The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Figueira]

This is one of the best posts I've seen here in a while.

"Does an ethnic group have a right to a national homeland?"

No.


No ethnic group "deserves" anything. If an ethnic group can "deserve" a state, then you can also say an ethnic group "deserves" punishment for something.

The end result is Segregation. A splintered world with a country for each arbitrary ethno/cultural group. Divide them all up by the groupings that some currently use to classify people, according to some arbitrary criteria. Judging which groups of people do or don't have "legitimate" reasons to have a country. Declaring that some ethnicities and religions couldn't and shouldn't share the same country, because of the >1% violent extremists. Declaring it's a fool's dream to have countries not based on one specific ethnicity/culture/religion. Saying that some ethnicities and religions (defining and judging thousands or millions of individual humans by their association with these classifications) have to live separately until they "learn to play nice." ...

That would be a defeat. A defeat for human rights, a defeat for liberal democracy, a defeat for secularism and interfaith harmony, a defeat for multiculturalism, a defeat for individualism, a defeat for viewing humanity as one people.

You shouldn't establish new states simply because an (or each) ethnicity "deserves" its own state. If one state isn't being multicultural/secular and is oppressing some people, and those people then want to declare an independent state, yes definitely let them and support them. But not because they as an ethnicity "deserve" a state. No ethnicity deserves anything. Their new state should strive to be secular and multicultural, not just replicating the same kind of environment as the country they're trying to secede from, just with a different ethnicity.

We should have countries that aren't officially affiliated with any one segment of the population, but with humanity in general. Allowing all who live in each country to be treated as equals and fully belonging, where no one is discriminated against or excluded. A government/state/country that belongs to a place, not to one particular subgrouping of humanity.

Do you know the path of those who believe that an ethnicity/culture/religion can collectively "deserve" something as an ethnicity/culture/religion? Do you see that such a view would be against individualism, and could swing the other way, saying an entire ethnic/religious/cultural group can "deserve" punishment, or don't "deserve" independence, etc.?

Like I said, if a country is affiliated with one particular group and oppressing another particularly group, and that oppressed group wants independence, I am fine with it. But their new country shouldn't then be affiliated with a particular group either.

For example, Massachusetts versus Rhode Island in colonial times. Puritans felt oppressed in England, so some came to the New World and founded Massachusetts. But as they implemented their theocratic Puritan society, other people felt oppressed under them too, and some were even exiled. One was Roger Williams, who then founded Providence (which became the capital of RI). But instead of repeating the cycle yet again, Roger Williams chose to make Providence a safe haven for people of all creeds: all forms of Christianity, and even Jews, were welcome, and everyone was told they could follow whatever religion they wanted. (Williams even made peace with the Native Americans, legally bought the land from them, and attempted intercultural dialogue and wrote the first Native American dictionary.) Follow the example of colonial Massachusetts and continue the cycle, or follow the example of colonial Rhode Island and break free of the cycle? That's what I'm talking about, when I say no country should be affiliated with a particular culture/religion/ethnicity/whatever.

[Figueira]

But considering demographic changes that often occur, ethnic cleansing might sometimes be necessary to maintain that solid majority, which is why I find your views problematic.

[Figueira]

But considering demographic changes that often occur, ethnic cleansing might sometimes be necessary to maintain that solid majority, which is why I find your views problematic.

It still constitutes a clear exaggeration. There are others, like the view of ethnic groups as something constantly floating and arbitrarily defined, whereas ethnic identities are generally quite stable over time once established - and it is logical that nation states and autonomy should only be given to established and well defined ethnicities.

There is no point in discussing the subject here, lets do that in thread later, but this post is clearly not gallery material with the amount of hyperbole and strawmaning in it. It is a decent first draft, but should have been revisited and rewritten after a self critical evaluation of the arguments presented to get to that level.

I still think it was a great deconstruction of your argument, although it makes sense that you wouldn't agree. But I agree that we should discuss it in the actual thread rather than here.

[Figueira]

But considering demographic changes that often occur, ethnic cleansing might sometimes be necessary to maintain that solid majority, which is why I find your views problematic.

It still constitutes a clear exaggeration. There are others, like the view of ethnic groups as something constantly floating and arbitrarily defined, whereas ethnic identities are generally quite stable over time once established - and it is logical that nation states and autonomy should only be given to established and well defined ethnicities.

There is no point in discussing the subject here, lets do that in thread later, but this post is clearly not gallery material with the amount of hyperbole and strawmaning in it. It is a decent first draft, but should have been revisited and rewritten after a self critical evaluation of the arguments presented to get to that level.

I still think it was a great deconstruction of your argument, although it makes sense that you wouldn't agree. But I agree that we should discuss it in the actual thread rather than here.

Not sure you know what that word means.

It even misunderstands what is meant by a national homeland and equates it with a nation state, despite earlier mentioning of regional autonomy as an alternative solution, so even the definition of what he is trying to argue against is flawed.

Anyway, it is best only to put posts in the gallery where you disagree (wholly or partially) with the content, that way you can evaluate the skill used more objectively. If you agree with something you tend to view the arguments in too positive a light. We so-called "simple truths" mine is a testament to that.

I'd be happy to discuss the actual argument in the actual thread.

As for your last paragraph, I'll keep that in mind in the future. However, I still think it was a good post, and it's a bit too long to be considered a "one-liner."

[Figueira]

I posted this in the funny post thread as well, but I think it's so great that it belongs here too.

in summary

Alabama: Basically all of Alabama's are boring, should pass easily. Most of Alabama's historic amendments are along the lines of "tell Random County (Pop : 12) they must rename the position of "Chief Dogcatcher" to "Dogcatcher-in-chief" or "remove Oxford comma in article 7, paragraph 4", so its no wonder the legislature has decided to clamp down on the previous requirement to hold statewide votes on random county issues with Amendment 3. RIP to that bloat. Oh yeah, and a vote on right to work (the state already has it, but eh, why not add it to the constitution?).

Alaska: automatic voter registration when Alaskans sign up for their oil money cheque. This makes sense in a state like Alaska, and is endorsed by Murkowski, Sullivan etc.

Arizona: Min wage + Marijuana

Arkansas: prevents the Lt Gov declaring a coup when Gov ambles across the state border, and also (for some reason) two medical marijuana bills, which by their powers combined ... are both failing badly. Sad!

California: Loads, pretty much all moronic, only placed on the ballot for political machinations or the work of crazy rich people and deep lobbies (who knew Big Plastic Bag was so devious?)

Colorado: although single-payer is predictably failing (COLORADONS WOULD YOU LIKE TO JUMP INTO THE MYSTERY VOID! YOU WILL END UP AS SWEDEN!), there is some interesting stuff. Like banning slavery (!) and legalising youth in asia. Also min wage, tobacco tax and open primaries.

Florida: Amendment to get medical weed (opposed by ever lovable plutocrat Sheldon Adelson) and a "pro-solar" amendment designed to strangle non-utility-owned solar power (like, literally a utility executive was leaked doing the whole "mwahaha I am fooling these fools" speech).

Georgia: nothing very interesting. An attempt to save failing schools, presumably by setting up a board of paid consultants to shake their heads and say "ah this is bad", some stuff about helping sexually abused children (presumably an attempt to estimate how many Georgians are irredeemable monsters who would vote NO, I guess) and taxing fireworks.

Hawaii: Two amendments. Both are very important issues that reflect the changing focus of the finances and ... zzzzzzzzzz

Idaho: giving the legislative branch more power over bureaucratic rules, backed by Otter, opposed by AG.

Illinois: blacks transport funds from being used for anything else. I always find these bills pretty dumb especially for a state in a budget crisis, but eh. I'm not a member of the Illliois State Legislature who has to deal with half the budget being locked up prematurely! I'd feel real bad for anybody who had to deal with that irl!

Indiana and Kansas: both states want to make it a protected right to f-ck animals. Oh wait, f-ck with animals, sorry. They want to Hunting and Fishing to the constitution as a protected right.

Louisiana: bunch of amendments, none very interesting. setting a corporate flat tax? k.

Maine: fun wedge issues, like min wage, weed, IRV, universal background checks and income tax rise on all the rich people who decide to  live in Maine (Stephen King, err, ...)

Maryland - vacancy filling stuff. not interesting.

Massachusetts: Some sexy topics here guys! Weed! Anti-Factory Farming! Casinos! more charter schools!

Minnesota - sets up one of those tedious legislative pay boards to rubber-stamp $500,000 salaries.

Montana: victim's rights bill, a ban on snares (the animal trap, not the drums; although I wouldn't be opposed to the latter), more medical memes

Nebraska: voters will probably block the legislature's repeal of the death penalty, something I knew even before I just looked up a poll.

Nevada: m a r i j u a n a, universal background checks, repeal of tax on medical equipment and a ban on energy monopolies.

New Jersey: more casinos (casinos? In New Jersey? What a novel idea!) but away from Atlantic City. Weirdly the added revenue would then be diverted back to Atlantic City.

New Mexico: All bonds, aside from an amendment on bail reform that was neutered midway through by the industry.

North Dakota: medical marijuana, raise the tobacco tax (how many states are basically financially dependent on chain-smokers now, anyway?), one of those silly laws that require state legislatures to live in their districts and not Norway or something etc.

Oklahoma: some classic stuff for the Oklahoma bashers of Atlas. A measure to enshrine the death penalty in the constitution ("Welcome to Oklahoma: We Will Kill You")? A "right to farm", whatever that means? Finally allowing full-strength beer in the state? And best of all, Question 790, which will "Repeal prohibition on public money being spent for religious purposes".

Oregon: 6 bills, nothing interesting aside from Measure 97, a huge rise on tax on big companies, which Governor Brown really wants passed. Oh yeah, and banning the trade of the products of 12 endangered species: rhino, cheetah, tiger, sea turtle, lion, elephant, whale, shark, pangolin, jaguar, ray, and leopard.

This is a pangolin btw:



what a cutie. if you vote against this after seeing him, you have no soul, soz.

Pennsylvania: judicial retirement age, lame.

Rhode Islands: bonds, casinos, and setting up an anti-corruption agency that will investigate legislators.

South Dakota: some interesting ones like a redistricting commission, introduction of non-partisan elections (which is opposed by the GOP, although state Dems have stayed silent), public financing of election, repealing right-to-work on the sly and regulation of payday loans.

Utah: This is a big one, folks. Amendment One will change the official Oath Of Office to mention the word "Utah" as opposed to "this state". You know, so elected officials don't accidentally think they've been elected in Ohio by mistake. They just want clarity!

Virginia: will push through right-to-work. Whether the state's new Democratic wave will bring about some new love for unions is anyone's guess. (I doubt it)

Washington: some new gun control, a carbon tax that has been abandoned by almost every state environmental group because they have "a better one" for the 2018 ballot, but has shuffled into the ballot via inertia anyway, "democracy vouchers" (basically public financing of campaigns), one of those quixotic attempts to change the federal constitution via state ballot (irt Citizen's United) and a minimum wage increase. There is also the latest chess move in a weird battle between libertarian think tank Freedom foundation and the trade union SEIU, about whether SEIU can keep their member list under wraps or something.

Wyoming: a bill to allow more state funds on the stock market. Thanks for the climactic finish Wyoming. Why did you get to be last in the alphabet anyway?

[Figueira]

Context: response to the proposal of unlimited immigration.

No (D), this is a horrific idea, that would hurt workers the most, and dis-advantaged urban areas. We can see this happening in the UK and other countries. A nation with multicultural, and multi-ethnic vibrancy can only work in the confines of controlled immigration, immigration to deal with the country's needs, and immigrants that contribute to society

A nation-state is an important aspect, but I wouldn't expect white Europeans, who ruined that idea through imperialism and colonialism to understand.

I don't know why this is morally questionable.

i thought this was the deluge for a moment and was like, "oh cool, hifly's grown a soul while i was gone", but apparently not. disappointing as always.

Haha, they think that Europeans destroyed the nation state?