aalvare2 @ aalvare2 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

131

Joined

2 yr. ago

When the bar is at a reasonable height, sure.

But when the other guy did worse with more documents AND didn’t cooperate, and HE didn’t get charged until after he was caught obstructing the investigation, well then the bar’s in hell.

Saying it was about taxes leaves it open to "unfair taxes without representation".

Yeah? Well I’d argue that saying “slavery” leaves it open for “the strengthening the federal government in support of slavery.”

So yeah, I'll take down votes in exchange for details. That shit often matters in history

I’m gonna presume to know something about the majority of internet strangers who’ve downvoted you: they didn’t downvote your details. They downvoted your assertion that the details challenge the idea that it was about slavery. It seems to us like you’re being overly pedantic.

You’re not a martyr for truth, you’re a martyr for your personal opinion on the answer to the question “assuming the Civil War was principally about strengthening the federal government in support of slavery: is saying that the Civil War was about slavery a reasonable summation?”

If instead of saying “it wasn’t about slavery bc …” you’d just said “for some added nuance, …”, then most of your downvotes would be from ppl challenging your information.

As for that information, do you have any arguments against what GoodbyeBlueMonday or banneryear1868 have said? They are, so far, the only ppl to cite actual sources, and it apprears neither of them agree with your assertion that it wasn’t “about slavery”. And reading/listening to their sources doesn’t convince me of that, either.

It sounds like your argument is “if it’s okay to be reductionist, then there are no limits.” But there can totally be limits - it depends on the size of the leap.

All of your posts can be boiled down to “it was about strengthening the federal government, specifically in support of slavery”, but reducing this further to “it was about slavery” isn’t a big leap. That’s what the downvotes are all telling you.

Saying the American Revolution was about

England trying to collect taxes after not really caring while simultaneously cracking down on smuggling

And boiling that down to “it was about tea” is a WAY bigger leap than the one about the Civil War.

A similarly sized leap would probably be saying “it was about taxes.” Personally, I wouldn’t care enough to “um, actually” someone who’d make that kind of leap.

Don’t take this person’s criticisms too hard. They posted a lot of strongly opinionated comments on this thread.

For whatever reason they’re being antagonistic mostly to people on this thread like you who clearly do care, at least enough to not do literally nothing. Not sure if that’s some sort of strategy, or bad social skills , or potentially just trolling.

I think what you’re doing is fine - it’s something I’ve done a couple times.

Take my upvote and get the fuck outta here

Fair enough. I didn’t watch 33 and 34 but I’ve watched some of S35. It hasn’t been great by any means but I loved E2.

I felt like that kinda fit the vibe of this video though - that new simpsons isn’t consistently good, but there are some gems in there so long as I’m okay with it not being like old simpsons.

I’m a fan of this guy’s work, but honestly when I saw that headline I figured he probably wasn’t gonna convince me.

Fast-forward an hour later and I gotta say…I think the Simpsons might be good again.

I think it just comes down to whether you appreciate more sunlight before school/work, or after.

I don’t really care how much sun there is before 8:30-ish. In fact, I hate when I try to get 1 more hour of sleep and I can’t b/c early dawn’s leaking in, so I actually prefer a later sunrise.

But when I leave work, I freaking LOVE bathing in sunlight for as long as I can, thinking “my biggest responsibilities of the day are done, and the day’s not even over yet”.

Where I’m from, standard time in winter means 6ish is pitch black - I prefer to at least have late dusk by that time.

The Samsung Galaxy Note 10 Lite does that. If I’m not mistaken, some budget phones nowadays still do that.

Even if they don’t, as long as there’s a headphone jack, it might be possible to add good FM Radio support with NextRadio/Spirit2. You might need to root your phone, though.

Look, if the guy was doing 80 on a backroad in pitch black, you’d probably be right, fair?

If the guy was driving a little too fast, so maybe 15-20, and couldn’t imagine GPS would successfully guide him over an un-barricaded, warning sign-less cliff, I think he deserves a little more slack. If you disagree, then take the stand as a character witness in the trial, for all I care.

I’m not talking about the level of responsibility he has as the driver of the vehicle, I’m talking about the degree to which it’s okay to mock him (post-mortem, I might add).

It sounds like you’d argue that Google Maps and the bridge managers should win this lawsuit (assuming this even goes to court) under ACDA laws. Maybe you’re right. But there’s a large gap between just saying that, and then also saying “this is natural selection taking its course”.

Say that about the dude that sticks his dick in an electrical socket, or the guy that shoots himself because a magic 8-ball affirmed that he was bullet-proof. Don’t say it about a guy who probably just drove a little too fast, with visibility a little too low, a little too confident that a GPS system wouldn’t guide him over a literal cliff.

As far as I’m concerned, this was a preventable tragedy, yes preventable by more cautious driving, but also by better GPS, or by barricades, or by so much as a visible warning sign.

Feel free to correct me, but I’m reading “Darwin applies here” as “the guy was too dumb to live longer”, which I think would be pretty insensitive. Regardless, I don’t think it’s fair at all to invoke Darwin here.

This article paints a better picture of the driver’s perspective. It was late at night and rainy, so vision was obscured and allegedly “pitch black”. Furthermore I’d argue the average driver doesn’t have a reason to believe that Google Maps would direct them over a collapsed bridge, much less one that’d collapsed 10 years ago, so it’d be easier to say “Can’t see a damn thing, I’ll trust Maps”.

I obviously don’t know the guy at all, and the details above were taken from the lawsuit afaik so they can make any claim they want, but with so little other information I think it’s fair to paint this more as a tragedy than as “natural selection”, even if you don’t want to hold Google or any of the bridge property managers responsible.

Plus, the guy had a wife and 2 kids, and was driving home late from cleaning up from his daughter’s birthday party; I think he deserves a bit more respect than that.

Do you have a link to this piece that you could share?