4 ms·

I understand the reasoning, but if your requests trigger street protests then maybe it's time to reconsider those requests.

colechristensen 10y ago
When America abolished slavery it didn't trigger a protest, it triggered a civil war. Sometimes what's right and what's popular aren't very similar. (but I'm not defending the TTIP)
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  (It was more about states rights, over federal rights. I don't think they really cared about slavery--unfortunately.)
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    People say this, but they're being pedantic. Plenty of people cared a whole lot about slavery both in the human-rights sense and the economic sense. The war was fought over secession, but the states suceded as a direct result of the federal level's intention (and actions) to constrain and eventually extinct slavery and the southern slave economy. It's something like saying my house actually burned down because it's made of wood, not because I let a kid play with matches.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    No. Not at all. Not even in the slightest. This states rights bullshit started in the South as a defensive move to toss a more palatable, quasi-theoretical veneer on what was an unmitigated Southern revolt against the United States because of overt distaste at losing federal support and protection for continuing the practice of slavery. This exposed Southern dependence upon it as a basis for its economy and entire way of preferred life and wealth accumulation. Theorists such as John C. Calhoun and other notable Southern politicians began doing that thing that all politicians do, whereby issues are clouded behind intentional euphemisms that detract people from the core issues. Oh, sure, the South was worried about and fought for states' rights—states' rights to continue the practice of slavery in open defiance to what had been decided at the federal level over 60+ years of negotiations that continued to threaten Southern dependence on slave labor. Post-Reconstruction, this nonsense persisted to attempt to save face as the South reintegrated with the Union and federal government, and to shore up defenses for the establishment of Jim Crow. Today, this states' rights shit continues to get thought time in those who wish to continue the practice of defending indisputable discriminatory practices, engaging in revisionist history that needs to go away, and in those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept that the Civil War never would have happened if slavery did not exist, was not defended throughout the South, and if Southern whites and their social, political, and economic leaders had read the writing on the wall, and admitted to the grave injustice they'd perpetuated against a whole group of people based solely on the color of their skin—and then began working to change the firmly entrenched racism that to this day continues to remain embedded in Southern thought and culture. States' rights is a sham of an argument for the Civil War, and, too often, many other abhorrent practices today.
    - narrowrail 10y ago
      I'm curious what you think of the "community rights" movement currently underway that is attempting to curtail hydraulic fracturing?
      - colechristensen 10y ago
        Instead of talking about setting safety and environmental impact boundaries (and allowing everything within them), people are screaming BAN FRACKING. But it gets worse. Instead of talking about banning specific resource extraction methods, people are talking about "community rights", which don't exist. http://celdf.org/community-rights/ http://celdf.org/community-rights/ These people are ridiculous. Invoking the American revolution and then railing against "state and federal preemption" which was, in fact, very clearly set out by the Federalists who won most of what they wanted while writing the Constitution. The states have all rights not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution. Local communities are given all of their rights by the state. That's it. Trying to change that means burning down the constitution. Communities have no independent rights. They're clearly and deliberately misconstruing history to make woo woo "progressive" arguments. The basic problem is that the activists are idiots who haven't taken the time or gotten the education to understand the problems they are trying to solve. National attention has no time for complex nuanced arguments, so the only arguments you hear are from fools. This applies to more or less every liberal cause in America, most of which I support in spirit.
        bobwaycott 10y ago
        > The basic problem is that the activists are idiots who haven't taken the time or gotten the education to understand the problems they are trying to solve. National attention has no time for complex nuanced arguments, so the only arguments you hear are from fools. This applies to more or less every liberal cause in America, most of which I support in spirit. Too true. However, I'd say this actually applies to just about every social-political cause, period. Conservative and liberal. All nuance and depth of understanding is lost for emotional, myopic, black-and-white tribalism meant to divide the populace, fire up the troops, and get them firing at each other.
  - hiou 10y ago
    I should just let this be down voted but there needs to be overwhelming repeated rebuttals to this very misleading framing. This whole thing tries to use the fact that no southern states voted for Lincoln to frame it like secession was actually just because they felt their voice wasn't being heard. What that ignores is that slavery was the main(almost only) economic driver in the south. The election was about slavery. The north was done with it. The vote was a signal to the wealthy and powerful of the south that the north was going to abolish slavery and there was nothing they could do about it. Sucession was their last attempt to keep the massive amount of money being made via slavery.
    - eyelidlessness 10y ago
      I don't think this is entirely accurate. It's absolutely the case that the South was motivated to secede by the issue of slavery. It is not the case that the North was, they were motivated by the preservation of the Union. Lincoln said as much. Abolition was used by the Union as a weapon, not as a cause unto itself. It's seen as revisionist to question the moral character of the US Civil War, but you have a President who said explicitly that he would preserve slavery if it would preserve the Union, and abolition that exempted Northern states. Slavery was (partially[1]) abolished in the US not because there was some high-minded federal government that thought it was the right thing to do, but because abolitionists worked hard for generations to compel it. The fact that a war was fought over it only speaks to the fact that slavery was so entrenched in the Southern states that it considered the progression toward abolition an existential threat. [1] Slavery was never fully abolished in the US, and we should be careful not to forget that. It's no mistake that the amendment to restrict slavery to punishment for crime also coincided with the beginning of a trend of criminalizing activities and lifestyles of former slaves and their descendants.
- meira 10y ago
  And when US ended civil liberties around the world (with the mislead subject of "terrorism"), it triggered some wars too.
- jeff_petersen 10y ago
  The United States didn't abolish slavery until after the civil war as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. In a way, the war triggered abolition (or spurred it to happen more quickly), not the other way around.
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    You're right, of course, but it's not nearly as easy to say succinctly with a clever quip to make a point. The civil war started because states suceded because Lincoln was elected. They did it because there was a gradual progression of laws being enacted with the goal of eventual extinction of slavery in the US. Lincoln's win guaranteed that this was going to continue past some intolerable point for the South and so, secession. It's a bit like admonishing the protestors for protesting TTIP before it was enacted. Probably could have chosen slightly more accurate words, but my point was still made.
  - misnome 10y ago
    Yes, abolition happened afterwards. Congratulations, you can argue pedantically, perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. The war happened overwhelmingly _because_ slavery was going to be abolished.
    - jeff_petersen 10y ago
      > you can argue pedantically This isn't a minor detail, it's actually quite important. > perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery Don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I said and I would appreciate it if you'd be a bit more intellectually honest here. The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery. They did not secede because abolition actually happened.
      - misnome 10y ago
        > The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery In what way is "work to end slavery" not completely identical, but just different words, to "work towards abolition". You may think you are just arguing pedantically, but this exact language is leading people to believe that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Just because it hadn't yet happened does not mean it can be an important, or even primary motivator.
bluecalm 10y ago
The problem is that minority can organize a street protest to protect its interest at the cost of interest of general public who is not that motivated to take it to the street on what is one of many (and often not in the category of the most important ones) issues for them. One example is Uber. Everyone I know who uses it loves it, it's cheaper, more reliable, the service is better as well. Despite all of it there are protests because it hurts one group (taxi drivers) a lot. It really is a problem when special interest group can force their way at the cost of the public just because they are louder and organized enough to take the matter to the streets.
- damptowel 10y ago
  > because it hurts one group (taxi drivers) a lot That's true, but I think that's only part of the problem. I always interpreted it as a precedent to circumvent existing regulation* in a demand-constrained market. The market for on-demand-personal-transport-by-car doesn't necessarily equate to taxi companies (it USED to be, pre-disruptive-tech) and in that way it's a competitive advantage to Uber, because it does not (or did not) need to conform to that regulatory context. Had Uber been a taxi startup that launched the app there would be no such problem, though it's unlikely they would have been successful. It's true that taxi companies might try to influence regulation to their benefit and perhaps the Uber model is simply more suited to today's world. But I think it's wrong to state that taxi drivers are simply some small minority trying to stifle innovation because it benefits them, there's more fundamental issues at work in this case. And as a somewhat ambiguous precedent you can see politicians flailing with the idea, not having a ready made response. Uber was not outlawed simply because of taxi drivers. * I'm blindly assuming that's the case in most countries.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  It really is a problem when special interest group can force their way at the cost of the public just because they are louder and organized enough to take the matter to the streets Arguably, this is Uber's business model. Circumventing the public by ignoring their laws (some terrible ones that prevent competition, but others that do things like ensure transportation access for disabled people), and then worming their way out of it by buying politicians, intimidating journalists, and with slick marketing campaigns. On the balance, I find it hard to believe that a street protest is more threatening to the outcome of trade negotiations than the wealth, organization, and political influence of corporations seeking sweetheart deals.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
Street protests are triggered by masses under the influence of people who have agendas. Given how the agenda for media outlets of today is mostly outrage generation (because it drives ad impressions), you can expect pretty much _anything_ that has any kind of meaning to be turned into a problem. You don't have to look far for evidence - just turn on the TV. One good example that comes to mind is how anti-EU groups like to take benign, reasonable EU directives and paint them as proofs that EU is a dictatorship run by stupid bureaucrats. And then you have the whole population getting outraged over "straightening of bananas" or "labeling water", even though the whole thing is a purposefully manufactured piece of bullshit. Now try to negotiate openly, when some group or another rallies public against you over every other issue. I sympathize with the negotiators. I understand a need for having some room to discuss things before the mass idiocy ensues.
Arnt 10y ago
When you negotiate, you give and take. If the negotiations are important, someone's bound to really dislike part of what's being given and taken.

colechristensen 10y ago

When America abolished slavery it didn't trigger a protest, it triggered a civil war. Sometimes what's right and what's popular aren't very similar. (but I'm not defending the TTIP)

icantdrive55 10y ago
(It was more about states rights, over federal rights. I don't think they really cared about slavery--unfortunately.)
- colechristensen 10y ago
  People say this, but they're being pedantic. Plenty of people cared a whole lot about slavery both in the human-rights sense and the economic sense. The war was fought over secession, but the states suceded as a direct result of the federal level's intention (and actions) to constrain and eventually extinct slavery and the southern slave economy. It's something like saying my house actually burned down because it's made of wood, not because I let a kid play with matches.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  No. Not at all. Not even in the slightest. This states rights bullshit started in the South as a defensive move to toss a more palatable, quasi-theoretical veneer on what was an unmitigated Southern revolt against the United States because of overt distaste at losing federal support and protection for continuing the practice of slavery. This exposed Southern dependence upon it as a basis for its economy and entire way of preferred life and wealth accumulation. Theorists such as John C. Calhoun and other notable Southern politicians began doing that thing that all politicians do, whereby issues are clouded behind intentional euphemisms that detract people from the core issues. Oh, sure, the South was worried about and fought for states' rights—states' rights to continue the practice of slavery in open defiance to what had been decided at the federal level over 60+ years of negotiations that continued to threaten Southern dependence on slave labor. Post-Reconstruction, this nonsense persisted to attempt to save face as the South reintegrated with the Union and federal government, and to shore up defenses for the establishment of Jim Crow. Today, this states' rights shit continues to get thought time in those who wish to continue the practice of defending indisputable discriminatory practices, engaging in revisionist history that needs to go away, and in those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept that the Civil War never would have happened if slavery did not exist, was not defended throughout the South, and if Southern whites and their social, political, and economic leaders had read the writing on the wall, and admitted to the grave injustice they'd perpetuated against a whole group of people based solely on the color of their skin—and then began working to change the firmly entrenched racism that to this day continues to remain embedded in Southern thought and culture. States' rights is a sham of an argument for the Civil War, and, too often, many other abhorrent practices today.
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    I'm curious what you think of the "community rights" movement currently underway that is attempting to curtail hydraulic fracturing?
    - colechristensen 10y ago
      Instead of talking about setting safety and environmental impact boundaries (and allowing everything within them), people are screaming BAN FRACKING. But it gets worse. Instead of talking about banning specific resource extraction methods, people are talking about "community rights", which don't exist. http://celdf.org/community-rights/ http://celdf.org/community-rights/ These people are ridiculous. Invoking the American revolution and then railing against "state and federal preemption" which was, in fact, very clearly set out by the Federalists who won most of what they wanted while writing the Constitution. The states have all rights not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution. Local communities are given all of their rights by the state. That's it. Trying to change that means burning down the constitution. Communities have no independent rights. They're clearly and deliberately misconstruing history to make woo woo "progressive" arguments. The basic problem is that the activists are idiots who haven't taken the time or gotten the education to understand the problems they are trying to solve. National attention has no time for complex nuanced arguments, so the only arguments you hear are from fools. This applies to more or less every liberal cause in America, most of which I support in spirit.
      - bobwaycott 10y ago
        > The basic problem is that the activists are idiots who haven't taken the time or gotten the education to understand the problems they are trying to solve. National attention has no time for complex nuanced arguments, so the only arguments you hear are from fools. This applies to more or less every liberal cause in America, most of which I support in spirit. Too true. However, I'd say this actually applies to just about every social-political cause, period. Conservative and liberal. All nuance and depth of understanding is lost for emotional, myopic, black-and-white tribalism meant to divide the populace, fire up the troops, and get them firing at each other.
- hiou 10y ago
  I should just let this be down voted but there needs to be overwhelming repeated rebuttals to this very misleading framing. This whole thing tries to use the fact that no southern states voted for Lincoln to frame it like secession was actually just because they felt their voice wasn't being heard. What that ignores is that slavery was the main(almost only) economic driver in the south. The election was about slavery. The north was done with it. The vote was a signal to the wealthy and powerful of the south that the north was going to abolish slavery and there was nothing they could do about it. Sucession was their last attempt to keep the massive amount of money being made via slavery.
  - eyelidlessness 10y ago
    I don't think this is entirely accurate. It's absolutely the case that the South was motivated to secede by the issue of slavery. It is not the case that the North was, they were motivated by the preservation of the Union. Lincoln said as much. Abolition was used by the Union as a weapon, not as a cause unto itself. It's seen as revisionist to question the moral character of the US Civil War, but you have a President who said explicitly that he would preserve slavery if it would preserve the Union, and abolition that exempted Northern states. Slavery was (partially[1]) abolished in the US not because there was some high-minded federal government that thought it was the right thing to do, but because abolitionists worked hard for generations to compel it. The fact that a war was fought over it only speaks to the fact that slavery was so entrenched in the Southern states that it considered the progression toward abolition an existential threat. [1] Slavery was never fully abolished in the US, and we should be careful not to forget that. It's no mistake that the amendment to restrict slavery to punishment for crime also coincided with the beginning of a trend of criminalizing activities and lifestyles of former slaves and their descendants.
meira 10y ago
And when US ended civil liberties around the world (with the mislead subject of "terrorism"), it triggered some wars too.
jeff_petersen 10y ago
The United States didn't abolish slavery until after the civil war as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. In a way, the war triggered abolition (or spurred it to happen more quickly), not the other way around.
- colechristensen 10y ago
  You're right, of course, but it's not nearly as easy to say succinctly with a clever quip to make a point. The civil war started because states suceded because Lincoln was elected. They did it because there was a gradual progression of laws being enacted with the goal of eventual extinction of slavery in the US. Lincoln's win guaranteed that this was going to continue past some intolerable point for the South and so, secession. It's a bit like admonishing the protestors for protesting TTIP before it was enacted. Probably could have chosen slightly more accurate words, but my point was still made.
- misnome 10y ago
  Yes, abolition happened afterwards. Congratulations, you can argue pedantically, perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. The war happened overwhelmingly _because_ slavery was going to be abolished.
  - jeff_petersen 10y ago
    > you can argue pedantically This isn't a minor detail, it's actually quite important. > perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery Don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I said and I would appreciate it if you'd be a bit more intellectually honest here. The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery. They did not secede because abolition actually happened.
    - misnome 10y ago
      > The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery In what way is "work to end slavery" not completely identical, but just different words, to "work towards abolition". You may think you are just arguing pedantically, but this exact language is leading people to believe that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Just because it hadn't yet happened does not mean it can be an important, or even primary motivator.

bluecalm 10y ago

The problem is that minority can organize a street protest to protect its interest at the cost of interest of general public who is not that motivated to take it to the street on what is one of many (and often not in the category of the most important ones) issues for them. One example is Uber. Everyone I know who uses it loves it, it's cheaper, more reliable, the service is better as well. Despite all of it there are protests because it hurts one group (taxi drivers) a lot. It really is a problem when special interest group can force their way at the cost of the public just because they are louder and organized enough to take the matter to the streets.

damptowel 10y ago
> because it hurts one group (taxi drivers) a lot That's true, but I think that's only part of the problem. I always interpreted it as a precedent to circumvent existing regulation* in a demand-constrained market. The market for on-demand-personal-transport-by-car doesn't necessarily equate to taxi companies (it USED to be, pre-disruptive-tech) and in that way it's a competitive advantage to Uber, because it does not (or did not) need to conform to that regulatory context. Had Uber been a taxi startup that launched the app there would be no such problem, though it's unlikely they would have been successful. It's true that taxi companies might try to influence regulation to their benefit and perhaps the Uber model is simply more suited to today's world. But I think it's wrong to state that taxi drivers are simply some small minority trying to stifle innovation because it benefits them, there's more fundamental issues at work in this case. And as a somewhat ambiguous precedent you can see politicians flailing with the idea, not having a ready made response. Uber was not outlawed simply because of taxi drivers. * I'm blindly assuming that's the case in most countries.
alphonsegaston 10y ago
It really is a problem when special interest group can force their way at the cost of the public just because they are louder and organized enough to take the matter to the streets Arguably, this is Uber's business model. Circumventing the public by ignoring their laws (some terrible ones that prevent competition, but others that do things like ensure transportation access for disabled people), and then worming their way out of it by buying politicians, intimidating journalists, and with slick marketing campaigns. On the balance, I find it hard to believe that a street protest is more threatening to the outcome of trade negotiations than the wealth, organization, and political influence of corporations seeking sweetheart deals.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

Street protests are triggered by masses under the influence of people who have agendas. Given how the agenda for media outlets of today is mostly outrage generation (because it drives ad impressions), you can expect pretty much _anything_ that has any kind of meaning to be turned into a problem. You don't have to look far for evidence - just turn on the TV. One good example that comes to mind is how anti-EU groups like to take benign, reasonable EU directives and paint them as proofs that EU is a dictatorship run by stupid bureaucrats. And then you have the whole population getting outraged over "straightening of bananas" or "labeling water", even though the whole thing is a purposefully manufactured piece of bullshit. Now try to negotiate openly, when some group or another rallies public against you over every other issue. I sympathize with the negotiators. I understand a need for having some room to discuss things before the mass idiocy ensues.

Arnt 10y ago

When you negotiate, you give and take. If the negotiations are important, someone's bound to really dislike part of what's being given and taken.