6 ms·

I distinctly remember my childhood when someone once told me that the U.S. civil war was “not about slavery” and how damn good it felt to think that everybody e

I distinctly remember my childhood when someone once told me that the U.S. civil war was “not about slavery” and how damn good it felt to think that everybody else had it wrong and that I was so smart for my contrarian views. It does feel good to be an elitist contrarian, but being reality-based is better.

mistermann 6y ago
> I distinctly remember my childhood when someone once told me that the U.S. civil war was “not about slavery” and how damn good it felt to think that everybody else had it wrong and that I was so smart for my contrarian views. It does feel good to be an elitist contrarian, but being reality-based is better. Be careful you don't get too attached to the good feelings that come along with accepting "reality based" status quo ideas without challenge. For example, I've long held the opinion that most important aspect of Global Climate Change is not climate science, but psychology. From TFA: > P.P.S. At this point you might ask why are we picking on Freakonomics? Nobody cares about them anymore! Shouldn’t we be writing about Al Sharpton or Ted Cruz or whoever else happens to be polluting the public discourse? Or recent Ted talk sensations? Sleep is your superpower! Or we could see what’s been published lately in Perspectives on Psychological Science . . . that’s always always good for a laugh, or a cry. For fun, let's do a quick search on "climate" in the archives of the hilarious 'Perspectives on Psychological Science': https://journals.sagepub.com/action/doSearch?filterOption=thisJournal&SeriesKey=ppsa&AllField=climate https://journals.sagepub.com/action/doSearch?filterOption=th... Right off the bat, I see at least five articles that seem plausibly interesting and important. I'm not sure what keywords one would have to search on, but I reckon the field of psychology might have a few nuggets of useful knowledge about the exciting events of January 6 that everyone seems to have their panties in a bunch about. Continuing on in TFA... > Or maybe the pizzagate guy or the disgraced primatologist are up to no good again? Well, we do pick on all those people too. The tens if not hundreds of thousands of comically deranged (down to the individual person, without exception) members of the conspiracy theory community surely don't have any useful knowledge at all that might have any pragmatic use to remedying the ever taller pile of debacles our Serious Intellectuals are stacking up, one on top of the other. We know this for sure - because....well, why is it again that we all know this, for sure? I know it's a fact, because I read it all the time, but now that I think about it, I can't recall the reason. Oh wait....it's because all conspiracy theorists believe that 5G causes covid, and all of their theories are of that quality. And I know this to be true, because numerous Trustworthy Professional Journalists share this same opinion, and this has been Confirmed by Concensus on places like HN and the front page of Reddit, and I also know that the theories of people like Noam Chomsky and Marshall McLuhan on the questionable trustworthiness of the media (and in turn, mass public perception) have been proven Completely Wrong. Nothing to see here - case closed. Speaking of "good for a laugh", we're only two weeks into 2021, but I'm getting a feeling that this year might even be more funny than 2020. Time will tell I suppose. What I know we can count on though, is a never ending stream of sarcastic, sneering at our mutual outgroups articles from iamverysmart Right Thinking journalists and bloggers, and the Overton Window constrained circle jerk forum conversations that follow them (nothing noteworthy has ever been accomplished by anyone who had an idea outside of mainstream beliefs, no siree bob). Rinse repeat, forever. Fiddle While Rome Burns - it's a blast! EDIT: Speaking of other "edgy contrarian views", I think one could have quite the "meme field day" with the coordinated full court press of "independent" journalists whipping up a state of public loathing for the "disgraceful attack on Democracy, our "most sacred institution", if one was to combine it with some of the Greatest Hits from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... I was having dinner with a good friend from Iran last night, he was telling me how there is a fair chunk of the population there who wants the US to invade and overthrow the current government, even if it results in severe destruction to the country. Is this a crazy idea? I don't even know what that word means anymore. But all of this is little concern to me. No, feeling like a snack after writing this edgy contrarian rant (and nothing else), I'll just wander down to the local corner store (a light hoodie should be more than enough, it's so warm out this winter) and pickup 3kg of bananas for $1.99 (they're high in Potassium, delicious, and so affordable - how do they do it!!!??) And after that, I'll settle into my cozy bed and sleep like a lamb, knowing when I wake up tomorrow everything will be Just Fine for me and my family. And isn't that all that matters? I imagine it is, because if it wasn't I'm sure I'd have heard something about it from the man on the Six O'clock News. I don't know about you, but that's where I get my facts from, because they tell us the facts that matter, not like those other guys - and I know this to be true, because they told me this is true, and people on social media overwhelmingly confirmed it to be true.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Only replying to your bizarre rant to say that it's very funny that you seem to have somehow linked P.P.S. (Post Post Scriptum) with Perspectives on Psychological Science...
  - mistermann 6y ago
    That having a plausibly good opinion that doesn't jive with the static status quo is considered "bizarre" is a sign of the times. > it's very funny that you seem to have somehow linked P.P.S. (Post Post Scriptum) with Perspectives on Psychological Science It's even funnier considering "Perspectives on Psychological Science" was referenced in the article, and I also quoted it right in my comment. I will requote it again: > P.P.S. At this point you might ask why are we picking on Freakonomics? Nobody cares about them anymore! Shouldn’t we be writing about Al Sharpton or Ted Cruz or whoever else happens to be polluting the public discourse? Or recent Ted talk sensations? Sleep is your superpower! Or we could see what’s been published lately in Perspectives on Psychological Science . . . that’s always always good for a laugh, or a cry. See in that last sentence there? This too seems like a sign of the times. These comment sections get funnier every day.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    I would very much like to know why my initial reply to this comment has been [flagged]. What in the hell is going on with this forum? Has everyone lost their minds?
coldtea 6y ago
Well, it wasn't. It was about economic and political integration and competition with the South. Here's a very tame source: "The Civil War in the United States began in 1861, after decades of simmering tensions between northern and southern states over slavery, states’ rights and westward expansion." [ https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-history https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/american-c... ] Which of those 3 items you think the North could not care less about (much less go to war for), if it wasn't for its economic impact? Continuing from the same source: "In the mid-19th century, while the United States was experiencing an era of tremendous growth, a fundamental economic difference existed between the country’s northern and southern regions. In the North, manufacturing and industry was well established, and agriculture was mostly limited to small-scale farms, while the South’s economy was based on a system of large-scale farming that depended on the labor of Black enslaved people to grow certain crops, especially cotton and tobacco." The tie with slavery is all about the economy: "Growing abolitionist sentiment in the North after the 1830s and northern opposition to slavery’s extension into the new western territories led many southerners to fear that the existence of slavery in America—and thus the backbone of their economy—was in danger." And that's the general causes. The immediate causes for the declaration of war have even less to do with it, and it was all about the secession of several states - i.e. whether the federal state has control over them or not.
- breakyerself 6y ago
  What a shit take. It was about slavery. Of course the north wasnt interested in war over slavery. The south WAS and they started it. If you read the individual states declarations they also state slavery and white supremacy as the overriding cause. When discussing states rights they were primarily angry at the northern states exercising their rights by refusing to return runaway slaves and by refusing to allow slaves to be returned to bondage after slaveholders brought them north for travel. Of course you can abstract it all away by saying it was "economics" but the economics in question are the economics of slavery. The states rights are the rights as they pertain to slavery. It was slavery.
  - coldtea 6y ago
quantified 6y ago
Slavery as moral issue and slavery as the engine of economic competitiveness are both slavery. You can fight for one purpose, and the other is a bonus. Which one was the purpose? Note there was never ever a war against racism.
lovecg 6y ago
Well, I did not expect to see this subthread here. One could make an interesting study just out of thread sizes and downvote color variations of various topics on HN. It’s amazing and a bit horrifying how much simply stating “the Civil War was about slavery” still stokes such strong feelings in people.
- MartinCron 6y ago
  I honestly did not expect that either. It was a throwaway line about contrarianism.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Classic case of "well that escalated quickly".

mistermann 6y ago

> I distinctly remember my childhood when someone once told me that the U.S. civil war was “not about slavery” and how damn good it felt to think that everybody else had it wrong and that I was so smart for my contrarian views. It does feel good to be an elitist contrarian, but being reality-based is better. Be careful you don't get too attached to the good feelings that come along with accepting "reality based" status quo ideas without challenge. For example, I've long held the opinion that most important aspect of Global Climate Change is not climate science, but psychology. From TFA: > P.P.S. At this point you might ask why are we picking on Freakonomics? Nobody cares about them anymore! Shouldn’t we be writing about Al Sharpton or Ted Cruz or whoever else happens to be polluting the public discourse? Or recent Ted talk sensations? Sleep is your superpower! Or we could see what’s been published lately in Perspectives on Psychological Science . . . that’s always always good for a laugh, or a cry. For fun, let's do a quick search on "climate" in the archives of the hilarious 'Perspectives on Psychological Science': https://journals.sagepub.com/action/doSearch?filterOption=thisJournal&SeriesKey=ppsa&AllField=climate https://journals.sagepub.com/action/doSearch?filterOption=th... Right off the bat, I see at least five articles that seem plausibly interesting and important. I'm not sure what keywords one would have to search on, but I reckon the field of psychology might have a few nuggets of useful knowledge about the exciting events of January 6 that everyone seems to have their panties in a bunch about. Continuing on in TFA... > Or maybe the pizzagate guy or the disgraced primatologist are up to no good again? Well, we do pick on all those people too. The tens if not hundreds of thousands of comically deranged (down to the individual person, without exception) members of the conspiracy theory community surely don't have any useful knowledge at all that might have any pragmatic use to remedying the ever taller pile of debacles our Serious Intellectuals are stacking up, one on top of the other. We know this for sure - because....well, why is it again that we all know this, for sure? I know it's a fact, because I read it all the time, but now that I think about it, I can't recall the reason. Oh wait....it's because all conspiracy theorists believe that 5G causes covid, and all of their theories are of that quality. And I know this to be true, because numerous Trustworthy Professional Journalists share this same opinion, and this has been Confirmed by Concensus on places like HN and the front page of Reddit, and I also know that the theories of people like Noam Chomsky and Marshall McLuhan on the questionable trustworthiness of the media (and in turn, mass public perception) have been proven Completely Wrong. Nothing to see here - case closed. Speaking of "good for a laugh", we're only two weeks into 2021, but I'm getting a feeling that this year might even be more funny than 2020. Time will tell I suppose. What I know we can count on though, is a never ending stream of sarcastic, sneering at our mutual outgroups articles from iamverysmart Right Thinking journalists and bloggers, and the Overton Window constrained circle jerk forum conversations that follow them (nothing noteworthy has ever been accomplished by anyone who had an idea outside of mainstream beliefs, no siree bob). Rinse repeat, forever. Fiddle While Rome Burns - it's a blast! EDIT: Speaking of other "edgy contrarian views", I think one could have quite the "meme field day" with the coordinated full court press of "independent" journalists whipping up a state of public loathing for the "disgraceful attack on Democracy, our "most sacred institution", if one was to combine it with some of the Greatest Hits from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... I was having dinner with a good friend from Iran last night, he was telling me how there is a fair chunk of the population there who wants the US to invade and overthrow the current government, even if it results in severe destruction to the country. Is this a crazy idea? I don't even know what that word means anymore. But all of this is little concern to me. No, feeling like a snack after writing this edgy contrarian rant (and nothing else), I'll just wander down to the local corner store (a light hoodie should be more than enough, it's so warm out this winter) and pickup 3kg of bananas for $1.99 (they're high in Potassium, delicious, and so affordable - how do they do it!!!??) And after that, I'll settle into my cozy bed and sleep like a lamb, knowing when I wake up tomorrow everything will be Just Fine for me and my family. And isn't that all that matters? I imagine it is, because if it wasn't I'm sure I'd have heard something about it from the man on the Six O'clock News. I don't know about you, but that's where I get my facts from, because they tell us the facts that matter, not like those other guys - and I know this to be true, because they told me this is true, and people on social media overwhelmingly confirmed it to be true.

tsimionescu 6y ago
Only replying to your bizarre rant to say that it's very funny that you seem to have somehow linked P.P.S. (Post Post Scriptum) with Perspectives on Psychological Science...
- mistermann 6y ago
  That having a plausibly good opinion that doesn't jive with the static status quo is considered "bizarre" is a sign of the times. > it's very funny that you seem to have somehow linked P.P.S. (Post Post Scriptum) with Perspectives on Psychological Science It's even funnier considering "Perspectives on Psychological Science" was referenced in the article, and I also quoted it right in my comment. I will requote it again: > P.P.S. At this point you might ask why are we picking on Freakonomics? Nobody cares about them anymore! Shouldn’t we be writing about Al Sharpton or Ted Cruz or whoever else happens to be polluting the public discourse? Or recent Ted talk sensations? Sleep is your superpower! Or we could see what’s been published lately in Perspectives on Psychological Science . . . that’s always always good for a laugh, or a cry. See in that last sentence there? This too seems like a sign of the times. These comment sections get funnier every day.
- mistermann 6y ago
  I would very much like to know why my initial reply to this comment has been [flagged]. What in the hell is going on with this forum? Has everyone lost their minds?

coldtea 6y ago

Well, it wasn't. It was about economic and political integration and competition with the South. Here's a very tame source: "The Civil War in the United States began in 1861, after decades of simmering tensions between northern and southern states over slavery, states’ rights and westward expansion." [ https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-history https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/american-c... ] Which of those 3 items you think the North could not care less about (much less go to war for), if it wasn't for its economic impact? Continuing from the same source: "In the mid-19th century, while the United States was experiencing an era of tremendous growth, a fundamental economic difference existed between the country’s northern and southern regions. In the North, manufacturing and industry was well established, and agriculture was mostly limited to small-scale farms, while the South’s economy was based on a system of large-scale farming that depended on the labor of Black enslaved people to grow certain crops, especially cotton and tobacco." The tie with slavery is all about the economy: "Growing abolitionist sentiment in the North after the 1830s and northern opposition to slavery’s extension into the new western territories led many southerners to fear that the existence of slavery in America—and thus the backbone of their economy—was in danger." And that's the general causes. The immediate causes for the declaration of war have even less to do with it, and it was all about the secession of several states - i.e. whether the federal state has control over them or not.

breakyerself 6y ago
What a shit take. It was about slavery. Of course the north wasnt interested in war over slavery. The south WAS and they started it. If you read the individual states declarations they also state slavery and white supremacy as the overriding cause. When discussing states rights they were primarily angry at the northern states exercising their rights by refusing to return runaway slaves and by refusing to allow slaves to be returned to bondage after slaveholders brought them north for travel. Of course you can abstract it all away by saying it was "economics" but the economics in question are the economics of slavery. The states rights are the rights as they pertain to slavery. It was slavery.
- coldtea 6y ago

quantified 6y ago

Slavery as moral issue and slavery as the engine of economic competitiveness are both slavery. You can fight for one purpose, and the other is a bonus. Which one was the purpose? Note there was never ever a war against racism.

lovecg 6y ago

Well, I did not expect to see this subthread here. One could make an interesting study just out of thread sizes and downvote color variations of various topics on HN. It’s amazing and a bit horrifying how much simply stating “the Civil War was about slavery” still stokes such strong feelings in people.

MartinCron 6y ago
I honestly did not expect that either. It was a throwaway line about contrarianism.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Classic case of "well that escalated quickly".