Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

I don't know if the original version's character was like the Hulk -- who faced constant problems trying to control his temper and other flaws that, well, are at least endearing in some regard or if she was obviously superior to the Hulk in every way..

The original 70's She-Hulk was basically the same premise as Hulk. Wander around, get angry, transform, fight super-villains or the military. When "hulked out" she def wasn't as strong as Hulk but was also more rational and less stupid (Hulk himself was later changed in the late 80's to be less dumb). The comic was canceled in the early 80's for poor sales.

John Byrne revived the title in about 1987 or 1988. 80's She-Hulk was more or less in hulk form all the time and still working as an attorney. The book was as much about her attempts to pursue her career and go on dates at the same time being a Super-Hero. She did have a bad temper but I don't think she transformed anymore. This made the book much more funny and endearing (IMO). And yes, part of the appeal certainly was that Byrne drew her like an all-green supermodel, one that was 8 feet tall and super-strong.

[THE_WIZARD_]

That means that we've already seen the inverted "End Racism" in the endzone 6 times already..
Pretty soon, it's going to REALLY reach critical mass!

Well in DSL's end zone it will say "JIM CROW 2.0"...but Talent's will say "DSL is a fucking moron"...

[THE_WIZARD_]

DSL is still waiting for the new woke version of The Ambiguously Gay Duo...

[Mike]

The Unambiguously Gay Duo?

[THE_WIZARD_]

EFZ. DSL and CGVT could play Ace and Gary...no more ambiguity...

[Hannibal]

Interesting video from Razorfist. Very worth watching.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Obviously not going to watch that whole thing but while the dude goes to great pains at the end to distance himself from "Lost Cause" & "the South were the good guys!" propaganda, everything that comes out of his mouth for 60 minutes sounds like he believes that stuff.

[Hannibal]

There's a lot of stuff about Lincoln that I didn't really know, but I'm not totally shocked about. I had heard previously about his censorship of the press, but never how downright Stalinist it was. He seems like a pretty garden variety authoritarian who opportunistically seized power and used it to his own ends. Historians are exceedingly kind to him on this issue because it happened to coincide with ending slavery -- something that Lincoln had little to no moral objection to. The turning of the USA from a voluntary union to a mandatory one is an important point. And an especially relevant one now as I expect to see state secession movements start to become a thing maybe in the next decade or so. And I have yet to hear a compelling argument in favor of the "mandatory union". Had the country split in two peacefully, we would have avoided a war that killed over 600,000 soldiers, as well as the immeasurable devastation that was done to the lands where the fighting was done.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, in his famous "Cornerstone" speech, explaining why Georgia is seceding. Note that in the final sentences he is suggesting that the secessionists are wiser and on firmer moral ground than The Founders themselves.

This is the most-cited example of a secession speeches that acknowledges slavery as a primary cause of the war. But there are plenty of others.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics.

Cornerstone Speech | American Battlefield Trust (battlefields.org)

[Hannibal]

Yeah, I mean, there's no shortage of Southern states making it clear that they were seceding from the country to preserve slavery. But if the war was being fought solely to keep one big country from splitting into two little ones, then who cares what the reasons were?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Also I'm not sure if he mentioned that the Confederacy had drafts too, but they did

Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864 - Wikipedia

On the whole though the Confedrate govt was a clusterfuck, disorganized, and far less powerful than the United States govt. State Governors routinely told Jeff Davis to fuck off and he couldn't do anything about it.

This just reminded me but I only recently learned that Jeff Davis was caught close to the Florida/Georgia border. He nearly made it to the Florida gulf coast and escape (Judah Benajmain, the South's Sec of State, DID in fact use the same route to escape). For some reason I assumed he was caught trying to leave Richmond but no, he made it quite a distance

[iam416]

Lincoln wasn't Stalinist because he didn't kill millions of fucking people for disagreeing with him. That's ludicrous. The suspension of habeus and other things he did weren't particularly great. But the idea that he was a garden-variety authoritarian who gets kid glove adoration simply because he ended slavery is utter motherfucking poppycock and historically illiterate. E.g., Lincoln had significant moral objection to slavery. To claim otherwise is utterly wrong.

The secondary question -- the one you can answer and debate w/o embarrassing yourself by going after Lincoln -- is whether states ought to be able to secede. And the answer to that, as it is in most human affairs over the course of history, is might makes right. And, in the case of the US, whether there is a political will to enforce that might.

In the case of the War to Suppress Southern Treason, the political will existed. Waned. Was in grave danger of not existing in 1864 and eventually reconstituted thanks, in no small part, the the heroics of General Sherman. And the might, of course, was never in question. So, as it applies to 2023, states can leave the US if the US lets them. And that's a political question because the question of might is not in disupute.

The scholarship on Lincoln is voluminous. He's probably the best understood President in history. It doesn't take much to learn about him. It astounds me that crazies on the Left want to denigrate him (see 1619 Project). I already knew white supremacists certainly hate him, but if crazies on the right start taking their shots, then, lol. Fortunately, the vast middle of rational people view him, by and large, for what he was.

[iam416]

JFC. Saying Sherman was responsible for institutional genocide is absolutely fucking garbage. I mean fucking garbage. That dude is a historically illiterate assclown. And that's as kind as I can be. That's an awful -- and I mean awful video.

[THE_WIZARD_]

War to Suppress Southern Treason

The War of Northern Aggression.you mean?

Now STFU

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm open to the idea that a state can secede but it should be put to a national vote -- not just those in the seceding state -- because everyone is affected. Likewise for counties and cities.

Criticism of Lincoln for habeas corpus and other wartime exigencies is not new to me. Older lefties like Howard Zinn and Chomsky have always criticized him for those things long before the 1619 people were around.