• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

California Doing California Things

Gospel said:

I think you’re reading Sanders’ (and Loren’s before him) point as if they’re saying Rosa Parks was fine with less, like she wasn’t really pushing for equality, just asking for a softer seat in the “colored” section. Seen that way, yeah, it sells Parks short, making it look like she only wanted a halfway concession instead of calling out the whole rotten system.
Click to expand...
No. I'm saying society was ready for the civil rights movement. She was the spark, not the fuel.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
But you're not demonstrating anything here, just automatic Wall Street = evil. Wall Street operates on a bigger scale than the individuals
Click to expand...
Indeed it does, and it cares nothing for any individual human being. It is, as you point out, automatic evil - the system crushes anyone it can, without remorse or care. Humans are irrelevant, except for those fleeting periods when they can add to the value of the instruments being traded. Often by being told "you're fired".
 
After years of berating "big oil" and making life difficult for oil companies to operate in the sate of California, insufferable prick Gavin Newsom begs them not to leave California.

he oil industry is having an I-told-you-so moment in California. For decades, the state has raced to end its reliance on fossil fuels and prioritize clean energy. Its relationship with oil companies became particularly contentious in the past two years, as Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators held two special sessions to crack down on alleged price gouging at the pump. But now two of its last remaining fuel refineries are closing sooner than California expected, tossing a simmering emergency into officials’ laps. With a hotly debated forecast that $8-per-gallon gasoline might be on the horizon, there has been a remarkable shift at the state Capitol. Led by Newsom, who just last fall was lambasting oil companies for “screwing” consumers, California may soon let its black gold flow again. “We are all the beneficiaries of oil and gas. No one’s naive about that,” Newsom said at a press conference last month. “So it’s always been about finding a just transition, a pragmatism in terms of that process.”
Click to expand...

News

Newsom really is the dumbest of the dumb.
 
Politesse said:
Your take on history has nothing to do with what actually happened, either before or after the Boycott. The country eventually changed a bit culturally, and Park's reputation within liberal circles has undergone hagiographic reformation into a civil rights hero. Deservedly, in my opinion. But the white population of 1952 Montgomery Alabama was not by any stretch of the imagination "close to the tipping point" of racial equality or any form of voluntary desegregation. Most people were angry as hell, and Parks was not treated with any leniency whatsoever. As the controversy continued, the ranks of the countermovement known as the White Citizen's Council more than doubled. Over the course of the next year, violence intensified and there were at least six bombings within the city aimed at the protestors. Riots spurred by Parks' arrest left even other American cities, notably New Orleans, in flames. It wasn't just Parks who wound up in jail, more than 800 community organizers were indicted and submitted themselves for arrest. The Black community of Montgomery, of course, was in a different situation, but even among Black Alabamans, there was much dispute about the best course of action, and it took extraordinary talent and perserverance for ED Nixon, Jo Ann Robinson, Martin Luther King Jr, Ralph Abernathy and many others to keep the Boycott together long enough for the Supreme Court to step in and force the city of Montgomery to cave.

I think you've invented a storybook history based on what you want to believe - your parents' generation weren't really that racist, Blacks were always going to be "granted" rights eventually no matter what they did, and all it took was a few rousing speeches at the Lincoln Memorial to get the whole country singing Kumbayah and embracing a multiracial future. But that isn't what happened, nor could our present situation of rising racial animus and recriminatory violence possibly have been derived from such a lah-dee-dah past.

I realize you are likely uninterested in cracking your own paradigm, but if anyone else here is interested in learning more about Parks, the Boycott, and Browder v Gale, I highly recommend J. Mills Thornton's 2002 book, Dividing Lines, about a third of which is dedicated to exploring the situation in Montgomery (he also covers Selma and Birminghsm, equally well). Jo Ann Robinson's memoir (she effectively launched the Boycott by widely distributing the news of Parks' arrest) is well worth a read.
Click to expand...
There was a vocal minority that were opposed. You're actually making my point here: bombings aimed at the protesters. That's the sort of thing a minority group does, not what a majority group does.

Likewise, Roe came about because an awful lot of people considered abortion acceptable--even in red states we see pro-choice initiative succeeding. Likewise, Obergefell because an awful lot of people no longer condemned homosexuality. These things do not happen in isolation.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
There was a vocal minority that were opposed.
Click to expand...
The city and state government is not just "a vocal minority".

As for the ridiculous notion that terrorist acts are only committed by minorities, that's just damned ridiculous. To support such a notion, you have to ignore an incredible amount of history. I don't even know where to begin. Do you seriously think every lynching and bombing in the long history of same has evidence that for more than 150 years now, the US has been "about to" embrace racial equality, or was it just in the 60s that only minorities could be terrorists?

Likewise, Roe came about because an awful lot of people considered abortion acceptable--even in red states we see pro-choice initiative succeeding. Likewise, Obergefell because an awful lot of people no longer condemned homosexuality. These things do not happen in isolation.
Click to expand...
This is even more batshit insane. Obviously Roe was not the culmination of some broad cultural shift, it's been overturned. If "our" culture embraces abortion, the only thing that could prove (even if it were true, which it obviously isn't) would be that our legal rights are not affected by our culture anyway. If "broad cultural agreement" doesn't prevent our rights from being atolen away, it would be irrelevant to any discussion of rights and political action anyway. If I can get fucking arrested for taking a bus, I don't care if "our culture" is "almost ready" for transit equality or not.

The Court was forced to see the Obergefell case because a ballot proposition banning gay marriage passed in one of the nation's most populous and most liberal states. Using that as proof that the majority of the country supported gay marriage at the time is a fucking joke. If most of the country wanted gays to marry, why did they try to outlaw it?
 
Politesse said:
bilby said:
Bomb#20 said:
what she did just challenged the buses ignoring the "equal" part of "separate but equal".
Click to expand...
Nitpick - the buses weren't to blame, it was the bus drivers who were routinely flouting the "equal" part.

I know a lot of buses, and have yet to meet one that was a racist. ;)
Click to expand...
Speaking of the bus, you know where the bus itself is now? It's an exhibit at the Ford Museum. Yeah, you heard that right, Nazi sympathizer money keeps its chrome shiny these days. Irony, thy name is philanthropy.
Click to expand...

Fraud and waste. Surely Hair Furor will have it scrapped.
We don’t need divisive junk cluttering up our museums.
 
Elixir said:
Politesse said:
bilby said:
Bomb#20 said:
what she did just challenged the buses ignoring the "equal" part of "separate but equal".
Click to expand...
Nitpick - the buses weren't to blame, it was the bus drivers who were routinely flouting the "equal" part.

I know a lot of buses, and have yet to meet one that was a racist. ;)
Click to expand...
Speaking of the bus, you know where the bus itself is now? It's an exhibit at the Ford Museum. Yeah, you heard that right, Nazi sympathizer money keeps its chrome shiny these days. Irony, thy name is philanthropy.
Click to expand...

Fraud and waste. Surely Hair Furor will have it scrapped.
We don’t need divisive junk cluttering up our museums.
Click to expand...
He did declare war on the Smithsonian museums yesterday, but luckily, getting at the (privately owned) Ford Museum would be much more difficult task.
 
Politesse said:
Bomb#20 said:
Gospel said:
@Politesse & @Bomb#20 It's both. I don’t think these two perspectives are in conflict. Parks refusing to move in the Black section was a 'click of the ratchet' that carried the force of the larger fight for humanity itself.
Click to expand...
Right. I think maybe the reason Poli was spatting with Elixir over this point was their different understandings of the distinction between "demanding" and "advocating".
Click to expand...
What is the distinction between those things? I mean, I know what the difference is to me, but I definitely see the Montgomery Bus Boycott as an event that had very clearly defined demands, so if the boycotters were "advocating" not "demanding" according to Elixir and yourself, then we must have different definitions of a demand. Indeed, as the incident progressed, their demands became more... demanding. In the end, the matter was settled in the Supreme Court, and that was most certainly a question of demanding legal rights, not asking for a voluntary concession.

Merriam Webster suggests "something claimed as due or owed", which fits my own sense of what constitutes a demand in the context of social action.

What is a demand, to you?
Click to expand...
You're making my case for me. You keep writing stuff like "Yeah, she was not asking for incremental change. She was demanding every last right of the American citizen, and accepted nothing less." in response to your opponents pointing out she was asking for every last right of the American citizen but only demanding ratchet clicks. You're insinuating that by distinguishing between what was asked for and what was demanded your opponents were claiming she was asking only for incremental change and demanding nothing at all. Please stop misrepresenting your opponents.

In the context of social action, a demand expresses not just that what is claimed is due and owed, but that the claim has some form of authority. It's an indication that if the claim is refused there will be consequences, not just complaints that can be ignored. Yes, the Montgomery Bus Boycott was an event that had very clearly defined demands. And, however much it pleases you to insinuate that the boycotters were "advocating" not "demanding" according to Elixir and myself, that's a misrepresentation of us, and the facts of what the boycotters were demanding do not back up your position. They back up the position of Elixir and myself.

en.wikipedia.org

Montgomery bus boycott - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

"A citywide boycott of public transit was proposed, with three demands: 1) courteous treatment by bus operators, 2) passengers seated on a first-come, first-served basis, with black people seated in the back half and white people seated in the front half, and 3) black people would be employed as bus operators on routes predominately taken by black people.[25]

This demand was a compromise for the leaders of the boycott, who believed that the city of Montgomery would be more likely to accept it rather than a demand for full integration of the buses."​

That is a click of the ratchet, not every last right of the American citizen.
 
Gospel said:
Shadowy Man said:
bilby said:
Gospel said:
Elixir said:
Bomb#20 said:
Yes, I'm quite familiar with you caring more whether what you say is effective rhetoric than whether it's true; what I was aiming for was to make sure others are quite familiar with that too.
Click to expand...
But he means well. 🙄
I’ve been pleading with him to try to restrain the torture treatment of others’ statements to attribute ridiculous extreme opinions to his “opponents” in discussion, turning every discussion into a debate over the merits of leftist extremism over realism.
No luck so far. I wish you better outcomes.
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let’s not go full extreme here. I can ease up a bit, sure, but to quit attributing ridiculous opinions to opponents entirely? That's a big ask.
Click to expand...
So, you're saying you support cannibalism?

;)
Click to expand...
Only when he’s hungry obviously. 🙄
Click to expand...

Alright, I’ll bite on this derail for a second. My real name’s Howard, but my family calls me Howie, and when I get hungry, I'm easily irritated. My family uses Hungry Howie (yes, like the pizza chain) when I'm like that. Here's why, I actually used to work at Hungry Howie’s. Management and coworkers thought my name was the funniest thing in the world, so I got bombarded with jokes every shift. It was annoying, but I knew what I was signing up for. One day though, I was hungry AF, and after hearing one too many 'Hungry Howie' cracks, I snapped. I took my last delivery, went straight to my car, ate it, walked back in, tossed down an overpayment, and quit on the spot. Never looked back, never even picked up my last paycheck. If it’s still floating around, it’s probably sitting in Florida’s unclaimed funds if anything. Never looked back. So yeah, this whole derail got a little personal. Not in the 'I’m secretly a cannibal' kind of personal, just… personal.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot to mention, I was fully aware that little stunt would lock me in as ‘Hungry Howie’ in their minds forever.
Click to expand...
Oh my god, you're Howie?!? Dude, it seems the reports of your death have been greatly exaggerated!

Witness: Striker was the squadron leader. He brought us in real low. But he couldn't handle it.
Prosecutor: Buddy couldn't handle it? Was Buddy one of your crew?
Witness: Right. Buddy was the bombardier. But it was Striker who couldn't handle it, and he went to pieces.
Prosecutor: *Andy* went to pieces?
Witness: No. Andy was the navigator. He was all right. Buddy went to pieces. It was awful how he came unglued.
Prosecutor: *Howie* came unglued?
Witness: Oh, no. Howie was a rock, the best tailgunner in the outfit. Buddy came unglued.
Prosecutor: And he bailed out?
Witness: No. Andy hung tough. Buddy bailed out. How he survived, it was a miracle.
Prosecutor: Then Howie survived?
Witness: No, 'fraid not. We lost Howie the next day.​

That little stunt has locked you in as a rock, the best tailgunner in the outfit in my mind forever. Glad you pulled through, man, and thank you for your service.

:tomato:
 
Politesse said:
Bomb#20 said:
Oh please. The labyrinthine system of property law was developed to help the inheritors of various Anglo-Saxon genocides of Celts defend their land titles against claims from heirs of dispossessed Anglo-Saxons, not heirs of dispossessed Celts, let alone dispossessed Californian Indians. All property rights in land are squatters' rights.
Click to expand...
Are you high right now? California property law was not written by early medieval Anglo-Saxons.
Click to expand...
Nobody said it was. It was written by late medieval Normans: judges sent throughout the realm by William the Conqueror's successors to bring a little order to the endless petty disputes among their conquered but fractious Anglo-Saxon subjects. California law, like American law in general, evolved from English Common Law. The features of law that stop Californian Indians from recovering title to their tribes' ancestral land are features shared with the rest of the Anglosphere, features that developed in England in the late medieval and early modern period in response to the land disputes going on at the time. What's high is the notion that these features developed to serve the end of inheritors of the California genocide not giving up an acre of what their forebears won for them. The law was preadapted to be able to do that.

(That said, California law also incorporates elements of Mexican law due to treaty obligations after the Mexican-American War. That part probably ultimately traces back to the Rape of Lucretia.)
 
Bomb#20 said:
Politesse said:
Bomb#20 said:
Oh please. The labyrinthine system of property law was developed to help the inheritors of various Anglo-Saxon genocides of Celts defend their land titles against claims from heirs of dispossessed Anglo-Saxons, not heirs of dispossessed Celts, let alone dispossessed Californian Indians. All property rights in land are squatters' rights.
Click to expand...
Are you high right now? California property law was not written by early medieval Anglo-Saxons.
Click to expand...
Nobody said it was. It was written by late medieval Normans: judges sent throughout the realm by William the Conqueror's successors to bring a little order to the endless petty disputes among their conquered but fractious Anglo-Saxon subjects. California law, like American law in general, evolved from English Common Law. The features of law that stop Californian Indians from recovering title to their tribes' ancestral land are features shared with the rest of the Anglosphere, features that developed in England in the late medieval and early modern period in response to the land disputes going on at the time. What's high is the notion that these features developed to serve the end of inheritors of the California genocide not giving up an acre of what their forebears won for them. The law was preadapted to be able to do that.

(That said, California law also incorporates elements of Mexican law due to treaty obligations after the Mexican-American War. That part probably ultimately traces back to the Rape of Lucretia.)
Click to expand...
The ancient history of the law is not as important as the current status of the law, and there's a hell of a lot of intervening history you are unaware of. No, the medieval Normans had nothing remotely equivalent to modern property law, and indeed few modern US states have a system of property law equivalent in complexity and idiosyncracy to California's.
 
Politesse said:
the medieval Normans had nothing remotely equivalent to modern property law
Click to expand...
I’m not an expert in either but I know a little about US property law, and a quick google of Norman property law indicates there was a very strong foreshadowing of much if not most of current property law.

Norman property law, established after the Norman Conquest of 1066, fundamentally reshaped land ownership in England by introducing a feudal system. This system centered on the king as the ultimate landowner, with land granted to vassals in exchange for services, creating a hierarchical structure of lords and tenants. The Domesday Book, compiled in 1086, documented land ownership and value, influencing taxation and feudal dues.
Key Features of Norman Property Law:
Feudalism:
The king held all land, granting it to his vassals (tenants-in-chief) who, in turn, granted it to their own vassals (mesne lords), and so on, down to the tenant actually occupying the land.
Tenure:
Each piece of land was held under a specific tenure, meaning the tenant owed the lord certain services or payments in return for the land.
Military Service:
A common form of tenure was knight-service, where tenants were obligated to provide knights for the king's army.
Primogeniture:
The eldest son inherited the land, a practice that became characteristic of the common law, though it contrasted with the continental practice of equal inheritance among all children.
Estates in Land:
Different "estates" defined the duration of a tenant's interest in the land (e.g., fee simple for indefinite inheritance, fee tail for direct descendants, life estates for a lifetime).
Restrictions on Alienation:
The Statute of Quia Emptores in 1290 limited the ability to create new subinfeudations (where a lord granted land to a vassal who then granted it to another).
Dower:
Widows were entitled to a dower (income or land) from their deceased husband's estate, often specified in the marriage contract.
Royal Forests:
Special laws governed royal forests, with the king holding authority over them and their resources.
Common Law:
The Norman system gradually evolved into the common law, with its own set of procedures and rules for land ownership and transfer.
Women and Property:
While married women's legal rights to own property were limited (often subordinate to their husbands), single and widowed women could engage in buying and selling land.
Click to expand...
 
Politesse said:
Loren Pechtel said:
There was a vocal minority that were opposed.
Click to expand...
The city and state government is not just "a vocal minority".

As for the ridiculous notion that terrorist acts are only committed by minorities, that's just damned ridiculous. To support such a notion, you have to ignore an incredible amount of history. I don't even know where to begin. Do you seriously think every lynching and bombing in the long history of same has evidence that for more than 150 years now, the US has been "about to" embrace racial equality, or was it just in the 60s that only minorities could be terrorists?
Click to expand...
Lynchings can be acts of enforcing repression. It's bombings I'm talking about. Political bombings are about things you can't get at the ballot box.

Politesse said:
Likewise, Roe came about because an awful lot of people considered abortion acceptable--even in red states we see pro-choice initiative succeeding. Likewise, Obergefell because an awful lot of people no longer condemned homosexuality. These things do not happen in isolation.
Click to expand...
This is even more batshit insane. Obviously Roe was not the culmination of some broad cultural shift, it's been overturned. If "our" culture embraces abortion, the only thing that could prove (even if it were true, which it obviously isn't) would be that our legal rights are not affected by our culture anyway. If "broad cultural agreement" doesn't prevent our rights from being atolen away, it would be irrelevant to any discussion of rights and political action anyway. If I can get fucking arrested for taking a bus, I don't care if "our culture" is "almost ready" for transit equality or not.

The Court was forced to see the Obergefell case because a ballot proposition banning gay marriage passed in one of the nation's most populous and most liberal states. Using that as proof that the majority of the country supported gay marriage at the time is a fucking joke. If most of the country wanted gays to marry, why did they try to outlaw it?
Click to expand...
Repealing Roe was an act of repression, doesn't need social support to happen.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Lynchings can be acts of enforcing repression. It's bombings I'm talking about. Political bombings are about things you can't get at the ballot box.
Click to expand...
White supremacy was enshrined at Alabama ballot boxes over, and over, and over. Not least of which because Blacks were routinely denied access to them. The situation was not resolved by any law other than the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and as demanded by five Black women who had had enough.
 
Elixir said:
Politesse said:
the medieval Normans had nothing remotely equivalent to modern property law
Click to expand...
I’m not an expert in either but I know a little about US property law, and a quick google of Norman property law indicates there was a very strong foreshadowing of much if not most of current property law.

Norman property law, established after the Norman Conquest of 1066, fundamentally reshaped land ownership in England by introducing a feudal system. This system centered on the king as the ultimate landowner, with land granted to vassals in exchange for services, creating a hierarchical structure of lords and tenants. The Domesday Book, compiled in 1086, documented land ownership and value, influencing taxation and feudal dues.
Key Features of Norman Property Law:
Feudalism:
The king held all land, granting it to his vassals (tenants-in-chief) who, in turn, granted it to their own vassals (mesne lords), and so on, down to the tenant actually occupying the land.
Tenure:
Each piece of land was held under a specific tenure, meaning the tenant owed the lord certain services or payments in return for the land.
Military Service:
A common form of tenure was knight-service, where tenants were obligated to provide knights for the king's army.
Primogeniture:
The eldest son inherited the land, a practice that became characteristic of the common law, though it contrasted with the continental practice of equal inheritance among all children.
Estates in Land:
Different "estates" defined the duration of a tenant's interest in the land (e.g., fee simple for indefinite inheritance, fee tail for direct descendants, life estates for a lifetime).
Restrictions on Alienation:
The Statute of Quia Emptores in 1290 limited the ability to create new subinfeudations (where a lord granted land to a vassal who then granted it to another).
Dower:
Widows were entitled to a dower (income or land) from their deceased husband's estate, often specified in the marriage contract.
Royal Forests:
Special laws governed royal forests, with the king holding authority over them and their resources.
Common Law:
The Norman system gradually evolved into the common law, with its own set of procedures and rules for land ownership and transfer.
Women and Property:
While married women's legal rights to own property were limited (often subordinate to their husbands), single and widowed women could engage in buying and selling land.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, US Law sort of has roots in Norman feudalism if you generalize and squint enough, just like it sort of has roots in Roman law and sort of has roots in the Hebrew Scriptures. What does that have to do with anything we're discussing in this thread?
 
Politesse said:
What does that have to do with anything we're discussing in this thread?
Click to expand...
As yourself what “the medieval Normans had nothing remotely equivalent to modern property law” means to this thread.
 
Elixir said:
Politesse said:
What does that have to do with anything we're discussing in this thread?
Click to expand...
As yourself what “the medieval Normans had nothing remotely equivalent to modern property law” means to this thread.
Click to expand...
I wasn't the one who brought them up. And they didn't. Our system has very ancient roots, yes, but it is not a feudal monarchy, and the Normans did not vote in Prop 13, dismantle fire insurance coverage for the poor, or sign racialized housing covenants.
 
Politesse said:
Elixir said:
Politesse said:
What does that have to do with anything we're discussing in this thread?
Click to expand...
As yourself what “the medieval Normans had nothing remotely equivalent to modern property law” means to this thread.
Click to expand...
I wasn't the one who brought them up. And they didn't. Our system has very ancient roots, yes, but it is not a feudal monarchy, and the Normans did not vote in Prop 13, dismantle fire insurance coverage for the poor, or sign racialized housing covenants.
Click to expand...
Having some differences might be expected after almost a milennium. That doesn’t negate the strong similarities that persist, which is what you denied.
But if it’s not germane to whatever you’re on about now, I’ll just have to stay tuned for the next … uh … revelation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom