it's sure going to be hard for them to buy one.

Since there has been a call to ban "Gone with the Wind" , will Apple be consistent and pull movies like "The Outlaw Josey Wales"' the mini series "The North and The South", and other Civil War themed media from the iTunes store? Apple also has "Tom Sawyer" and "Huck Finn" for sale as iBooks and audio books.

[subego]

Consistency from Apple in this regard would be to pull them, and then put them back up.

[Waragainstsleep]

It seems odd to pull a game with historical context for using the flag of the day. Unless the game was intended for you to play as Confederate and go around enslaving black people rather than just some kind of tactical war game.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Nope, it's because you repeatedly made shit up about me and then tried to dox me (and failed). If you're too ****ing stupid to realize that, then, shit man, I'm not sure what to say to you. Frankly, you should have been kicked from the forum for the latter, and almost was, but I didn't press it.

First of all ... your animus towards me extends well before that particular conflict. Second, you were by no means "doxed". Jeez man you act like I posted your home address or SSN or something. No one "made sh* t up about you". Googling an image hosting account you use around here simply had some "interesting" results elsewhere on the Internet. So you either aren't quite who you portray yourself to be around here ... or you might want to look into that cop who's using your account. Take your pick.

Almost kicked off the forum??? Really? When not a single mod even gave me a point over it? It's like you have this need to always portray yourself like you are "in the know" about everything. Hence my nickname for you. It's almost ... pathological.

In any event ... this is precisely what I was saying I didn't want this to become in my first post to you. But you didn't respond kind. And I'm not inclined to continue down this road with you so I think it's best I put you back on my ignore list.

OAW

PS: And we both know you simply won't man up and just admit you misrepresented your own source. That would be too much like right. Thought I didn't notice the deflection huh?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

First of all ... your animus towards me extends well before that particular conflict. Second, you were by no means "doxed". Jeez man you act like I posted your home address or SSN or something. No one "made sh* t up about you". Googling an image hosting account you use around here simply had some "interesting" results elsewhere on the Internet. So you either aren't quite who you portray yourself to be around here ... or you might want to look into that cop who's using your account. Take your pick.

Almost kicked off the forum??? Really? When not a single mod even gave me a point over it? It's like you have this need to always portray yourself like you are "in the know" about everything. Hence my nickname for you. It's almost ... pathological.

In any event ... this is precisely what I was saying I didn't want this to become in my first post to you. But you didn't respond kind. And I'm not inclined to continue down this road with you so I think it's best I put you back on my ignore list.

More lies and misrepresentation from you, how unsurprising. You thought you had "discovered me", posted what you thought was my name, even the place where you thought I worked. How is that not an attempted doxxing, and an overall shit thing to do, you ignorant sociopath? What would have been the ultimate goal for that, private life invasion and at-work harassment? Of course. I had to call the place (a goddamned sheriff's dept) and explain that some loser (you) had behaved like a dick and it could lead to something unpleasant. That it was a case of mistaken identity.

Do you even think? Is that something you're capable of? No, I really don't believe it is, unfortunately. An admin went through (that very night) and hastily scrubbed the offending posts from that thread when they saw what you'd done (something they very rarely do), sent you a PM warming, and moved on hoping you wouldn't attempt such a thing again. No doubt you didn't receive any "points" because there wasn't even a rule on MacNN for what you'd done, because they hadn't imagined beforehand that a regular here could be such a massive jerk over a forum discussion.

So, while I'll admit I didn't like you before, that confirmed to me you'll do anything to try and silence a person you disagree with, Social Justice style. No matter how much it could negatively impact another's life, even cause an innocent person trouble at their job, all over a silly political discussion (and you getting your drawers in a bunch). Which has led to my nickname for you, which I won't repeat in mixed company (because I do have at least some standards).

PS: And we both know you simply won't man up and just admit you misrepresented your own source. That would be too much like right. Thought I didn't notice the deflection huh?

Deflection? You "sir" have the self-awareness of a goldfish.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

More lies and misrepresentation from you, how unsurprising. You thought you had "discovered me", posted what you thought was my name, even the place where you thought I worked. How is that not an attempted doxxing, and an overall shit thing to do, you ignorant sociopath? What would have been the ultimate goal for that, private life invasion and at-work harassment? Of course. I had to call the place (a goddamned sheriff's dept) and explain that some loser (you) had behaved like a dick and it could lead to something unpleasant. That it was a case of mistaken identity.

Do you even think? Is that something you're capable of? No, I really don't believe it is, unfortunately. An admin went through (that very night) and hastily scrubbed the offending posts from that thread when they saw what you'd done (something they very rarely do), sent you a PM warming, and moved on hoping you wouldn't attempt such a thing again. No doubt you didn't receive any "points" because there wasn't even a rule on MacNN for what you'd done, because they hadn't imagined beforehand that a regular here could be such a massive jerk over a forum discussion.

So, while I'll admit I didn't like you before, that confirmed to me you'll do anything to try and silence a person you disagree with, Social Justice style. No matter how much it could negatively impact another's life, even cause an innocent person trouble at their job, all over a silly political discussion (and you getting your drawers in a bunch). Which has led to my nickname for you, which I won't repeat in mixed company (because I do have at least some standards).



Deflection? You "sir" have the self-awareness of a goldfish.

Does anyone else around here notice this pattern that CTP has of making arguments based upon certain "knowledge" that he just so happens to not ever be able to substantiate? IJS

It's true that in that particular conflict not only were my posts towards you but also your posts towards me were deleted by an admin. The latter part which you just conveniently failed to mention. Imagine that. Why? Because things had gotten OT. But no admin sent me a PM "warning". AT ALL. And here's the million dollar question. If an admin had sent me a PM warning ... how would you even know? Isn't "private" the operative word???

You see that's the sh*t I'm talking about. This PATHOLOGICAL need you seem to have to put yourself "in the know" causes you to make statements that quite frankly make you look like a complete idiot. I've been on these boards since 2001. And in that entire time I've been reprimanded by a mod ONCE (back in 2009) and received a grand total of 56 PMs. So clearly I'm not a "behind the scenes" player around here. If I have something to say I'll say it publicly on the board. I've been a shrinking violet around here when exactly?

I could post a screenshot of the the summary list of all my PMs quite easily and show just how full of sh*t you are because no admin is on it "warning" me about anything related to your sorry ass. But people who have also expressed how they think you are full of sh*t are also on the list and I simply will not betray their confidence. So keep talking CTP. You so amuse me.

OAW

[Chongo]

Nice move Walmart.
Walmart Apologizes For Making ISIS Flag Cake After Denying Request For Confederate Flag | Mediaite

[BadKosh]

So is this the WWF of MacNN?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Does anyone else around here notice this pattern that CTP has of making arguments based upon certain "knowledge" that he just so happens to not ever be able to substantiate? IJS

It's true that in that particular conflict not only were my posts towards you but also your posts towards me were deleted by an admin. The latter part which you just conveniently failed to mention. Imagine that. Why? Because things had gotten OT. But no admin sent me a PM "warning". AT ALL. And here's the million dollar question. If an admin had sent me a PM warning ... how would you even know? Isn't "private" the operative word???

You see that's the sh*t I'm talking about. This PATHOLOGICAL need you seem to have to put yourself "in the know" causes you to make statements that quite frankly make you look like a complete idiot. I've been on these boards since 2001. And in that entire time I've been reprimanded by a mod ONCE (back in 2009) and received a grand total of 56 PMs. So clearly I'm not a "behind the scenes" player around here. If I have something to say I'll say it publicly on the board. I've been a shrinking violet around here when exactly?

I could post a screenshot of the the summary list of all my PMs quite easily and show just how full of sh*t you are because no admin is on it "warning" me about anything related to your sorry ass. But people who have also expressed how they think you are full of sh*t are also on the list and I simply will not betray their confidence. So keep talking CTP. You so amuse me.

OAW

"Does anyone else...?" Yeah, cry out for help, plea to get bailed out, you spineless worm. The only things pathological around here are your outrageous lies and pattern of abuse. Of course my replies to your comments were deleted, nearly a whole page of posts were removed, you nutcase. (Along with picking out the only thing you possibly could try to refute, because you know I can't/won't post the PMs I had with the staff about the incident.) You really are that rare kind of malevolent creep, I'm simply glad I don't know you in RL (and imagine most of the people who do probably wish they could say the same). What a sad, small little thing you are.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

An admin went through (that very night) and hastily scrubbed the offending posts from that thread when they saw what you'd done (something they very rarely do), sent you a PM warming, and moved on hoping you wouldn't attempt such a thing again.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

(Along with picking out the only thing you possibly could try to refute, because you know I can't/won't post the PMs I had with the staff about the incident.)

This from the guy who posted an unsent draft PM he claims he sent to me (which he never did) as "proof" that he's not on my ignore list. For the record, if (and that's a big IF) an admin told you s/he sent me a "warning" PM about that conflict then that person was only humoring you. Because it never happened. Of course, the more likely explanation is that you simply pulled that claim out of your ass. Much like others you make around here. You know like when you misrepresented your own source and claimed this ...

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

slavery was already down >25% in just the 10 years before the civil war even started ...

... when what it actually said was this ...

During the 1850s, the percentage of the total white population owning slaves declined significantly. By 1860, the proportion of whites holding slaves had fallen from about one-third to one-fourth.

In any event ...

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Yeah, it doesn't mean much. That wasn't until it had been adopted by the infantry.

They're intrinsically linked. You can't divorce one from the other, anymore than you can divorce the Australian or New Zealand flags from Britain.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The one that wasn't actually made public record until after the war? It was pinned up in a few places but since there was no distribution and most citizens likely didn't entirely know what was in the damned thing. How many Americans nowadays can quote the US Constitution (including the BoR)?

Are you trying to to tell me what the founding fathers (and Administration) of the confederacy wrote into their constitution somehow doesn't matter? That's some pro-level dismissiveness.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

This from the guy who posted an unsent draft PM he claims he sent to me (which he never did) as "proof" that he's not on my ignore list. For the record, if (and that's a big IF) an admin told you s/he sent me a "warning" PM about that conflict then that person was only humoring you. Because it never happened. Of course, the more likely explanation is that you simply pulled that claim out of your ass. Much like others you make around here. In any event ...



OAW

Which is a deflection and has nothing to do with the attempted doxxing asshattery you perpetrated, re. the meat of why I find you to be so contemptible. Just admit you're a scumbag SJ warrior who resorts to such underhanded, potentially life-damaging tactics, just to try and "win" forum arguments, and I'll move on. Fat chance of that, given your lack of ethics.

Though for shits and giggles I will help you with the PM thing. If you click on "Send PM", which is what I did, and the person has you on ignore, it'll tell you you can't do that. FYI. So, no, you didn't have me on ignore, that's a lie like all the others.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

They're intrinsically linked. You can't divorce one from the other, anymore than you can divorce the Australian or New Zealand flags from Britain.

As I said earlier the Joe-regular soldier thought he was fighting against gov't tyranny and for his state's rights, and that is correct, from their perspective. The letters and other writings from the soldiers themselves makes that abundantly clear. They certainly weren't monsters, as many of progressive persuasion want to paint them as today.

Are you trying to to tell me what the founding fathers (and Administration) of the confederacy wrote into their constitution somehow doesn't matter? That's some pro-level dismissiveness.

Strawman. I didn't say it didn't matter, of course it does, I'm saying that most of the common citizenry never had the chance to even read the thing. It certainly wasn't a case of Southern folks fighting to keep slaves, especially in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority never did.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Though for shits and giggles I will help you with the PM thing. If you click on "Send PM", which is what I did, and the person has you on ignore, it'll tell you you can't do that. FYI. So, no, you didn't have me on ignore, that's a lie like all the others.

You sure about that?




We've had this conversation before about how you clearly don't understand how the ignore function actually works. Yet you continue to talk sh*t anyway. It's just .... odd.

In any event, the time has long since passed for me to resist the temptation to click the "View Post" links. I already figured you wouldn't engage substantively on the topic at hand when I first responded to your post. But I decided to give it a shot anyway. My mistake.

OAW