In other news... (humorous news items)

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:54 am UTC

I thought Addams was just our resident Japanese foreign exchange student, who understood the English language but used the Japanese syntax?

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Carlington » Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:13 am UTC

Incredibly, even on an internet forum, it's rude to speak about somebody as though they aren't present, when they quite clearly are.
Besides which, that post was perfectly comprehensible. Moreso than a lot of posts I see here. Simple breakdown:
"Some homosexuals have no purpose in life. Likewise, some heterosexuals have no purpose in life. Going to the Prom isn't much of a purpose - that is to say, on the grand scheme of things, the Prom is one night ever. A teacher is being fired, but nothing's new there either - teachers get fired all the time, for various reasons. This one will be remembered, though, as will this year 0 people will think of it at "The Year Everyone Was Gay". It (bring gay) worked out for some, and not for others - again, no big news, the prom works out differently for different people every year. Is this funny? Sure, if you're not involved. What's the point of the Prom anyway? I've forgotten - maybe I never knew. Either way, I'm happy to humour those who care.
Prom is a fancy dinner, a fancy dress, and a chance to get laid with no strings attached - right?
It's funny, that kids think their parents won't know they got laid at the Prom - the parents have been there too. Some parents come to the prom as well, and some get laid - the kids get embarrassed. Some years are worse than others.
Who cares when you sleep with anyway? The photographer? No, the photographer just wants to make sure that every photo has two people in it! That's just how it works, that's why. Some people make a big deal of going alone to the prom - why should it work the way it does?
People! They are at their best at the Prom.
If you don't like them at the Prom, you may not want to marry them."

I changed very little of that - I just moved some commas and dashes around. Does it make more sense now? Why? Because I typed it, not addams? Did you actually try to read the original post? Or just skip it, because you saw a name that you associate with indecipherability?
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby yurell » Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:41 am UTC

Carlington wrote:I changed very little of that - I just moved some commas and dashes around. Does it make more sense now? Why? Because I typed it, not addams? Did you actually try to read the original post? Or just skip it, because you saw a name that you associate with indecipherability?


You do realise that it's not unreasonable to ignore the posts of someone who has a reputation for writing indecipherable poems as every single post? Or that many people have him blacklisted for that reason? And you did more than just move commas and dashes around. For starters, you completely removed his reference to cis- people, and yet still managed to increase the length of his post by a hundred words (a 50% increase in word length is pretty impressive since you "just moved some commas and dashes around").

I didn't see any mention in his post of teachers being fired, either, merely the lamentation that the teachers go every year — perhaps you could point out for me where he comments on this, so that I may apologise and drop the point. I can also understand how some people would make different interpretations of the pronouns, making it even more cryptic.

Also, you do realise that format does make a big difference to how easy things are to read, right? Addams has chosen his style, and it disagrees with a great many forumites, and the entire thing was brought up because someone was baffled by what he wrote. Whether anyone said anything punish-worthy about him (or perhaps used an analogy that explains the difficulty) is up to the mods to decide, but your accusations of people just ignoring it because addams posted it are pointlessly aggressive,

EDIT: Matter now dropped.
Last edited by yurell on Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:56 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Hawknc » Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:48 am UTC

Unless one of you can link to a New York Times article discussing addams' posting style, I'm pretty sure it's completely irrelevant to this thread.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Carlington » Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:56 am UTC

I wrote a response, but was ninja'd by Hawk. On-topic from now on.

British couple discovers their garden trough is actually a 2000 year old Roman coffin, worth at least £100 000.

To think that I don't even have a garden to put a garden trough in...
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby mike-l » Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:00 am UTC

It's entirely reasonable that someone just skimming the issue would think that a) the school was organizing the traditional prom and that b) the teacher in question works for the school.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby emceng » Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:09 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:It's entirely reasonable that someone just skimming the issue would think that a) the school was organizing the traditional prom and that b) the teacher in question works for the school.


I don't consider it reasonable to get the two basic facts of the story wrong.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby omgryebread » Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:17 pm UTC

avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Mambrino » Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:50 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:Copyright enforcement group sued by The Pirate Bay for copyright infringment

No, I didn't mix that sentence up.


Recent update: TPB has asked the Finnish police to investigate. (I don't know if 'sue' is correct word, as there's no lawsuit yet...?)

User avatar
zombie_monkey
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:26 pm UTC
Location: Bulgaria

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby zombie_monkey » Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:47 pm UTC

Mississippi ratifies 13th Amendment (outlawing slavery)

I did know they had still not ratified it, but, you know. (And that the vote took place in 1995 but they didn't file the paperwork)

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4756
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby poxic » Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:50 am UTC

In other words, they weren't terribly motivated.
The Supreme Ethical Rule: Act so as to elicit the best in others and thereby in thyself.
- Felix Adler, professor, lecturer, and reformer (13 Aug 1851-1933)

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:49 am UTC

poxic wrote:In other words, they weren't terribly motivated.


To be fair, since the federal govt already outlawed it, and federal law takes precedence, it's not really a high priority.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby bentheimmigrant » Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:48 am UTC

Kind of... It was a constitutional amendment, and thus needed to be ratified by a certain number of states. Mississippi chose not to be one of those, so yeah.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby lutzj » Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:42 pm UTC

Well, so did New Jersey.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
firechicago
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm UTC
Location: One time, I put a snowglobe in the microwave and pushed "Hot Dog"

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby firechicago » Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:05 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:Well, so did New Jersey.

Yeah, but in New Jersey it was a lame duck legislature that refused ratification, and the new legislature ratified the amendment a year later (although still after the amendment had received the required number of ratifications.) Mississippi didn't do the same for 130 years, and even then they couldn't be bothered to file the proper paperwork for 18 years.

And, for the record, federal law only trumps state law if it falls within the purview of the federal government as defined in the Constitution, so on slavery matters federal law definitely did not trump state law, which is why they needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby emceng » Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:40 pm UTC

firechicago wrote:
lutzj wrote:Well, so did New Jersey.

Yeah, but in New Jersey it was a lame duck legislature that refused ratification, and the new legislature ratified the amendment a year later (although still after the amendment had received the required number of ratifications.) Mississippi didn't do the same for 130 years, and even then they couldn't be bothered to file the proper paperwork for 18 years.

And, for the record, federal law only trumps state law if it falls within the purview of the federal government as defined in the Constitution, so on slavery matters federal law definitely did not trump state law, which is why they needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution.


Well yeah, but at the same time the SC has ruled again and again that federal powers aren't very limited anymore, due to any number of interpretations of the commerce clause, supremacy clause, or whatever they feel like. So anymore, saying federal law doesn't trump state law is about the same as saying the Queen runs England.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby omgryebread » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:59 pm UTC

It's more accurate to say that federal law always prevails over state law, but the federal government is one of enumerated powers while the states retain police powers. I think a modern supreme court (by modern, I mean early 1900s and later) could have allowed a federal law outlawing slavery based on the commerce clause.

This is why "personhood" is such a big issue. It's the only real way to get a national ban on abortion through, by going over Justice Kennedy's head. Even Scalia and the more conservative justices might find passing a federal ban on abortion outside Congress's enumerated powers.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:15 pm UTC

Someone should just remind the Repubs that if abortions were not only available, but free on demand, the '47%' of Americans that live off of welfare would shrink drastically and they could keep their jobs.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:40 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Someone should just remind the Repubs that if abortions were not only available, but free on demand, the '47%' of Americans that live off of welfare would shrink drastically and they could keep their jobs.

While they're at it, they could remind the dems that if cannibalization were legal, they could solve overpopulation and attack hunger by encouraging the poor to eat their kids.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Radical_Initiator » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:50 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Someone should just remind the Repubs that if abortions were not only available, but free on demand, the '47%' of Americans that live off of welfare would shrink drastically and they could keep their jobs.

While they're at it, they could remind the dems that if cannibalization were legal, they could solve overpopulation and attack hunger by encouraging the poor to eat their kids.

That's a terrible idea. You sell the poor kids to rich cannibals, and then the poor can work their way up to middle-class through procreation. Solves overpopulation, gives poor people enough money to buy non-person food, and stimulates the economy!
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:51 pm UTC

Your proposal is too modest.

And Dems don't benefit from cannibalism; the ones least likely to be eaten are the gun nuts, who tend to vote Republican.



My original point was that if we could convince the Reps that a good thing is actually in their interest too, there'd be less opposition from them.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby bigglesworth » Tue Feb 19, 2013 8:41 pm UTC

That makes sense - this links to a SocImages post about Purity and Danger: Partisan Politics and Persuasion

Therefore, to promote the acceptance of abortion in the main Republican demographics, imagery of purity/corruption and sanctity/defilement should be used. Describe the poor as a rapidly spreading threat. Their great numbers overwhelming the emergency departments that good Republicans might need for horse-riding accidents or heart attacks.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:13 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:And Dems don't benefit from cannibalism; the ones least likely to be eaten are the gun nuts, who tend to vote Republican.

Leading into my point, which was...the reason both of those issues are in "Republican's interest" are very, very different from any that would make one a solution for the other. They're against abortion because they see it as murder; they complained about the 47% because they believe that the 47% should contribute more. Making the 47% contribute zero by not existing would, if anything, exacerbate the problem.

There's not a utilitarian argument to be made that would convince pro-life Republicans that abortion could be a good thing -- to those who oppose it, it's one of the "Definitively Evil" things that you model society around eliminating. Only way to get Republicans to support pro-choice is to remove the Republicans who are against abortion from the voting pool.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:22 pm UTC

Oh please, most politicians don't believe half the excrement that spews from their mouths. The just say and do whatever it takes to get and hold power. So, just remind the Republican politicians that a world with free on demand abortions means a higher percentage of Republican voters.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:34 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Oh please, most politicians don't believe half the excrement that spews from their mouths. The just say and do whatever it takes to get and hold power. So, just remind the Republican politicians that a world with free on demand abortions means a higher percentage of Republican voters.

Was talking about voters, not politicians.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby mike-l » Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:22 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:they complained about the 47% because they believe that the 47% should contribute more. Making the 47% contribute zero by not existing would, if anything, exacerbate the problem

No, they complain that the 47% contribute less than they are given. Not existing would alleviate this, as they would be given nothing as well
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby folkhero » Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:13 am UTC

I thought the complaint was that the 47% weren't paying income tax and thus weren't interested in seeing taxes get lowered, or spending that was funded by taxes, or something like that.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Thesh » Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:20 am UTC

Robbers steal $50 million in diamonds off of an airline that was sitting on a tarmac in Belgium.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/19/world ... ond-heist/
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:13 am UTC

Did De Beers lose anything? Please tell me they stole it from De Beers.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Coyne » Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:50 am UTC

firechicago wrote:
And, for the record, federal law only trumps state law if it falls within the purview of the federal government as defined in the Constitution, so on slavery matters federal law definitely did not trump state law, which is why they needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution.


Sorry, but that is not right. The Thirteenth Amendment, as with all amendments, applied to all states as of its ratification. Ratification is a majority-rule process to determine if the amendment becomes part of the Constitution. Once an amendment is ratified, a state doesn't get to opt out just because it wasn't one of the states that ratified it.
In all fairness...

iamspen
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby iamspen » Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:23 am UTC

Coyne wrote:
firechicago wrote:
And, for the record, federal law only trumps state law if it falls within the purview of the federal government as defined in the Constitution, so on slavery matters federal law definitely did not trump state law, which is why they needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution.


Sorry, but that is not right. The Thirteenth Amendment, as with all amendments, applied to all states as of its ratification. Ratification is a majority-rule process to determine if the amendment becomes part of the Constitution. Once an amendment is ratified, a state doesn't get to opt out just because it wasn't one of the states that ratified it.


That's what he said, if you made it to the last phrase of his post.

User avatar
firechicago
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm UTC
Location: One time, I put a snowglobe in the microwave and pushed "Hot Dog"

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby firechicago » Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:46 am UTC

I think there's a lot of confusion over terms here, with a bunch of people not realizing that, in the US system, "federal law" and "the Constitution" are two distinct and disjoint sets of statutes.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, which defines what the federal and state governments can and can't do, and amending it requires both a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states.

Federal law is passed by simple majorities in Congress, and is limited to the specific areas of competency enumerated in the Constitution (although, as others pointed out the Supreme Court has tended to take a much broader view of these powers since the 1930's). Federal law supercedes state law, but only in those areas of competency. Outside of those areas of competency federal law is null and void.

All of which is to say that the supremacy of federal law over state law is irrelevant to the abolition of slavery, because before the 13th amendment the regulation of slavery within the states was outside the purview of federal law, and after 13th amendment, slavery was banned by the Constitution, and neither state nor federal law could do anything to change that.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:09 pm UTC

Minor nitpick, but the 13th amendment didn't ban slavery. It banned slavery based on race. Jury of their peers decides that they look guilty enough of some imaginary crime, and the sentence is 15 years on a chain gang? Perfectly legal.

Oh and racial slavery still existed on the reservations for a few decades more. Didn't know that the First Nations practiced slavery? They did, and to this day the Cherokee won't recognize black Cherokee. They will however still count their deaths in the Trail of Tears. Maybe we should compromise, and black Cherokee only count as 3/5 of a person for the death count? /snark

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:33 pm UTC

Coyne wrote:
firechicago wrote:
And, for the record, federal law only trumps state law if it falls within the purview of the federal government as defined in the Constitution, so on slavery matters federal law definitely did not trump state law, which is why they needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution.


Sorry, but that is not right. The Thirteenth Amendment, as with all amendments, applied to all states as of its ratification. Ratification is a majority-rule process to determine if the amendment becomes part of the Constitution. Once an amendment is ratified, a state doesn't get to opt out just because it wasn't one of the states that ratified it.


"which is why they needed to pass an amendment". He already covered that. His point was that earlier efforts, such as the Emancipation Proclamation, were not sufficient to entirely abolish slavery.

CorruptUser wrote:Oh please, most politicians don't believe half the excrement that spews from their mouths. The just say and do whatever it takes to get and hold power. So, just remind the Republican politicians that a world with free on demand abortions means a higher percentage of Republican voters.


Incidentally, this is the precise reason why Republicans are so motivated to appear to oppose abortion, thus playing to their base, but are not actually well incentivized to make actual progress on the issue. Thus, you get a lot of bluster, a lot of bills that everyone knows is going to fail being proposed. However, even when the republicans have much more legislative control than they do now, abortion is never really their primary concern. It's political use right now is as a wedge issue, and they're not motivated to win OR lose this fight...merely to keep it going.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:05 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Oh and racial slavery still existed on the reservations for a few decades more. Didn't know that the First Nations practiced slavery? They did, and to this day the Cherokee won't recognize black Cherokee. They will however still count their deaths in the Trail of Tears. Maybe we should compromise, and black Cherokee only count as 3/5 of a person for the death count? /snark

what is the deal with the constitution and the reservations? aren't they sort of kinda considered not part of the US and not everthing applies to them but lots of things still do apply to them.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby natraj » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:19 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Oh and racial slavery still existed on the reservations for a few decades more. Didn't know that the First Nations practiced slavery? They did, and to this day the Cherokee won't recognize black Cherokee. They will however still count their deaths in the Trail of Tears. Maybe we should compromise, and black Cherokee only count as 3/5 of a person for the death count? /snark


that's... also not true? i am black and cherokee and though i have never bothered to actually get recognized with the cherokee nation, other also black people in my family have.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Coyne » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:23 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Minor nitpick, but the 13th amendment didn't ban slavery. It banned slavery based on race. Jury of their peers decides that they look guilty enough of some imaginary crime, and the sentence is 15 years on a chain gang? Perfectly legal.

Oh and racial slavery still existed on the reservations for a few decades more. Didn't know that the First Nations practiced slavery? They did, and to this day the Cherokee won't recognize black Cherokee. They will however still count their deaths in the Trail of Tears. Maybe we should compromise, and black Cherokee only count as 3/5 of a person for the death count? /snark


Well, as to the latter, there's always been foot-dragging with every amendment. But as for "race", you need to go and read the amendment again:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


There is no mention of race at all: Therefore the amendment applies to all races equally. Any other interpretation would be contrary to the letter and the spirit.

On the othe hand, the Fourteenth Amendment has some racial considerations but only with respect to indians.
In all fairness...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:04 pm UTC

It banned slavery for anything other than punishment/restitution for crimes. So racial slavery is banned, criminal slavery legal. Effectively criminalize being black and thus have slavery reinstated that way? Sorta happened on a small scale with the chain gangs, and depending on your paranoia, still happening with modern prison labor.

Natraj, my retort.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby natraj » Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:18 pm UTC

yes, but that is different than what you said, which is that they did not allow black cherokees. they allow black people to be recognized as cherokee if they have cherokee blood. they do not allow black people to become cherokee if they were slaves of cherokee people and have no cherokee blood.

... which is weird for me i am both the descendent of slaves and of cherokee people! but not of slaves of cherokee people.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:28 pm UTC

Ugh, terminology is so confusing. What's the term for the descendants of Cherokee slaves but not Cherokee?

African-American (as invented by J Jackson) means the descendant of African slaves that were in the US. But it does not include the slaves from the Carribean or Latin America, nor the free Africans that immigrated to the US. Which is very confusing, since a slave could have been freed and ended up in Liberia and then in recent years his descebdants moved to the US but not be African American, or other crazy things. As you can see, nomenclature can be kind of useless.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests