3 ms·

> That's the beauty of the past - I don't really care about Debs one way or the other. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is true, but I do care

> That's the beauty of the past - I don't really care about Debs one way or the other. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is true, but I do care about the past, and correctly understanding the past, because actions today are informed by our understanding of the past. > But I tend to give near 0 weighting to words and opinions, because assuming the truth of words is itself little more than a proxy for a view on the person saying them. The reason I gave Trump as the example there is to emphasize that I think most people also intuitively think this way, and only resort to words when convenient. I think self-descriptions certainly aren't as reliable as actions, but 0 weighting? I certainly don't think that extremely little of words, and I disagree that almost anyone does. > In either case, I give immense weighting to actions, and in this regard I see nothing to support the notion that Debs wasn't more than fine with violence. I don't see any action at all that indicates this is the case. You've only shown a proximity to violence. > And in general taking a role in labor conflicts in the 19th to early 20th century was an implicit acceptance of violence. That's an absurd statement. Is it your opinion that workers should have just sucked it up and lived with inhuman treatment because strikes were likely to turn violent? > It was an era when workers were cheap and easily replaced. Nobody cares about a bunch of people running around with signs - companies would simply hire new workers, 'strike breakers.' This was sometimes the case (and was in the case of the Burlington railroad strike) but was not the case for the Pullman strike. I'm also going to point out something: you're talking about "violence" but let's be specific about what that violence was. It was property damage. Workers were killed by military and strike breakers in the Pullman strike, and (2) workers were killed by a foreman and by a scab during the Burlington strike. If you're really just talking about this as an interesting part of history, you have an interesting way of characterizing property damage as unconscionable violence while failing to even mention people being killed. > I also hold no judgement against this either. To me it's just another interesting part of history. Bro, you're the only one who believes this bizarre delusion of grandeur that you've somehow risen above human bias. > And I can see many parallels between the past, and the present. I mean sure, Debs and Trump said some similar things about violence and might both run for president from jail. They probably also eat food and drink water. Meaningless parallels abound.

somenameforme 3y ago
To rise above bias one does not need to be superhuman - simply stop relying on opinions. It's not hard. This is, for instance, how the NYTimes developed such a stellar reputation that they have long since squandered. This [1] is an article from them on the Titanic. Outside of some pointless comments on the wireless operator, it's just a perfect article and source. It's only modern times that we've increasingly normalized putting emotion, opinion, and so ahead of reality. One need only look at the latest wars for rather extreme illustrations of such. Literally everything I have cited has been a fact, while most things you have sourced have been not only opinions, but opinions that should be expected to be anything but impartial. Some of the few facts you have offered are also misleading. For instance you mention that "On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful meeting to rally support for the strike from railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois." Calling it a peaceful meeting is not only an opinion, and also an intentionally misleading one. That meeting is quite relevant, because at its conclusion - the workers set out to riot - setting fire to local buildings and derailing a train. [2] That event is actually what triggered the government crackdown, as the locomotive they derailed was carrying US Mail. It's like wherever Debs went, violence followed! Finally I would also say that it increasingly feels like you're engaging in active cognitive dissonance. You're half arguing that they didn't engage in violence, and then half arguing that - well they had to engage in violence! [1] - https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0415.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general... [2] - https://www.britannica.com/event/Pullman-Strike https://www.britannica.com/event/Pullman-Strike
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  > Literally everything I have cited has been a fact You have "literally" continued ignoring the evidence that your facts are wrong, e.g. about what Debs' six-month sentence was for (contempt of court, not for inciting violence). He was never convicted for conspiracy or inciting violence, because Pullman refused to testify. > locomotive they derailed was carrying US Mail aside from the pedantic fact that locomotives don't carry mail; mail cars do: The union consistently said that it didn't object to mail cars. It was having a Pullman car attached that was unacceptable. > wherever Debs went, violence followed! since he stayed in Chicago while violence was all over, that's certainly not "literally true."

somenameforme 3y ago

To rise above bias one does not need to be superhuman - simply stop relying on opinions. It's not hard. This is, for instance, how the NYTimes developed such a stellar reputation that they have long since squandered. This [1] is an article from them on the Titanic. Outside of some pointless comments on the wireless operator, it's just a perfect article and source. It's only modern times that we've increasingly normalized putting emotion, opinion, and so ahead of reality. One need only look at the latest wars for rather extreme illustrations of such. Literally everything I have cited has been a fact, while most things you have sourced have been not only opinions, but opinions that should be expected to be anything but impartial. Some of the few facts you have offered are also misleading. For instance you mention that "On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful meeting to rally support for the strike from railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois." Calling it a peaceful meeting is not only an opinion, and also an intentionally misleading one. That meeting is quite relevant, because at its conclusion - the workers set out to riot - setting fire to local buildings and derailing a train. [2] That event is actually what triggered the government crackdown, as the locomotive they derailed was carrying US Mail. It's like wherever Debs went, violence followed! Finally I would also say that it increasingly feels like you're engaging in active cognitive dissonance. You're half arguing that they didn't engage in violence, and then half arguing that - well they had to engage in violence! [1] - https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0415.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general... [2] - https://www.britannica.com/event/Pullman-Strike https://www.britannica.com/event/Pullman-Strike

AlbertCory 3y ago
> Literally everything I have cited has been a fact You have "literally" continued ignoring the evidence that your facts are wrong, e.g. about what Debs' six-month sentence was for (contempt of court, not for inciting violence). He was never convicted for conspiracy or inciting violence, because Pullman refused to testify. > locomotive they derailed was carrying US Mail aside from the pedantic fact that locomotives don't carry mail; mail cars do: The union consistently said that it didn't object to mail cars. It was having a Pullman car attached that was unacceptable. > wherever Debs went, violence followed! since he stayed in Chicago while violence was all over, that's certainly not "literally true."