4 ms·

Our Federal system (each state having some autonomy) started because charters were given to English nobility to establish colonies. By the time of the revolutio

Our Federal system (each state having some autonomy) started because charters were given to English nobility to establish colonies. By the time of the revolutionary war the states needed a central authority to unify them, but also ensure that they couldn't impose punitive taxes on one another and gain too much power. After the Civil War, the role of the states was severely limited. But the famous cry of "states rights" rang out any time groups wanted to defend regressive legislature. There is a reason why the Republican party, who cling to power through anti-democratic means, constantly bitch and moan about states rights. In 2022 does it make sense that a state like Georgia, should be able to set the rules of a Federal election? Given the history of our country where states ONLY exist because of colonial charters? There is nothing inherently unique about states other than some Englishman 400 years ago was given lease to them. States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry, and the main mechanism that the Republican party uses to stay in control is by limiting who can vote. The outcome will be large-scale disenfranchisement of poor people and African-Americans in southern states. After responding to a lot of your comments it seems like you don't have a great grasp of US history. A lot of it seems sanitized/centered on Civics but without an actual understanding of why the system is set up the way it is and how the power dynamics have played out under that system. I would encourage you to read about the history of the Southern US starting from the earliest days of Virginian and Carolinian tobacco plantations. If you want to understand why a lot of your arguments serve only to embolden anti-democratic reactionaries, and have been for the last 200+ years.

lettergram 4y ago
> After responding to a lot of your comments it seems like you don't have a great grasp of US history Lol I enjoy how often people on HN descend to personal attacks as opposed to discussion on the merits. Just to point it out, > States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry, and the main mechanism that the Republican party uses to stay in control is by limiting who can vote. You realize this was a democratic rallying cry until the 60s? Democrats were the ones trying to limit who votes, hanging, and burning towns. Both parties attempt to suppress / encourage demographics who support them. Been that way all of American history. I encourage you to read source material. What I’m reading from you is exceedingly partisan and not really a balanced view or even historical view; it’s mostly propaganda. > A lot of it seems sanitized/centered on Civics but without an actual understanding of why the system is set up the way it is and how the power dynamics have played out under that system. Ah that 1619 project… the Marxist rewrite of American history.
- softcactus 4y ago
  > Lol I enjoy how often people on HN descend to personal attacks as opposed to discussion on the merits. Not a personal attack, it was just an observation. > You realize this was a democratic rallying cry until the 60s? Democrats were the ones trying to limit who votes, hanging, and burning towns. I don't like the Democratic party either, but this ignores the party switch that occurred during the Nixon election. If you want to learn more about the Southern Strategy look up Barry Goldwater and Republican campaign strategist Lee Atwater. "States Rights" has traditionally been the rallying cry of racist regressives, regardless of party affiliation. > I encourage you to read source material. What I’m reading from you is exceedingly partisan and not really a balanced view or even historical view; it’s mostly propaganda. I don't like either mainstream US party, also you don't know anything about the history literature I consume. The primary sources I consume inform my views. Here's one from the mouth of Lee Atwater, the aforementioned strategist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ > Ah that 1619 project… the Marxist rewrite of American history. I have never read the 1619 project. I mostly read books written about the specific histories of commodities like lumber or tobacco or oil, but if you know anything about US history you understand why Slavery is so important and how it shaped our institutions and discourse. It's not "Marxist". But being so quick to dismiss a retelling of US history with slavery is a giveaway that you might be a little bit of a right-leaning reactionary. How is it any more of a rewrite than the deification of George Washington in our K-12 education? It appears that you've exhausted your arguments at this point. You have no refutation so now you're claiming I'm biased when you are trying to make a "both sides bad" and "you're biased" argument to claim victory. You also failed to respond to my other comment in this thread because whatever stance you have taken crumbles under any scrutiny. You are either being intellectually dishonest because you are too cowardly to take a hard stance on your regressive views, or you're just unaware of history. Either way it's not very interesting, I could have the same argument in a thousand Youtube comment sections.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    From the first comment, you called me a reactionary, regularly been condescending and assumed I didn’t know anything. This is indeed a personal attack: > After responding to a lot of your comments it seems like you don't have a great grasp of US history. As you said, we likely see history through a different lens because of what we read / experience. Im familiar with Goldwater, the strategy shift was “required” after the democrats shift. Aka there’s two parties they’re always vying for votes. That’s the nature of things, my point was it wasn’t either party in particular. They shift over time based on the voting base they’re trying to capture to maintain power. I can say that without any emotional attachment or support or endorsements. I’ve frankly endorsed nothing in these discussions, mostly pointed a contrary viewpoint out that hasn’t been mentioned. Generally, the comments such as > States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry, and the main mechanism that the Republican party uses to stay in control is by limiting who can vote. Was in fact a false statement throughout history. It’s also an extremely bias and dangerous narrative being spun. Today, states like California claim to be a “sanctuary state”, which lets them capture extra electoral votes. Or Colorado ignoring drug laws. While the republicans do discuss states rights. The democrats are at least as willing, if not more willing, to wield power. Look at representative districts in Illinois lol. Yet all we here are “republicans are going to steal the election, blah blah blah” garbage. Both do the same thing. Regardless, the condescension is think in this conversation is breathtaking > You are either being intellectually dishonest because you are too cowardly to take a hard stance on your regressive views, or you're just unaware of history. I don’t need to actually take stances to have discussions. I enjoy mulling over ideas and considering others viewpoints. Unfortunately, this has devolved to name calling. Regarding: > It appears that you've exhausted your arguments at this point. You have no refutation so now you're claiming I'm biased when you are trying to make a "both sides bad" and "you're biased" argument to claim victory. You also failed to respond to my I try to respond thoughtfully. At the same time, personal attacks are beneath you. There’s a lot of comments, I don’t respond to all because I frankly can’t. The bias is being pointed out not to “claim victory” but attempting to point out a hole in knowledge. It’s difficult to have an honest discussion when one party is calling the other a “reactionary” or “regressive”. There are factually wrong statements: > States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry Such as the above ^ states are closer to a democracy in the US. The federal government is a republic, state governments are closer to and can be a direct democracy (e.g. Californians propositions).

lettergram 4y ago

> After responding to a lot of your comments it seems like you don't have a great grasp of US history Lol I enjoy how often people on HN descend to personal attacks as opposed to discussion on the merits. Just to point it out, > States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry, and the main mechanism that the Republican party uses to stay in control is by limiting who can vote. You realize this was a democratic rallying cry until the 60s? Democrats were the ones trying to limit who votes, hanging, and burning towns. Both parties attempt to suppress / encourage demographics who support them. Been that way all of American history. I encourage you to read source material. What I’m reading from you is exceedingly partisan and not really a balanced view or even historical view; it’s mostly propaganda. > A lot of it seems sanitized/centered on Civics but without an actual understanding of why the system is set up the way it is and how the power dynamics have played out under that system. Ah that 1619 project… the Marxist rewrite of American history.

softcactus 4y ago
> Lol I enjoy how often people on HN descend to personal attacks as opposed to discussion on the merits. Not a personal attack, it was just an observation. > You realize this was a democratic rallying cry until the 60s? Democrats were the ones trying to limit who votes, hanging, and burning towns. I don't like the Democratic party either, but this ignores the party switch that occurred during the Nixon election. If you want to learn more about the Southern Strategy look up Barry Goldwater and Republican campaign strategist Lee Atwater. "States Rights" has traditionally been the rallying cry of racist regressives, regardless of party affiliation. > I encourage you to read source material. What I’m reading from you is exceedingly partisan and not really a balanced view or even historical view; it’s mostly propaganda. I don't like either mainstream US party, also you don't know anything about the history literature I consume. The primary sources I consume inform my views. Here's one from the mouth of Lee Atwater, the aforementioned strategist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ > Ah that 1619 project… the Marxist rewrite of American history. I have never read the 1619 project. I mostly read books written about the specific histories of commodities like lumber or tobacco or oil, but if you know anything about US history you understand why Slavery is so important and how it shaped our institutions and discourse. It's not "Marxist". But being so quick to dismiss a retelling of US history with slavery is a giveaway that you might be a little bit of a right-leaning reactionary. How is it any more of a rewrite than the deification of George Washington in our K-12 education? It appears that you've exhausted your arguments at this point. You have no refutation so now you're claiming I'm biased when you are trying to make a "both sides bad" and "you're biased" argument to claim victory. You also failed to respond to my other comment in this thread because whatever stance you have taken crumbles under any scrutiny. You are either being intellectually dishonest because you are too cowardly to take a hard stance on your regressive views, or you're just unaware of history. Either way it's not very interesting, I could have the same argument in a thousand Youtube comment sections.
- lettergram 4y ago
  From the first comment, you called me a reactionary, regularly been condescending and assumed I didn’t know anything. This is indeed a personal attack: > After responding to a lot of your comments it seems like you don't have a great grasp of US history. As you said, we likely see history through a different lens because of what we read / experience. Im familiar with Goldwater, the strategy shift was “required” after the democrats shift. Aka there’s two parties they’re always vying for votes. That’s the nature of things, my point was it wasn’t either party in particular. They shift over time based on the voting base they’re trying to capture to maintain power. I can say that without any emotional attachment or support or endorsements. I’ve frankly endorsed nothing in these discussions, mostly pointed a contrary viewpoint out that hasn’t been mentioned. Generally, the comments such as > States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry, and the main mechanism that the Republican party uses to stay in control is by limiting who can vote. Was in fact a false statement throughout history. It’s also an extremely bias and dangerous narrative being spun. Today, states like California claim to be a “sanctuary state”, which lets them capture extra electoral votes. Or Colorado ignoring drug laws. While the republicans do discuss states rights. The democrats are at least as willing, if not more willing, to wield power. Look at representative districts in Illinois lol. Yet all we here are “republicans are going to steal the election, blah blah blah” garbage. Both do the same thing. Regardless, the condescension is think in this conversation is breathtaking > You are either being intellectually dishonest because you are too cowardly to take a hard stance on your regressive views, or you're just unaware of history. I don’t need to actually take stances to have discussions. I enjoy mulling over ideas and considering others viewpoints. Unfortunately, this has devolved to name calling. Regarding: > It appears that you've exhausted your arguments at this point. You have no refutation so now you're claiming I'm biased when you are trying to make a "both sides bad" and "you're biased" argument to claim victory. You also failed to respond to my I try to respond thoughtfully. At the same time, personal attacks are beneath you. There’s a lot of comments, I don’t respond to all because I frankly can’t. The bias is being pointed out not to “claim victory” but attempting to point out a hole in knowledge. It’s difficult to have an honest discussion when one party is calling the other a “reactionary” or “regressive”. There are factually wrong statements: > States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry Such as the above ^ states are closer to a democracy in the US. The federal government is a republic, state governments are closer to and can be a direct democracy (e.g. Californians propositions).