Grrl Power #1047 – Deployment abroaaaad
Ah, quite a few semi-centennials/quinquagenarians out there (plus or minus a few years anyway). Thanks for also being alive at roughly the same time as me, and saying so. Also thanks to everyone else for being the age you are. We’re inclusive here at Grrl Power Heavy Manufacturing Concern.
I decided that while a demon saying “Where the here are my keys?” (“here” referring to “hell”) is funny, they probably wouldn’t really do that when they’re not actually on their homeworld. (Which is called Infernus, not Hell anyway.) So, why not make them reference other planes? I didn’t think Tom would say “They pack a Heaven of a punch” or “…an Elysium of a punch,” but Pandemonium seemed reasonable. Granted, this is an ESL speaker (more likely English is his fourth or ninth language), or at least he’s speaking through some translation spell, so who knows how the lookup tables for colloquialistic substitutions are arranged? Fortunately he referred to a plane that English has a name for, and not one like on the prior page like “The Plane of No Matter How Much You Wipe, There’s Still Poo.” Some of us occasionally visit. I’m told.
“War Mage” can mean a range of things, here Tom is referring to someone who casts Giant Strength, Stoneskin, Flaming Touch and Haste all at the same time and wreaks absolute havok for 15 minutes. Other various spell combinations work as well, but they focus primarily on physical enhancement to become a Upper Lower to Mid-Middle tier Superman. Supers usually have fewer abilities outside of power stunts, but their “mana pools” as Tom says, are much much deeper. Supers can definitely wear themselves out using their powers, but most of them can keep at it for several hours at a time, depending partially on what they’re doing. A geokinetic shuffling around dirt to help with planting could do that all day, whereas holding the concrete together on a crumbling dam could wipe them out in minutes. Power levels vary quite a bit, but most would be able to outlast most mages.
I like Sydney not being sure if she should be offended or not by Deus and Tom’s deal. Certain segments do seem to like to be vicariously offended by things – I don’t think it’s an unreasonable instinct though, just like wanting to step in and protect someone who needs help. Of course, there’s a difference between keeping a little kid from being pushed around and a marginalized group needing social acceptance and/or political intervention. Sydney’s like “I should be offended because of historical racism and slavery, but maybe I shouldn’t be offended because if we were talking about soldiers from a predominantly white country it wouldn’t even occur to me to be offended but wait, doesn’t that make me racist oh no I’m trying so hard to not be a racist but I think I’m a tiny bit racist!”
Last chance to get in on the Tamer 8 kickstarter if you haven’t already. It just cracked $100K and several stretch goals. You’ll have to wait a month for the book after the kickstarter people get theirs, so if you’re like me and have been waiting a year and a half for a new Tamer book (that I didn’t have to write myself, hah hah) then you know what to do.
The May Vote Incentive is up! This month it’s Warsyl, from Tamer: Enhancer 2! I’d say spoilers, but the book has been available for 5 months now. Anyway, this pic doesn’t have a zillion outfit variations, partially because her armor took longer to draw than I thought it would, but mostly because she just has an armored form, and an unarmored form. The latter being available over at Patreon.
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. Feel free to contribute as much as you like.
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
Sydney announcing a trip? I see all off duty Archon showing up, result: Chaos.
More and more, Deus is showing himself to be very dangerous. He is sending people into conflict zones with monsters,but makes sure said people are well compensated and seemingly well supported. He’s really showing himself to be a Grand Adm8Thrawn level villain.
Yep. What’s scary is how many people here think he’s a hero
Oh Deus is no hero, but I definitely think he’s a textbook antihero. He’s leveraging capitalism to improve the lives of millions (population unknown?) within his dictatorship, and bringing alien tech and trade to Earth. He makes no secret of the fact that he’s doing those things because he figured out it can make him very rich, but he’s willing to share and be the rising tide. I have a hard time faulting him for those things, though I’m very suspicious about his actions reaching this point as a entrepreneur.
But on the flip side of the coin, the assassination, spying, warmongering, and probable founding of Earth’s intergalactic black market trade – those I have serious problems with. And I don’t think that they’re outweighed by the good that he’s doing along the way. But the man can definitely cut through the red tape and get things done.
Antihero’s are typically either they do the heroic thing for villainous reasons, or the villainous thing for heroic reasons. Deus is in the odd spot of doing the villainous thing for villainous reasons, and it just happens to have positive effects as the audience has seen so far.
Which honestly probably removes him from being categorized as a hero, anti or otherwise. Maybe affably evil or noble demon? One of the things that also gets glossed over is robbing the vault and then being willing to sell the items to anyone who can pay, regardless of their intentions or any legality. Dave himself said that Deus was perfectly fine with Sciona robbing a bank to get the money if she was unwilling to prostitute herself. And undoubtedly someone is going to come in and claim that it was all part of Deus plan with no chance for any loss of life, ascribing him powers that would put Path to Victory from worm-verse to shame, when all we have seen so far, with the only evidence being Deus claiming it, is that his power makes him smart and possibly includes boosts to all his mental stats rather than just intelligence. Personally I’m still pretty sure that Deus’ power is more along the lines of information gathering rather than plain intelligence, as things such as knowing Sciona *successfully* broke into the vault don’t have any clear links as to how he would know it, even if he understands butterfly effects well.
he is an anti villain, a villain with some heroic qualities but at the end of the day still a villain
He’s just a villain who figured out he’ll live longer if his schemes have positive side effects.
A villain who not only does not do anything evil, but his plans always have positive side effects for everyone involved except the occasional alien who is ACTUALLY trying to take over the planet.
That sort of sounds like a hero actually, or at the very least, an anti-hero.
… No it really doesn’t. Heros and villains in media are not categorized by end result of their actions, they are categorized according to their motivations and the actions themselves. Otherwise you could have a character who routinely murder torture r***s babies for the only reason of psychopathy hedonism but it somehow averts the end of the world. According to you, who are trying to base it solely off of consequences, they would be called a hero. According to everyone else, they are obviously a villain.
So again, Deus, his motivation is the accrual of personal wealth and power. Various actions he has taken is selling evil artefacts to anyone with the money to buy them, breaking international treaties to conquer more land, or even more simply encouraging Sciona to rob a bank.
His motivation is not heroic. His actions are not heroic. He isn’t a hero, he isn’t an anti-hero, he is just a villain.
I’m not sure offended would be the reaction to go with, but I’d someone with historical conscience has every right to react squeamish to things that resemble situations where their ancestors weren’t the victims but the perpetrators.
Or even when ones ancestors were not involved, tbh. There are things that are just universally horrendous and having a historical connection is not a requirement to know that and subsequently point it out.
Neither is it a magical shield that makes a take on history automatically accurate and good, just because it comes from someone with ties to the victims of said history, but that’s a different topic.
BY THE POWER OF WHITE GIRL, I AM OFFENDED ON YOUR BEHALF!!!
FUN FACT: For most of it’s history, the African Slave Trade wasn’t White People going into Africa and capturing Natives to sell off as Slaves, rather, it’s was most African Nations conquering other African Tribes and then selling them to Europeans in exchange for riches
The biggest reason for this, other than the fact that just trading with the locals was easier, was the fact that due to a lack of advanced Medical Care at the time, your average White Guy was almost guaranteed to die of Malaria should they attempt to explore sub-Saharan Africa
I don’t think calling it a ‘Fun Fact’ is all that fitting, but yes, native tribes were an integral part in the slave trade as the ones doing most of the capturing.
This does not excuse the fact that the Europeans were very eager to buy more and more of these slaves. If there wasn’t a demand, no tribe would have had any incentive to assault other tribes and capture their people on that scale.
Or the way these slaves were treated afterward.
If they didn’t do it for the commercial benefits, they’d probably default to just killing each other en mass, like all of humanity has been doing since time immemorial. Not that one is necessarily any better then the other, of course.
This is historically not the case.
Many African nations used forced servitude as the alternative to mass slaughter specifically because they saw mass slaughter as wrong. It was also political: once you put wholesale extermination on the table it puts your head on the chopping block as much as anyone else.
It was also a frequent criminal punishment.
The practice existed long before any kind of mass slave trade.
It was only after colonial europeans needed a massive workforce for cheap that they STRONG ARMED the increase in the practice with the implicit threat that the groups that didn’t have slaves for sale would just be sold themselves.
And it’s also the case that europe was in the process of colonising Africa at the same time, dismantling local rule and installing european “owners” and directing the locals on their actions.
The whole “it was just other Africans selling Africans” is not correct, and the idea that they’d endorse mass slaughter is just an ugly lie.
“The practice existed long before any kind of mass slave trade.”
Written documentation for that contentious claim, please? I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and ran out of doubt after 20 minutes’ googling.
The oldest civilizations I know of on the African continent had slavery, a couple of millennia before the Europeans discovered America. Like, for instance, the Nile Valley civilization, which collected slaves from the Mediterranean and the northern half of Africa. Sure, slaves often started from conquests, or were sent in tribute, but after they were slaves, they were then moved around and traded pretty freely as far back as we have documentation. (To the degree that various slavery conditions didn’t kill them, that is.)
Pretty much every ancient Mediterranean civilization from 300 BC top 300 AD had slavery and some slave trade… but it really got going once the Muslim conquests began. The Arabic slave trade was a massive form of commerce, and included Europeans as the slaves, as well as sub-Saharans, roughly 7-8 centuries before Columbus. (The Muslims averaged roughly 1 million *Black* slaves a century, plus whatever number of Europeans, for twelve hundred years… and counting…)
That’s roughly the same number as were shipped across the Atlantic in the four centuries preceding our Civil War to end slavery for good.
So, unless you choose a very “convenient” number of slaves per year for “mass” slave trade, your claim is historically inaccurate. The European slave trade averaged only 3-4 times what the Muslim one averaged, and we can probably assume that both of them were increasing over time, so the former started off at roughly the order of magnitude where the latter ended.
“and the idea that they’d endorse mass slaughter is just an ugly lie.”
Thats been the case for quite some time actually. Yes, they were fine with mass slaughter. Its no different than many regions of the world. Mass slaughter might actually be significantly more prevalent in Africa (due to the large number of strongman dictators, chieftains, and warlords that historically control various regions in Africa) than most other parts of the world, save for maybe southeast Asia. Heck, the hutu-tutsi conflict is one rather recent example.
And yes it was Africans selling other Africans. Not sure why you think thats a lie unless you think people are using it as an excuse to whitewash the historical wrongness of slavery. There are entire African kingdoms that got wealthy due to slavery, both external and within Africa, and libya still is engaging in the islamic slave trade today.
Your ‘facts’ are simply incorrect also when it comes to who were the first puchasers of slaves in mass quantity from those African kingdoms and tribes like the Tuareg slavers, the kingdom of Dahomey under King Agaja, the Alawite Dynasty – a Kingdom in Morocco, Ottoman Algeria, Egypt, the Kanem Bornu Empire in parts of current day Cameroon, Chad and Nigeria, the Kingdom of Allada – a coastal Kingdom located in Southern Benin, the Aro Confederacy – a political union located in present-day South-Eastern Nigeria, the Ashanti Empire – an Empire based in current day Ghana, the Songhai Empire – one of the largest states in African history which was located in Western Africa and was a huge part of the Empire even before the slave trade (slaves were used extensively within the Empire itself), and the Mali Empire. As for the nations that purchased slaves outside of Africa (because there was also a large slave trade within Africa), it was first the Arabs, who then made deals with the dutch, then the dutch dealt directly with the tribes who were selling the slaves, then the rest of europe and north america.
In fact the only reason it STOPPED to the extent it did (the islamic slave trade is still ongoing) was because:
1) The United States stopped importing slaves in 1807 (The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) – United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. Long before slavery was declared officially unconstitutional;
2) England tried abolishing slavery around the entire world, not just in their own Empire, at tremendous expense to their own treasury; and
3)the French strongarmed the Mali Empire to STOP selling slaves, not strongarming them to get more.
As French and dabbler in history I confirm point 3.
And in mainland France slavery was illegal since 1315
In 1315, Louis X issued an edict effectively abolishing slavery within the Kingdom of France,[16] having proclaimed that “France signifies freedom”, that “as soon as a slave breathes the air of France, he breathes freedom”* and therefore that any slave setting foot on French soil should be freed. This prompted subsequent governments to circumscribe slavery in the overseas colonies.
In 1794 France 1st republic declare slavery illegal… but Napoleon etablish it in colonies in 1802
In 1815 France delare againslavery illegal but didn’t enforce it in colonies
In 1848 France definively abolish slavery.
*Original version « Nous, considérant que notre royaume est dit et nommé le royaume des francs ; et voulant que la chose soit accordante au nom, avons ordonné que toute servitude soit ramenée à la franchise. »
Dude, we’ve got 1400 years of well recorded excessively detailed slave trade for the purpose of mass slave trade between the Ivory Coast and the Arabain Caliphate. Don’t try that white man shit; they came in in the middle of it for a mere 200 years.
Closer to 300 years actually (around 1619 to around 1807), but other than that minor correction you’re completely correct.
They were doing it for a recorded 3000 years. White people were only involved for about 2, 3 hundred. Islam was involved for 1400 years.
You are trying to make it seem that white people only practiced slavery for 200-300 years, when the triangle trade lasted for 390 years and ignoring previous examples of white people taking non-african slaves as well as previous regimes that took african slaves such as the Romans (though hazy example because of a large degree of multiculturalism).
It’s like trying to justify/mitigate the Holocaust by saying that murder has existed forever.
No, the point is, white Europeans were not responsible for the African slave-trade
They are culpable for it and there largely isn’t any distinction between the two.
Considering it existed both before and after white Europeans were involved in the African slave trade, Guesticules has made a very good point, actually. As has Dannik, although white people have engaged in slavery longer than 300 or so years. Just not using Africans. So he or she is still correct since I’m assuming the ‘it’ in his or her post was about the AFRICAN slave trade, not using slaves in general (which does go back thousands of years (usually of other Europeans).
If the Europeans weren’t interested in live captives, the warring tribes would have simply slaughtered the enemy tribes, leaving no one alive
If you believe that the only reason for the fighting was feeding the slave trade, you are very much in the delusion
Except for the fact that the Tribes were already enslaving one another prior to people from Europe showing up, and for the majority of Human history, everybody had no problem with Slavery, and saw it as just a part of life. And people from all over the world practiced slavery, often enslaving their nearby neighbors, and people weren’t enslaved because they were a different skin color or nationality, but rather because they were vulnerable
The Europeans Slavs in particular were often enslaved, so much so that the word “Slave” was derided from the word “Slav”
There were also many more Slave trades than what Europeans did with Africans, from instance, during the early Middle Ages, Islamic forces enslaved many times more Africans over the course it’s history than the Euro-African Slave trade ever did, and one slave trade oft forgotten about that happened around the same time as the African Slave Trade was the Irish Slave trade
What ultimately ended Slavery in the western world was the ideals of the Enlightenment, Judeo-Christian values and the idea of Human Rights born from the former two. America remains the only country in Human History to fight a war to end slavery, with much blood been spilled to free the slaves it what was the bloodiest world ever fought in the western hemisphere, and the British Empire took on massive debt (20 million pounds, not adjusted for inflation) to directly pay slave owners compensation for was legally speaking “the confiscation of their property”, a debt mind you, that took until 2015 to fully pay back
After which they expended efforts to patrol the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean in order to catch illegal slave traders
We need to add the distinction between the tribes enslaving people, slavery in mediaeval Europe, and the “on the cusp between European and American slave trade (because there’s continuity)” is that the tribes enslaving people and mediaeval European slaves, for the most part, weren’t working on the same level. Both in number of people, and in “level of slavery”. In some cases, slavery was only ever temporary as a legal punishment. In some cases, slavery was not absolute and did not come with the right to kill. In most (but by no means all) cases, slavery ended at death and didn’t keep going with the slaves’ children, especially in the tribes configuration, where slaves’ children would often be considered assimilated. In many cases, being a slave meant being a servant as a social class, not seen as an inherently inferior being.
Chattel slavery in the Americas was different to all that. The best case scenario for a slave’s life was being considered a “part of the family” much like a pet – being freed put aside. Not that being freed made you safe, because you could get enslaved all over again.
That’s just not true. I mean, sentence by sentence, every one is wrong. I understand that that’s what they are teaching you, but it’s historically false. It’s a Disney-fied version of history, where there’s one exaggerated bad guy, and everyone else is singing animals.
Yes, Southern chattel slavery was bad. But you can’t make such grand claims about all slavery everywhere else, because such claims are fables. All across history across the world, people were worked to death, used for sex slaves and cannon fodder, abused, and no, their children if they lived to have any were not freed. (Native American tribes may be an exception here, but so was some early US slavery, which had three massively different regional variations in the early Colonial period.)
All around the world, there have been examples of slave castes. Look up Hawaii, for example.
Look up the Muslim slave trade. Roughly a million Blacks per century for 1200 years, lifetime slavery and no, their kids didn’t get automatically freed. Islam encouraged manumission as a way to expiate sins, but it was not required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
Two classes of slave existed: a purchased slave, and a slave born in the master’s home. Over the latter, the master had complete rights of ownership, though these slaves were unlikely to be sold or disposed of by the master. Female slaves were at times forced into prostitution for the benefit of their masters, in accordance with Near Eastern customs.[18][25][26]
There’s still a good deal of slavery occurring in sub-Saharan Africa to this day. It just gets less attention because we’re not involved, so it isn’t an excuse for us to beat ourselves up over it. Or some of us to beat up others of us over it, really.
Anyway, mercs and slaves, not quite the same thing. Which is why you can mostly trust the former with guns, so long as the check clears…
“There’s still a good deal of slavery occurring in sub-Saharan Africa to this day”
It’s largely happening out of Libya actually (primarily to Islamic nations), and most of the slaves come from Niger, Ghana, Gambia, Senegal, and Nigeria. So technically also part of Northern Africa. Oddly enough, the more southern you get, the less slavery is occurring. Most likely because nowadays, the slaves are from captured migrants from poor nations (mostly the five I just mentioned) instead of just invasions, which would probably get more attention from the world. Then again, the world largely ignored what Boko Haram did in Nigeria so the world might still ignore it since, like you said, the western nations are not directly involved.
Not quite true on the :many times as many African slaves”.
It’s apparently roughly the same magnitude, within a couple of million of 12 million of each, over 1200 years of Muslim slave trade, or 350 of the Atlantic slave trade.
So the Brits undertook this massive effort to end slavery, mmm OK. I guess we’ll just overlook the Pacific and the blackbird trade to Australia. Look up Townsville, FNQ (Far North Queensland) and it’s founder Robert Towns. Interesting stuff, beginning in 1847 in NSW and by Towns in 1866.
Dont look so smug Canada and the US, you didnt mind a smidge of Pacific Islander yourselves; mainly Hawaiians.
I had originally used the term Kanaka trade, but I removed it because it is offensive. My apologies to all Pacific Islanders.
Meh, I wouldn’t have been offended. Context is key.
A lot of native Hawaiians say ‘kanaka maoli’ or ‘kānaka ʻōiwi’ since that literally means ‘native person.’ Sort of like how black people use the N-word to reclaim it as well. Although technically, kanaka is just the Hawaiian word for ‘person,’ and it only got turned into a slur later on by Asians (and to a lesser degree white people) in the 19th/early 20th century. Most people outside of Hawaii probably don’t even know what it means OR what the slur use of it means.
But yes, the British DID undertake a massive effort to end slavery worldwide, both in its colonies and OUTSIDE of its colonies. They spent over a quarter of their entire empire’s wealth in the effort to do so. Don’t conflate the actions of a person who happens to be British with the combined efforts of the entire British Empire though. It’s like saying every black person is an antisemite/racist because of Louis Farrakhan, or every movie is awful because of The Eternals. :)
I highly doubt that America is the only country that fought a war to stop slavery.
There’s been many other wars over slavery in history. Here are 2 well known examples:
Haiti gained independence from France in a slave revolt.
If we go back several thousand years, Spartacus was a former slave and lead a failed slave rebellion against the Romans.
I don’t think Haiti is a good example, since the idea of ‘a war to stop slavery’ with regards to America was ‘the citizens fighting a war to stop slavery.’ rather than ‘the slaves revolting against the slaveowners.’
Same with Spartacus. That wasnt a ‘war to end slavery’ within the civilization. It was a revolt OF the slaves. The society itself still mostly approved of slavery.
There were more slaves in Haiti than there were free people.
I am aware of that. The entire island was basically a plantation. That’s not my point though.
My point is that Haiti is not a good example of a war to stop slavery like the Civil War was, because that implies the war was between the non-slaves to stop slavery, like what happened in the American Civil War, where the non-slaves were not fighting in order to free THEMSELVES. Slaves fighting to free themselves is a revolt, sure, but it’s not a ‘war to end slavery’ in the same manner as what the OP is suggesting as a comparison to the Civil War. The slaves have ‘skin in the game’ beyond mere morality of the situation because it’s their own freedom that they are fighting for, not someone ELSE’S freedom which does not directly affect them, like that of the abolitionists’ beliefs.
The bible explicitly allows for slavery.
While giving legal protections to the Slaves, ordering that they be freed after a few years (unless the slave wanted to stay), and anyone Master who forced a Slave to remain under them was put to death
That’s an important distinction
Those distinctions explicitly only applied to one’s male Jewish slaves, and notably did not apply to any other category of slave.
No, it applied to any conquered people
And that comes down to what they consider ‘people’
It’s how people mistakenly believe the Magna Carta was such a wondrous piece of freedom, when, in fact, it solidified the status quo because ‘people’ were too ignorant of the meanings of words used, such as ‘Freemen’ (which, at the time, there were very few of because the population for not free in the modern sense, Serfs were not free, even the minor royals like Dukes were not ‘free’)
“And that comes down to what they consider ‘people’”
That being said, Titan’s correct on the the legal protections given to slaves in the bible (for the most part – that was not the case with certain slaves in certain civilizations, like in Egypt), compared to a more modern definition of slavery.
“It’s how people mistakenly believe the Magna Carta was such a wondrous piece of freedom,”
That’s not really why the Magna Carta was a great step forward for the law. It’s a step forward for freedom because, for the first time ever, it limited the divine right of kings and the unfettered power of the nobility. It was more about limiting power of the people on top than giving power to the people at the bottom. So it was at least a step in the right direction.
I highly doubt the USA was the only country to fight a war to end slavery.
2 quick well known examples of wars over slavery:
Haiti has a slave revolt that established it’s independence from France. And several thousand years before that we had the failed slave revolt lead by spartacus.
Also the bible explicitly allowed slavery.
That’s weird, I posted the same thing multiple times.
Those were Slave Revolts i.e. slaves rebelling against the government
The American Civil War was the US Government fighting to free the slaves
So your big claim here, is that America is good because it fought a war to end slavery, while entirely discounting both wars fought to end slavery if the people fighting it were slaves, and cases where countries ended slavery through legislative action. And even then if you looked through the books, you would find cases like Cyrus the great, who ended slavery in his own country as well as countries he conquered, and even helped restore enslaved/displaced peoples, most famously the Jews leading to the construction of the second Temple.
Though honestly, how is America any better than the countless other countries that ended slavery through legislative action. Especially when America still allows slavery to exist in its own borders legally.
No, I’m saying that America counts as the only country to fight a war to end slavery cause it’s government went to war for that purpose, in the case of the slave revolts, the government were fighting slave rebels to uphold slavery
And I don’t get where you’re getting the idea that America still allows slavery, considering that ownership of people is illegal under it’s constitution
Take a look at the 14th amendment, then ponder if it has anything to do with the pattern in the last 50 odd years of over criminalization, broken window policies, and mandatory minimum sentences which combined have led America to have the largest incarcerated population, above even China, a country with over 4 times the general population and a bad human rights track record of their own.
I will repeat again the example of Cyrus the Great, and secondly, take another look at the 14th amendment, and wonder if the wording there has anything to do with policies taken in the last century, particularly things like criminalization being first choice to solve any social problem, broken window policing, and mandatory minimums, which combined have caused America to have an incarcerated populated nearly 25% (400k) higher than even China’s, a country with a general population over 4 times higher and with a poor human rights track record of its own.
I think you’re meaning the 13th Amendment, not 14th. And I dismantle your argument elsewhere in the forums here.
Texas fought a war of independence against Mexico. One of the reasons was that texas wanted to keep slavery legal and mexico didn’t.
I havent heard about this and will need to do some research on it, but that sounds like it’s probably correct (or at least has some truth to it) since Texas DID have slavery up until 1865, and Mexico did abolish slavery in 1829.
So there’s at least some significant portion of time between Mexican Texas and the abolition of slavery in 1829 and Texas independence in 1836, during which that could have been a point of contention. But I somehow think that the war of independence was more about land and less about slave ownership.
Another example:
In the 1850s an american named “William Walker” lead a coup in Nicaragua and became their president in order to legalize slavery.
There’s probably more examples form south america as well.
Okay that one’s more on point, although it’s still not quite the same, since it started from a coup from an outsider to the nation.
But I’ll grant that one is more applicable. Never heard of him and I’m not familiar with Nicaragua’s history. :)
Nice post.
Also it’s not exactly on point because in that case, the guy was trying to LEGALIZE slavery, not abolish it.
I’m not sure what the view of slavery was in Nicaragua though, or how much opposition he had from the population.
“Especially when America still allows slavery to exist in its own borders legally.’
Wait am I missing something? Where did this sentence come from? This is not even remotely true. Please don’t make up stuff which is so blatantly easy to disprove.
May I introduce you to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution?
Amendment XIII:
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.
Amendment XIV:
Section 1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 4) The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Amendment XV:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Dude, fuck off if you are going to be such an asshole as to literally post the law that allows for slavery and then somehow miss that it allows for slavery.
Where are you getting that the 13th Amendment, the Amendment that ENDED slavery, allows for slavery? Did you even read the amendments? I literally just posted them.
I hate to say it, but from the wording, it appears as if slavery is okayed if the person(s) are convicted criminals and not considered U.S. citizens. I could be misreading that, though.
“but from the wording, it appears as if slavery is okayed if the person(s) are convicted criminals and not considered U.S. citizens. I could be misreading that, though.”
Yes, you are unfortunately misreading it, but you wouldnt be the first. The exception for imprisonment by a duly convicted punishment, is to involuntary servitude. Not slavery. Because that is literally what involuntary servitude is. Being detained, in a non-voluntary manner, to be put to work in servitude. But you do get paid. Way below minimum wage, and it goes into the bursar account usually, not into your pocket, but it’s a wage. So…. not slavery. And upon the end of your prison sentence, you are released. Which is ALSO not like slavery. Slavery does not have a time limit. Involuntary servitude does. Duly convicted prisoners temporarily (and in a few examples, permanently, like with owning firearms under the 2nd amendment, though I’m not sure how constitutional THAT is, despite lower court judges affirming it) give up some of their rights as citizens during their incarceration.
So yes, you’re misreading it. TempoDiValse is misreading it (and unfortunately refuses to acknowledge even the possibility that he is wrong). And there are probably several people who write badly reasoned articles who have misread it. But no lawyer in the entire history of the United States has ever successfully argued that duly convicted imprisonment for a crime as punishment is slavery. Because it’s not. It’s involuntary servitude.
Also, I did not post this but there is a Section 2 to the 13th Amendment which states that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Combined with the 14th and 15th Amendment, it’s actually clear that slavery is NOT legal, even by imprisonment. When you’re a prisoner, you still have certain rights. Slaves… do not. When you’re a prisoner, there’s a point in time where you will not be (unless it’s a life sentence or death sentence, and even then there’s the possibility of a commutation of the sentence). Not so with slavery.
just wanted to reply to your most recent post, I guess I was equating working for ‘involuntary servitude’ with slavery. Seems a mighty fine line between.
“just wanted to reply to your most recent post, I guess I was equating working for ‘involuntary servitude’ with slavery. Seems a mighty fine line between.”
There are some generic similarities but there are some very LARGE, important distinctions as well, which explains the wording of the 13th Amendment.
Dude, if you think that the exception outlined in the 13th amendment is just that people can be forced to go to prison, just wtf.
You didn’t dismantle anything.
If you think that prison labor is somehow voluntary, that it is optional, and that they aren’t forced to do it, wtf.
If you think that it is somehow all okay because at the end of the day they get a few dollars for their slave labor, wtf.
dude. Involuntary servitude is not the same as being detained. Jesus fucking Christ dude. are you just entirely unaware of the difference between forced labor and imprisonment? Are the ideas just immutably connected in your mind? You keep somehow thinking that if we closed the loophole allowing for slavery in America, we would have to abolish prisons altogether, instead of quite simply making it so that you aren’t forced or coerced into providing labor. Chain gangs and related were made illegal and we didn’t have to abolish the prison system.
Amendment XIII:
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.
Take a look at this right here, really pore over it, and try to figure out what those words that make over half its length mean, you know, the ones between the commas, the ones that open a giant gaping loophole allowing for the exploitation and slavery of human beings in America.
I’m reading it and I have no idea what you’re going on about. Slavery is illegal, as stated in the 13th amendment, and compounded that it’s illegal in the 14th and 15th amendments. and the only thing even allowed at all is involuntary servitude, and even then ONLY AS PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMES WHERE THE PARTY HAS BEEN DULY CONVICTED.
Being put in prison IS NOT SLAVERY. It’s involuntary servitude. Because you’re usually going to be in prison involuntarily, and you’re going to be usually put to work while in prison (although you still do get paid while in prison – the money goes into the bursar’s account, and you get the money when you are let out – it’s just not a lot – usually only around 63 cents an hour, but minimum wage laws do not apply to prisoners who have been duly convicted).
Now if you want to argue that prison IS slavery, go ahead, and that would mean the only recourse is to eliminate prisons entirely. Which is not what the writers of the Amendments intended, which is why people do not just quote the 13th Amendment – they quote the 13th, 14th, and 15ths amendments collectively.
PS – You really need to calm down. I recall you’ve already argued about this a few months ago and got very heated back then as well when your arguments were not persuasive and other people were also countering your arguments.
Dude, if you think that prison labor is somehow inseparable from prison, than you are just an idiot. Being forced to labor, whether or not you were convicted of a crime, is immoral. Them being paid a few dollars at the end of the day doesn’t somehow make it all OK. It is slavery in america in the modern day. And quibble all you like about how “it’s not slavery its involuntary servitude”, there is no distinction between the two that would somehow make it moral.
Slavery of ANYONE is immoral
Paid slavery IS STILL slavery
The difference between slavery and indentured servitude is fucking meaningless in this context.
One can be imprisoned without being forced to work.
The 13th amendment *explicity* states that slavery is allowed to be used as a form of punishment.
And Involuntary Servitude is a form of slavery.
No. it explicitly states that involuntary servitude is allowed as a form of punishment, not slavery.
And involuntary servitude and slavery are different, because the former have human rights, while the latter would be considered property.
So, you are reading the punishment clause as only applying to the second half of the nor statement.
“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.”
I think if it were only applicable to involuntary servitude, then there wouldn’t be a comma between “involuntary servitude” and “except”. If there wasn’t a comma between them, then they would be the same clause.
While Slaves the USA they had very few rights, slaves in many civilizations did have more rights in comparison (despite not being free persons). For instance, I think french lousiana allowed slaves the right to marry.
In some civilizations slaves were not chattel slaves, meaning they were not considered property of the person they were forced to work for.
You haven’t made a clear distinction between the terminologies.
“So, you are reading the punishment clause as only applying to the second half of the nor statement.”
Yes, and so have most constitutional scholars when this subject comes up. The use of both terms, or the use of the word ‘nor,’ would have made no sense if the ‘except’ part was for slavery. Especially if you feel that involuntary servitude and slavery were meant to denote the same exact thing.
“In some civilizations slaves were not chattel slaves, meaning they were not considered property of the person they were forced to work for.”
When I talk about slavery, I’m referring to chattel slavery. It’s also what the writers of the Constitution saw slavery as being, so that’s why I’m using that definition and distinguishing it from involuntary servitude, which is not de facto slavery.
I’m unaware of the Louisiana exception but it would not surprise me, although that might just be in a coupling attempt to get more future slaves (since importing slaves into the US was made illegal in 1807), rather than because of giving slaves anything akin to human rights.
Pander‘s position appears to depend on two things. One is semantic, the other is grammatical. If either falls, her argument must be considered shaky at best.
She argues that ‘slavery’, for purposes of the Constitution, refers specifically to the extreme version that existed in certain parts of the USA during a certain historical period. Anything under less restrictive conditions than that, whether in the terms or the period of the servitude, is considered something short of full ‘slavery’ and is therefore open to argument for the ‘indentured servitude as punishment’ loophole.
I would invite anyone who relies on that defense to peruse the rights and conditions accorded to slaves in myriad cultures across the globe, from antiquity to the present. Would you argue that these are not ‘proper’ slaves when their entire culture considers them so, just because one particular culture treated their own more harshly? There are some historical cultures who treated their slaves even more harshly than that; evidently a line is being drawn somewhere, so how is it defined and how was it chosen?
Incidentally, I agree that ‘indentured servitude’ is and historically always has been a separate status from ‘slavery’, whether or not you recognise less extreme forms of slavery as such. Slavery generally implies ownership of the person themselves as a permanent default condition; the loss of rights, even if some are retained or substituted. Indenture implies exclusive ownership only of the person’s labour up to defined ending conditions, be that a set period of time or the repayment of a specific debt; some rights may be suspended or substituted while it lasts, but this is explicitly only until the terms of the indenture are fulfilled. Other similar statuses exist, such as serfdom, but this post is long enough without such tangents.
Pander also argues that the mere presence of the words ‘neither’ and ‘nor’ suffices to show that the punishment exception only applies to indentured servitude. I do not consider that to be true. As I read it, the punctuation is specifically arranged to include slavery as being permissible under the ‘punishment for crime’ exception.
As written, the grammar clearly connects the two conditions and then applies the conditional to both: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment…“. If the ban on slavery was absolute and only the ban on involuntary servitude subject to exception, then I would expect to see the comma used to separate those two status conditions so that the conditional clearly only applies to the latter: “Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude except as punishment…“.
Also I wouldnt say Persia/Iran has a stellar history regarding the jews, even if it had one ruler liberated the jews who were captives in Babylonia. Today, there are a bit less than 8,000 jews left in the region of Iran, and they are seen as second class citizens (ie, dhimmis) as is traditional islamic law for any non-muslim in a muslim state, if they wish to NOT convert to Islam (ie, the choices are convert, pay a dhimmi tax for the right to be second-class citizens with no real rights, or be put to death). So…. the actions of one man does not really do much for the entire region.
Which is oddly the opposite standard that you’re holding America to, where the actions of a few racists (who are NOT abiding by the law, in fact) somehow tarnish the overall civilization and legal system which does NOT allow slavery as a core foundation of its societal norms.
So to, to besmirch the reputation of an empire that ended over two thousand years ago, you point to a modern day country, following a religion that didn’t even exist at the time, and their actions? What the ever living fuck dude. “Oh you really think Harold was such a great guy, but what about his great-great-great-great nephew’s half brother’s ex-roommate’s grandson’s friend? HUH??” That’s you, that is literally the argument you are trying to make here, you fucking asshole. How the fuck do you not understand this?
“So to, to besmirch the reputation of an empire that ended over two thousand years ago,”
The empire of Persia did not end with Cyrus.
“you point to a modern day country,”
Dhimmitude has been in Islamic law since near the foundation of Islam in the 6th century. It was also based on older religions that were incorporated into Islam from the region.
“following a religion that didn’t even exist at the time, and their actions?”
The Persian empire lasted approximately 228 years (559BC to 331BC). Cyrus was not alive for most of that time, and was not the leader for most of that time – he was just the first well-established leader who did do good things for the jews (hence why is known as the liberator of the jews). He only ruled from 539BC to 530BC. That’s 9 years out of 228. His son, Cambyses I was not particularly noteworthy, and neither was his son, Cambyses II, and neither was his younger brother, Bardiya, who ruled for a VERY short time after Cambyses died childless. Darius the Great, who overthrew Bardiya, had a history of assassinating people or murdering them when he felt insulted by them, and seized Intaphernes and his son and family members, because he was paranoid and Intaphernes was one of the people who helped Darius depose Bardiya, and made him choose which of his sons would die. Lovely man.
He also continually tried to invade Greece in wars of aggression, until his death, at which point his son, Xerxes, took over. Pretty sure you know who Xerxes was. He was not a good man either.
The Persian civilization lasted a lot longer than the life of Cyrus, or even Cyrus and his two sons, well into when Islam became foundational for that region.
So no, while Cyrus was a good man, Persia was NOT, and did have slavery after Cyrus’s death. Those slaves tended to come from the Persian Gulf, Egypt, Arabia, India, the Far East, the Indian Oceans, and Ethiopia, in rather LARGE numbers. It continued until the end of the Persian Empire, and continued on that region well into when Islam took over, and up until modern times.
Also why are you getting so bent out of shape over my saying that the Persian Empire was not a very good place for most of its existence? It wasnt. You’re acting like I ruined the reputation of your best friend, instead of just pointing out stuff that you can learn in any reasonably good history textbook.
You got all your information from the movie 300 and apparently don’t know anything about the war if you are still believing a 2000 year old smear campaign against Xerxes. And if you are somehow capable of reciting the length of the Persian empire, the time that Islam started, etc and still trying to say that the two were contemporary at all, than bullshit. You ate just spewing bullshit.cuz guess what, I wasn’t saying when the Islam tax started, I was saying when the current government of Iran started, those two dates are not the same at all.
The current government of Iran began 43 years ago the actions of Iran in the modern day were what was pointed to to try to rant against a monarch who has been dead for over 2000 years.
““So to, to besmirch the reputation of an empire that ended over two thousand years ago,”
The empire of Persia did not end with Cyrus.”
Guess what dude, the Achaemenid Empire ended over two thousand years ago. I have no idea why you think the lifespan of a single one of its rulers affects that claim.
““you point to a modern day country,”
Dhimmitude has been in Islamic law since near the foundation of Islam in the 6th century. It was also based on older religions that were incorporated into Islam from the region.”
And you are pointing to the actions of a modern day country that began less than 50 years ago. While their rationale might predate their own existence, it doesn’t really matter.
““following a religion that didn’t even exist at the time, and their actions?”
The Persian empire lasted approximately 228 years (559BC to 331BC). Cyrus was not alive for most of that time, and was not the leader for most of that time – he was just the first well-established leader who did do good things for the jews (hence why is known as the liberator of the jews). He only ruled from 539BC to 530BC. That’s 9 years out of 228. His son, Cambyses I was not particularly noteworthy, and neither was his son, Cambyses II, and neither was his younger brother, Bardiya, who ruled for a VERY short time after Cambyses died childless.”
Again not sure why you think any of this matters to the claim. At this point you are just recounting some of the lineages of Cyrus. Wrongly I might add. Cambyses the first was the father of Cyrus the great, and Cambyses the second was the son of Cyrus the great. Cambyses the first’s father, Cyrus the first, is a completely different person than Cyrus the second, also known as Cyrus the Great. Order goes Cyrus 1, Cambyses 1, Cyrus 2, Cambyses 2.
“Darius the Great, who overthrew Bardiya, had a history of assassinating people or murdering them when he felt insulted by them, and seized Intaphernes and his son and family members, because he was paranoid and Intaphernes was one of the people who helped Darius depose Bardiya, and made him choose which of his sons would die. Lovely man.””
So here at least you are starting to make an argument. That being more or less that the Achaemenid Empire was not perfectly moral, but again really don’t see what it has to do with the claim that Cyrus the Great fought a war to end slavery.
“He also continually tried to invade Greece in wars of aggression, until his death, at which point his son, Xerxes, took over. Pretty sure you know who Xerxes was. He was not a good man either.”
And here we see the effects of Greek propaganda lasting well into the modern age. Going off on a slight tangent, but two cities in the Achaemenid Empire revolted, and Athens and such supported them. That is the reason that Darius came over, with the second war fought by Xerxes being a continuation of the one fought by Darius. If you want a better understanding, I would recommend Overly Sarcastic Productions over on YouTube and their video on Ancient Persia.
“The Persian civilization lasted a lot longer than the life of Cyrus, or even Cyrus and his two sons, well into when Islam became foundational for that region.”
What the *Absolute FUCK* dude. This is just wrong. You, YOURSELF, are capable of knowing that the Achaemenid Empire ended 331 BCE, so I ask you, *when the fuck do you think Islam Started*??? The START, the START of Islam was in 610 CE. That is a separation of OVER NINE HUNDRED YEARS. The religious of the Achaemenid Empire were Zoroastrianism as its official religious, with Babylonian, Judaism, Vedic Hinduism, Egyptian, Greek, and others also being there, but there was no Islam, want to know why? Because Islam wouldn’t exist for another 900 years. There was a separation of multiple empires between the two, starting with the Achaemenid Empire, there was Macedonia, the Parthians, the Sassanid empire, which only then was conquered by Islamic caliphates.
“”So no, while Cyrus was a good man, Persia was NOT, and did have slavery after Cyrus’s death. Those slaves tended to come from the Persian Gulf, Egypt, Arabia, India, the Far East, the Indian Oceans, and Ethiopia, in rather LARGE numbers. It continued until the end of the Persian Empire, and continued on that region well into when Islam took over, and up until modern times.”
The Achaemenid Empire was overall a good place, compared to typical governments of the time at the very least and in my opinion in the top 80th percentile overall.
Though again, that doesn’t really have much to do with you ridiculous claim that Achaemenid Empire is somehow responsible for the modern day treatment of Jews by the modern day Iranian government, or my claim that Cyrus the Great fought a war to end slavery. Though I should probably clarify that the presence of slavery in general in the Achaemenid Empire also doesn’t contradict the claim that Cyrus the Great fought a war to end slavery
“Also why are you getting so bent out of shape over my saying that the Persian Empire was not a very good place for most of its existence? It wasnt. You’re acting like I ruined the reputation of your best friend, instead of just pointing out stuff that you can learn in any reasonably good history textbook.”
Because you argue like an utter idiot, getting the subject matter completely wrong in several instances, create bizarre strawman arguments to try to excuse crimes, and in general force people to have to deal with your insane troll logic.
So to besmirch the reputation of a nation that ENDED over two thousand years ago, you are are pointing to the actions of a country, which BEGAN 43 years ago, which follows a religion that didn’t even exist at the time of Cyrus the great. What is wrong with you? Is your level of education about things that don’t immediately involve you just that poor?
Actually dhimmi and zimmi started a lot longer than 43 years ago. I believe it started in the 9th century under the sharia (the Dhimma contract), which itself was started in 622AD.
Even most of the Persian empire did not exist during Cyrus the Great’s lifetime. He ruled for only about 9 years. The Persian Empire lasted 228 years. And it had a lot of slaves after Cyrus died, his son died, and his son was murdered by Darius the Great.
So you claim that you make serious arguments, based on the actual evidence. so lets deconstruct this.
“Also I wouldnt say Persia/Iran has a stellar history regarding the jews, even if it had one ruler liberated the jews who were captives in Babylonia. Today, there are a bit less than 8,000 jews left in the region of Iran, and they are seen as second class citizens (ie, dhimmis) as is traditional islamic law for any non-muslim in a muslim state, if they wish to NOT convert to Islam (ie, the choices are convert, pay a dhimmi tax for the right to be second-class citizens with no real rights, or be put to death). So…. the actions of one man does not really do much for the entire region.”
So Im unsure of why you don’t understand this, but countries are not eternal, just because there is a country in the same region, does not at all mean that it is the same country as one that ended 2000 years ago.
In your comment, you are referring to the modern day treatment of Jews in the modern day country of Iran, the treatment being based on Islamic law. All of which is absolutely meaningless since I was talking about the Persian empire, a country that ended over 2,000 years ago, and is separated from Sharia law by at least 600 years.
And seriously dude, while the Islamic law may be the motivation for their current treatment of the Jews, the current country of Iran began less than 50 years ago.
“So…. the actions of one man does not really do much for the entire region.”
I never said it did. For one thing I’m talking about the Achaemenid Empire, not the actual land that it just happens to occupy. Secondly, the exact claim that I was making was that Cyrus the Great fought a war to end slavery. Which he did, among other liberated populaces, he specifically ended the Babylonian captivity of the Jews and helped them end their diaspora.
So that is the claim I was making, he fought a war and ended the slavery of a population of people.
So the actions of a different country thousands of years in the future, or even the actions of his own country later on, they don’t fucking matter. They don’t somehow erase what Cyrus did. If the claim was regarding the morality of Cyrus, then his other actions could influence the final judgement, but it fucking wasn’t. The claim was, quite simply, Cyrus did a thing. And instead of making an argument based on the actual evidence, about the actual claim, you go on a ridiculous tangent and set up a strawman argument talking about the immorality of a different country thousands of years in the future.
I’d write something longer but almost every post I’m trying to write to you gets an Internal Service Error, so I’ll stick to the main points.
Cyrus the Great tried to end slavery. Cyrus the Great failed because after he died and his son died, slavery returned to Persia under Darius the Great. There was no slavery only during Cyrus and Cambysis and Bariya. It was a very small part of the length of the Persian empire.
You ignore what i wrote, then claim I ignore your post. It’s vexing. I think you just get enraged when I write a post and don’t actually read it.
And yes, Cyrus’s works were largely undone by Darius. I’m not sure why you’re so defensive about this.
Dude, I never claimed that Cyrus unilaterally ended slavery, I claimed he fought a war to end slavery, most specially the slavery jews and more generally the slavery of other populaces in babylonian captivity. He freed the slaves, of Babylon.
And secondly, even if Cyrus did unilaterally end slavery in his country only for Darius to bring it back, it doesn’t change the fact that Cyrus fought a war to end slavery. It is inconsequential for that matter.
Lastly, you seriously need to read up on the Achaemenid Empire, cause you keep believing for some reason that Darius and Xerxes were overall bad guys. You even tried to say that Cambyses the second was unnoteworthy. Which is just ridiculous, Cambyses the second was a major asshole. He murdered the bull of Apsis and almost ruined everything.
You are missing the point. That is the USA is not unique in history for working against slavery.
I never argued that the US was unique in fighting against slavery. I’ve pointed out France and England as well, each of which engaged in ending slavery on a mass scale WELL beyond the lifetime of one man’s reign.
i think you’re confusing me with someone else’s post.
So, i highly doubt the USA was the only country to fight a war to end slavery.
Here’s 2 quick & well known examples of wars over slavery:
Haiti had a slave revolt that established it’s independence from France. And several thousand years before that we had the failed slave revolt lead by spartacus.
Also the bible explicitly allowed slavery.
Please remove the ‘Judeo-Christian values’ from the ideals of Enlightenment. The original sources of the former are incompatible with the latter in too many ways to list them all, even besides the explicit endorsement of slavery others already mentioned (and the rule that slaves that fit the categories ‘male’ and ‘Jewish’ have to be freed after a set time don’t make it better, rather it highlights the double-standards inherent in these ‘values’).
Not to mention that the concept is, as far as I know, about a century old and, at least today, often used as a post-hoc attempt to claim the achievements of enlightenment for the religious side when one of the biggest achievement next to the idea of universal human rights was the widespread propagation of the concept of separation of church and state.
Most uses of the term ‘Judeo-Christian values’ I’ve seen are from people who want to impose their interpretation of the religious sources onto everybody else, which runs contradictory to this in every way I can imagine.
I think all can agree that there was little good in the slave-trade on any end, and giving the benefit of the doubt, I choose to consider Titan’s ‘FUN FACT’ an example of irony, not a statement of enjoyment. But most societies have really ugly skeletons in the closet. Moving forward to improve ones society’s ethics, and moral values is the key. A pity many nations today are backsliding fast…
I believe the “FUN” part is that the truth is not the Disney-esque “Europe is the bad guy” fable that is propagated in the schools. (I won’t say “taught”… )
1) They were actually already invading prior to Europe (the Dutch in particular) buying slaves. Theyvwere evrn invading before the Arabs (who told the Dutch about the slave trade) were buying slaves en masse regularly. The invasions were not primarily about slaves for MOST African nations (except 2 or 3 of them, which were reliant on the slave trade as part of their economy) – it was a profitable side effect though. It was mainly about tribal differences, land, and goods seized during the invasions.
2) Not that it’s an excuse, but the slave trade was not because of Europe, and was not remotely primarily funded by Europe even at the height of the slave trade. Even if Europe was never involved, the Arabs were (and I believe there is still open air slave trading today in several Islamic nations, despite the best efforts of western nations … especially England, which spent a full quarter of its entire wealth at the height of their empire’s worth to end slavery worldwide). I think its mainly through Libya and a couple of other nations. Usually from Niger, Ghana, Gambia, Senegal, and Nigeria.
3) They were also using slaves IN those African nations even before the Islamic slave trade, let alone the Eoropean or American ones. It would not have been an incentive to stop. England probably provided the BIGGEST incentive to stop the slave trade by basically bribing, threatening, and embargoing them to make them stop.
The error there was when you said “selling to Europeans”.
The African slave trade existed for several hundred years before Columbus, with Arabs selling Black Africans, roughly a million per century, through various routes to places such as the Ottoman Empire.
I’m sure there were someone doing it before the Muslims came along, but it’s less well documented that far back.
Ever heard of a little story about a boy name Moses?
FUN FACT:
Willful participation in; and propagation of, Chattel Slavery is an affront to the dignity of your fellow Man.
As well as a Mortal Sin in the eyes of God.
It is now, has always been, and ever shall be, one of the darker stains upon the history of our species.
Period. Full stop.
Whatabout-isms that attempt to deflect from this conclusion are almost always bad faith arguments that are used by its participants and those that have profited directly (or indirectly) from the process (And those born into generational wealth derived from its use) to dodge responsibility and/or guilt in this matter.
Go tell it the muslims so engaged today. Be sure to tell us how that “Mortal Sin in the eyes of God” line goes over.
But seriously (what, you thought I wasn’t?) you’re railing against a point emphatically not being made. Titan’s FUN FACT is not a whataboutism. The rest of your comment is quite mealy-mouthed in it attempts to assign guilt by association. Please keep that crap to yourself. Or really, work harder on making an actual argument. Even should we disagree, we could at least have an interesting discussion then.
That “FUN FACT” is definitely whataboutism since the topic was about the role white americans & europeans played in the slave trade, and he’s changing it to another subject.
He’s saying that the premise of “white employer, black employees, ergo slavery”, implying that if the colours had been different there had been no issue, is not borne out by history. Which we know is true since slavery was practiced by all colours enslaving all colours, including their own. That makes the premise a bit of prejudice. So, he’s not changing the subject, nor making a counter-attack. He’s saying the premise isn’t true, but fallacious, if you will.
A white guy employing black people doesn’t make it slavery. I didn’t see anyone saying that’s the issue or premise. The thing is it’s not ordinary employment, it involves mercenary trade and invasion of other countries. If the colors were different it wouldn’t tie into real world issues as heavily, but it’d still be weird. I didn’t see anyone implying that it’d be ok in that scenario either.
If a white guy is doing something reminiscent of slavery, saying “black people participated in the slave trade” won’t make it any less weird and is a whatabout-ism.
But I’ll note slavery isn’t actually the best comparison here. People also pointed out there are strong parallels between what deus is doing and the real world history of people playing white savior in Africa. (i think 90% of africa was colonized by Europe by 1914).
More slaves were born in the USA, than were trafficked overseas from Africa.
The importing of slaves ended around 60 years before the end of slavery in the usa.
Sydney is 100 % part of the problem.
Someone is trading super powered mercenaries to an interstellar warlord.
Sydneyes focus? “ITS A RICH WHITE GUY DOING IT!”
Wait, trading? o_O
He’s trading the temporary USE of supers not trading them permanently BIG difference there like how the USA sent troops to South Vietnam to train their troops to fight…. wait…. Hummmm….
Naaaaa……
Except in this case it’s not only completely voluntary, the soldiers WANT to go there and are paid well for the opportunity.
Yeah, more like hiring out mercs, who voluntarily sign up for the opportunity
I was merely pointing out intentions rarely work out as planned letting supers travel and work as merc’s sounds great but how many will make it back and what about those people that were ready to pay big money for Max? Sounds pretty risky on many levels I hope Deus is very clear about that to the volunteers.
It’s not that different from what Vehemence asked of Maxima and Maxima is -considering- after she speaks to her higher-ups about it. Except Vehemence would be working for free instead of the US paying to keep him imprisoned with a real risk of him eventually getting out and causing chaos again.
“I’m your AethyrMall shopping guide (interrupting voice: ‘What powers do you have?’)
*sigh, I can herd cats” (‘You’ll do! [giggling]’)
Every well-ordered bureaucracy needs at least one of those.
“The Plane of No Matter How Much You Wipe, There’s Still Poo.” That is when you want to visit the “Plane of having a Bidet”.
I’ve had this discussion before. If you have the never-ending poo, get a small bunch of TP and start pushing towards your body, just under your tail bone, and as you’re keeping pressure slide toward towards your asshole. This should “pop” that Amber Turd right out.
So fear the never-ending poo no more.*
*YMMV
It appears Ol’ Tom is becoming a bit of a fan boi as far as supers go. As employees mind. Also, I have to agree with a theory I heard long ago that resurfaced as a meme…this is hell. And you are just serving your time, those who keep reincarnating must have been really nasty.
Harem Anvil ship full of furries and max tours some alleys… moderate chaos, mayhem and collateral damage ensues. Of course max goes there to see if deus violated any local laws so she can put his feet to the fire back home….
Maybe. Or maybe she has a list of who needs a gift of grax…
Again, Sydney getting offensive (and ‘offended on behalf of…’) but dismissed because… she’s Sydney
It is unclear whether you think other people’s offenses should be dismissed so readily, or that Sydney should be treated more harshly.
I guess it could be both.
Personally prefer letting them decide if they even should be offended
Anvil is clearly offended by the ‘sassy black woman bit’ by Sydney, but Sydney is dismissing her feelings with a laugh
its called disengaging; she isn’t dismissing, she is acknowledging and stopping the behavior while also attempt to deescalate to indicate she meant no offense.. Do you expect her to start crying for forgiveness at Anvil’s feet or something?
Except that’s exactly what she does when she gets called out (repeatedly): she just laughs it off
No, “laughing it off” is when you refuse to stop the offensive behavior because “hahah, you’re just being overly sensitive, I’m going to continue doing it while dismissing your opinion as to what is offensive to you or not.”
What Sydney is doing is disengagement. She makes mistakes. She immediately stops the moment she gets called out on them. “Oh, woops! Sorry, I did it again. Gonna stop now, with an embarrassed laugh.”
She keeps making the same ‘mistake’, as you yourself just said “Sorry, I did it again.”
She’s only embarrassed because she got caught, again
It can be argued she has had a milk toast life.
and to be fair the sassy black woman snapping thing is done so often in pop culture and she is a pop culture nerd it may not have even occurred to her someone could take offense to it.
this is something I bring up often enough with habituation and normalizing stereotypes, terms, and other such things in comics, shows, and so on; even when the individual work is identified as fiction, the repetition of certain elements (like for instance making fun of boys for liking girl things) or cliche responses like the snip snap oh no you didn’t used here, in so many different things can internally normalize it.
and for someone with say ADHD or some other neurodivergent trait whose behavior is one part mimicking others to try and fit the social norm these can be very hard to overcome even after realizing they weren’t meant to be part of regular use and these shows and such were repeating the same joke or harmful stereotype.
Here is a possible place she could have seen it for instance,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y8ViGvCrL8
I think you mean milquetoast. :)
https://grammarist.com/interesting-words/milquetoast-vs-milktoast/
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5f/b6/48/5fb648e5649afeb5136727c8e482f7c2.jpg
either works for what we intend here.
My bad.
I just never have seen it spelled milk toast. It’s always been milquetoast when I’ve read it.
yeah, its a case of a term already existing, someone changing some spelling, and their version getting so popular that in common usage it means that.
I did mean more the vanilla on bread as a way of saying *very white and very bland or homogenous*, although this may be a somewhat outdated expression I guess. rather than timid and unassertive as the name version means.
Well at least I learned something new so I count this as a win.
I actually like bread and milk (with honey) now and then, but it’s never occurred to me to toast the bread first. Gotta try that now.
additionally, correcting an ingrained error like that is not one and done. Realistically you need to keep working on problems like that. Like being around racist relatives and racially insensitive media and such, as they say the first thought is usually something society programmed, its the second thought that helps you work on it…and ADHD its hard not to spout out that first thought even when one second later its like…why the holiest of hells would I say that?
With Sidney able to travel to Fracture easily I’d would be surprised if Archon hasn’t send some ‘tourists’ to check out the sites.
Or, more openly, have an office there for getting news, information, making friends and to aquire (buy) interesting technology.
I think Dave just hasn’t gotten around to telling us about it. Imagine all the amusing storylines that are possible.
Bowl of Grakz, anyone?
off world combat training…. hmmmm… Archon may want to try and send a ‘disgraced’ recruit or two. wouldn’t pay for some supers to level up their combat skills without Archon knowing about it. we’ve already had a few close calls. getting some well coordinated mercs roaming around might be trouble. and there are those possesed bodies roaming around mexico/South America that need to be found.
Is that really all he wants? Sounds like Tom is just using the soldier exchange as an excuse to get his claws in the door to potentially invade Earth.
There are presumably many other inhabitable worlds in the universe, with valuable resources or interesting inhabitants. What makes Earth worth invading?
Supers
But why invade when you can rent?
Why rent when you can own it?
But it all comes down to Tom and if he ends up giving into greedy desires and make the bet of owning earth and their supers. It was explained that demons, while trying to be more ‘civil’ now a-days, do have a tendency to be power hungry due to infernal energies infecting their nature. Which is what dabbler explained before about losing to the angels in a war due demon in fighting.
Problem with owning, is you are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance and all the other ‘fun’ shit that goes along with it, and have to pay out of your own pocket
It’s why Evil Inc. has no plans on owning the world, they prefer to just rent it and hire themselves out to those ‘in charge’
This Evil Inc, or a generic one? Don’t read the comic, but I do listen to his podcast since I’m into his co-host’s work.
Whenever you do an Enhancer pic, I can’t help checking the background for Yxlyn.
Your comment about “Where the here are my keys,” reminded me of the line from Christopher Marlowe’s “Dr. Faustus.” In response to an order to return to Hell, Mephistopholes said: “Why this is Hell, nor am I out of it.”
Of course, what he meant was that just not being in Heaven anymore was Hell: “Think’st thou that I, who saw the face of God And tasted the eternal joys of heaven, Am not tormented with ten thousand hells In being deprived of everlasting bliss?”
Whelp, time for somebody to post this I think
AVENUE Q – ‘Everybody’s a Little Racist,’ Broadway Cast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM
*grins* why say it, when somebody else said it better?
Has Sydney found the entrance to Fracture Station yet?
That’s where the free translators are handed out.
Is there an entrance fee to cover the cost of the food court?
Space shopping with Earthican cash? Do they take VISA?
She doesn’t need the translators any more, but the others might appreciate them. Sydney’s glasses can handle multiple languages.
It lets her read, not hear other languages, and it doesn’t let her speak them.
Sydney and Anvil should probably ask Cora or Dabbler what they can use for currency/trade if they want to go shopping on Fracture Station.
A warlord that doesn’t mind casually throwing the word “slave” around too! This obtuse plot for world domination Deus has going could be spun into a PR nightmare real easy!
I don’t think Tom was casually throwing around the word ‘slave’ in the context that you’re implying he was.
Dabbler literally IS his slave, in a succubus context, largely because of a magically biological condition which requires it to keep Dabbler alive, which is closer to (but obviously different in KEY areas from) a voluntary BDSM mentality in human comparisons. And it’s a lot different than that of the Slave Trade.
That being said, yes, Tom needs a good P.R. manager. For one thing…. his entire species needs to think about renaming themselves something other than ‘Fiends’ if they’re going to have a lot of interaction on Earth. I think Sydney mentioned this the last time they met, after Tom was bodyslammed by Maxima.
Nah, doesn’t matter new name they come up, that would have the same association
Even if his people were introduced as “Happy Valley Sunshine Huggers”
Never underestimate a good public relations campaign.
Or an evil one, regarding SmugD :P
You so silly.
One day you will recognize the light which is Deus. All praise Deus, amen.
The benefits may be great, and indeed may be the best offer on the table. But there’s also the question of whether they will actually be paid out, if they have done enough work to be sure that the demon is not lying about the risks, whether the risks are misrepresented and what the actual risks ends up being.
Easy to offer great benefits if they only expect 1 in 10 to return alive.
And even if Deus expects the survival ratio to be fantastic, supers are unprecedented and has a lot of galactic attention. Superhuman soldiers may be wayhay bigger targets than they would seem.
Neither of them can know for sure that they won’t be kidnapped or headhunted on an involuntary basis while deployed. There are many, many angles one could come at this from and so many ways it could go wrong that are only partially under Deus’s and Tom’s control.
And again that’s assuming Tom’s actually providing honest information. Factchecking his deal might seem easy with access to alien internet, but it might also be much more difficult than anticipated. African nations today often also has access to the internet but still end up signing up for horrific deals. And that’s assuming Deus actually does care, he might not, for all his rhetoric about super-intelligence coming with super-empathy and super-wisdom.
Municipalities in the US sign absolutely _horrible_ deals with the ISPs every day in the US. What’s your point?
Thank you for pointing that out
It’s not just African nations that get ‘forced’ into horrific deals, and not just about internet access
I think I can stomach the idea that both kinds of deals should be much more heavily regulated and the participants held to a very high standard of accountability and transparency.
If you’re not allowed to check their work, it’s usually because checking their work would lead you to discover that the deal and the individuals in question are sketchy and irresponsible.
Fracture Station Shopping trips are probably going to become a regular thing with the gang.
Slight problem with that off world shopping trip though. You have to have a currency that’s of value to them. USD might as well be Monopoly money at that point. I’m sure they have a few friends who can point them in the right direction though. XP
A viable currency, or the ability to get a viable currency via trade goods or work. Regular contact with Earth is still new enough that there’s a decent chance of picking a ‘cultural’ export that no-one at that end has seen before.
Apparently human porn is currency.
grrl-power-754-and-your-race-smells-of-elderberries
and
grrl-power-770-reactions-are-mixed
couldn’t be bothered doing links, they’re in the archive
When you have such a hugely diverse number of races and cultures “money” really doesn’t exist it’s all about trade of value and our porn seems to have a great deal of value (I disagree a definite lack of writers with at least common sense lol) but there’s other things of value whether it’s metals that are rare to one race or food or… the list goes on. Heck if one races’ planet has an abundance of rare-earth minerals and another an abundance of lighter minerals sounds like the start of a huge trade agreement.
How common do you think cotton is on other worlds? Apples? Corn? Sugar? Things we take for granted may make some other race very excited.
I’m less concerned about how much they are paid, rather than the upper limits of what constitute a war crime for Tom. These supers could commit genocide and Archon has no way of knowing what happens. There is galactic police that is supposed to handle this, but it still seems pretty sketchy to me. I don’t know if it’s been already covered how Tom conduct war outside Earth, so do tell if I’ve forgotten something.
If I remember right his brag was he would take over a pre/post FTL planet to end the petty squabbling between the planetary governments and unify all countries which sounds good on paper but…..
It just sounds to me like a recipe for a prolonged global war rather than a peaceful settling in granted not every race would react like we would but still I see more headache than resolution. War crimes are determined by the planet’s social structure as much as anything take the Alari nanny disks I seriously doubt those would be ok here!
Most examples of other worlds that have more than one ‘government’ tend to have, at most, three or four (obviously not counting worlds that have multiple races or species), because most other worlds aren’t depicted as being as broken landmass-wise as Dirt
“Granted, this is an ESL speaker (more likely English is his fourth or ninth language), ”
In ESL (English as a Second Language) and similar phrases, “second language” (also known as L2) does not mean language number two. Rather, it refers to a language one acquires after childhood from living in a country where it is spoken, as opposed to a _first language_ (L1, or native language), which is acquired while growing up in an environment where it is spoken, and a _foreign language_ which is learned through conscious study (in school or otherwise). Thus, a person may have two or even three first languages, and any number of second languages (well, depending on how old they are), but (in this context) there is no such thing as a third or fourth language. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language.
Thus, I would be quite surprised to hear that Tom speaks English as a second language.
So it may be more accurate to expand the acronym to ‘Secondary Language’ rather than ‘Second’? Doesn’t quite line up as well for Primary and First or Native, unfortunately.
I’m afraid that description doesn’t match actual usage, since native English speakers are hired to teach ESL classes in Japan to Japanese.
Honestly, I’d just backronym S to be “Subsequent” rather than Second, and ignore the whole “foreign” leg of the description.
Definition of ESL: “English as a Second Language (ESL or TESL) is a traditional term for the use or study of the English language by non-native speakers in an English-speaking environment (it is also known as English for speakers of other languages.)”
Definition of second language : “a language that is learned in addition to the language a person first learned as a young child.”
If a child had multiple languages learned as a toddler, they would presumably all qualify as “first languages”. Pretty much, whatever was spoken in the home would be the first language.
There are cases — I’ve forgotten the guy’s name — where each of a person’s relatives spoke a different major language to him, so he grew up speaking several languages, but also believing that everyone had a language of their own.
Okay, yeah, it doesn’t have to be “in a country where it is spoken”, that was a simplification on my part. In your definition of ESL, notice the words “in an English-speaking environment”; that is a better way of putting it (although, of course, the results tend to be better the more all-encompassing that environment is). The point is that those ESL classes tend to be more about talking and using the language, and less about word lists and grammar (which is the focus of learning a foreign language); this is also why they primarily look for native speakers rather than people with a degree in teaching.
But I would ask where you found your definition of “second language”, because while people obviously use the phrase that way — that is the normal usage of “second” — I very much doubt that anybody would bother to define it that way as a term, exactly because it is the expected usage and therefore doesn’t need to be specifically defined. You need to distinguish the *term* “second language”, which has a specific meaning and is used in specific contexts, from the *general phrase* “second language” (i.e. number two) arising from simply combining the two words. If your definition is taken from, say, some kind of census form or other type of data not related to language learning, or perhaps specifically related to learning foreign languages in school, it may well not need to distinguish between different types of non-native language abilities; the fact that it ignores the possibility of having more than one first language does point in that direction.
[And in general, when you quote a definition it is usually a good idea to say where the quote is taken from — especially if you’re using it as a counterargument… ;) ]
Look up ‘Black Birding’. Not chatel slavery, ‘workers’ were sent to Australia by their local rulers to work on farms, the rulers (not the workers) were paid (usually in goods) and there was no provision to return the workers to wherever they came from, which made it a real handy way to get rid of people who were unpopular with said ruler. If there wasn’t a suitably compliant ruler the ‘recruiters’ would offer shinies directly to locals, again conveniently without any provision for a return passage. Their descendants are still in Australia.
Didn’t see this comment before I wrote mine. Defo a shit time to be a Pacific Islander then.
Last time she went there for a fun trip it caught the eye of the station’s control room I suspect things will get dicey for her if she keeps doing it. If for no other reason is it bypasses the station’s security and no-pre-FTL rules. They are already up in arms/tentacles/claws/graspers/omg what IS thats lol.
Never be offended on the behalf of someone else. It’s insulting.
So, what’s your advice for the appropriate way to respond to someone being offended? Is it insulting to be offended alongside them? Or should you attempt to invalidate their feelings? Support the offender? Disclaim involvement and responsibility?
Recognize the agency of the individual to handle his own life. Being offended is you assuming the person is too inept to be an independent individual. Don’t do anything unless asked for help.
Sometimes when people experience an emotion, they want the support of other people to validate that emotion, and those around them not responding makes them feel like their emotions are wrong.
Do you not express happiness for others, when something good happens to them? Sorrow, when they experience something bad? Do you not offer aid and support to others who are in need?
Why am I attempting to explain empathy and sympathy to a human being? Because that’s what it is. Getting offended for other people is about showing that their feelings of offense are valid. Failure to mirror their emotions suggests either that you don’t care about them, or that you don’t understand them, in the case of being offended when they are not.
… Except no one on this page was showing any signs of being offended until after Sydney got all ‘vicariously offended’ on their behalf
I think LaughingTarget is meaning it’s insulting to be vicariously offended FOR another person. As if they need help in knowing what they should or should not be offended about.
For example, I’m half native Hawaiian. I find it incredibly annoying when someone is offended ‘on my behalf’ about the means by which Hawaii became a state (the US annexed Hawaii from the Hawaiian Monarchy when a group of American businessmen, with the support of U.S. Minister John Stevens and a small group of Marines staged a soft coup to depose Queen Liliuokalani – the queen surrended in hopes that President Cleveland would reinstate her … it wound up not happening). Frankly, I’m fine with being American, even if the means by which Hawaii became a territory was underhanded and fueled by nationalism of the Spanish-American War (it took a while to petition for Hawaii to become a state instead of just an annexed territory).
I just don’t need someone else to be offended ‘on my behalf’ or, as Sydney put it ‘vicariously offended.’ If I want to be offended, I’ll be offended without needing outside help to have an emotional reaction. :) It sort of irritates my independent mindset, if I’m being honest. Being offended because you are personally offended is one thing – being offended for someone else implies the other person is too dumb to know to be offended (assuming there’s even a reason for them to be offended, which they may very well NOT be).
PS – just read LaughingTarget’s follow-up post and I totally agree :)
Being offended, whether for yourself or others, is a way of expressing disapproval. It’s part of how a culture communicates its values, and discourages undesirable behavior.
I feel like ‘being offended on behalf of another person’ is a bit more disingenuous because you’re assuming what another person is thinking and essentially ‘virtue signalling’ to show that you’re worthwhile in their eyes, even if they might not be offended in the first place, like Kito and Terre are not offended.
I know I would rather not have another person speak for me on if I should or should not be offended about something. I have my own brain and I can figure out my own emotional state, and I’m pretty sure it’s obvious to people that I’m sort of… outspoken about my opinions and stances, based on the novelas I usually write as posts.
Unless you’re my lawyer and I’m literally paying you tell a judge or jury my emotional state on my behalf. :)
Being offended for someone else, who does not themselves feel offended, shows a lack of understanding for that person and their feelings. Responding as they do, whether that is to be offended or not, or any other emotion, shows familiarity, a bond. So I can see how it comes across as fake or disingenuous when someone who doesn’t know you attempts to pretend that they do.
But I would certainly expect my friends and family to be able to predict my emotional responses to some degree, and to show support for me when someone attacks me.
And regardless of affiliation to the target of the offense, we should show disapproval of immoral or hurtful actions. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing, to just stand by and watch.
“But I would certainly expect my friends and family to be able to predict my emotional responses to some degree, and to show support for me when someone attacks me.”
I feel like in this case, you’re not necessarily offended on their behalf, but you’re PERSONALLY offended that someone else offended your friend. Offense inception, as it were. :)
“And regardless of affiliation to the target of the offense, we should show disapproval of immoral or hurtful actions. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing, to just stand by and watch.”
Then you need to be very careful when labelling something as immoral, hurtful, or evil. Especially if it’s not, as in the above case with Sydney, and shown to not be any of those things by Kito and Terre.
“So I can see how it comes across as fake or disingenuous when someone who doesn’t know you attempts to pretend that they do.”
Yeah, that’s why I’d be more annoyed by some stranger being offended on my behalf because of something that they have NO idea on my feelings on the subject (just using very surface reasoning like my ethnicity or the color of my skin or my sex) vs if a friend who actually KNOWS me and what annoys me or does not annoy me stepping in to be offended. Because in the latter case, it’s not really them being offended on my behalf – it’s them being offended that someone said something to offend me, their friend. There’s an actual personal tie-in, in that case, so it isnt as fake or disingenuous.
Hm, this comment annoys me greatly because now I really ought to dig into cultural anthropology and psychology to see how it really works. And I can’t really be arsed to do all that. Now that I’ve just declared my ignorance:
“Being offended” can be used to communicate disapproval, though it certainly isn’t the only way to communicate societal values. But many cases of “being offended on someone else’s behalf” is much more about virtue signalling, and if the virtues being signalled are those of a small in-group rather than society as a whole, it certainly isn’t about how societies communicate their values. It’s how a small in-group is trying to reshape society with its own preferred values.
Though not everyone is as articulate as Pander is. Some people are unable to voice their disagreement in anything resembling a reasoned argument. Then it could help if someone stepped in and showed the offender the error of their ways. (Perhaps famously, the yakuza go really really quiet, and it’s up to you to figure out it’s you that and what you did wrong, then apologise. Might cost you a finger, too.) But I would say that’s rather different than, as some groups are doing, making “being offended on someone else’s behalf” their day-job.
Berke Breathed addressed this once, in a comic called “Bloom County” entitled “Offensensitivity”
https://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1982/11/14
Even without the race angle, there’s something very uncomfortable with just using military forces in such a mercenary way.
Of course this happens, but there’s still usually an attempt at a pretext. Tom probably doesn’t understand that but Deus probably should, and might have to have a word with Tom later about how his supers are going out there to “intervene in disabling a potential imminent threat to Earth” or something. Hel, even saying it’s “coalition building with foreign dignitaries” might be possible.
You really believe SmugD gives a shit how his slaves get used by Tom as long as he gets compensated sufficiently before they depart? And that includes any future footholds on any planets they help ‘liberate’
Having some trouble posting again. Keeps giving me an Internal Service Error message.
Deus clearly cares about his employees because he values trust and loyalty, as he stated to Sciona in the Black Reliquiry. There is absolutely nothing in Deus’ history when dealing with any of the people he employs, either as employees or mercenaries or bodyguards, that suggests he does not do whatever he can to make things as beneficial for them as possible. Vale basically lives in the lap of luxury because of it. Heavenly Sword got a cool magic sword to show the difference between how Deus treats his mercs vs how Sciona treats hers (ie, Wyrmil).
I would post the links but when I do I get an Internal Service Error message. It’s comics #569 and #570.
It seem to be an english speaking african country , not a francophone one.
The saying ” Donc vous êtes la version noire de Bob Denard.” in french :”So you’re the black version of Bob Denard.”
Bob Denard is an infamous french mercenary responsible of numerous coup d’état…
It will be a serious burn , and answer wil be insults or hostility to conceal shame or if they are honest shame alone.
For some reason I think a really bad sex joke was missed in the phrase “Deployment abroaaaad”. I will leave it up to others to explain, because if your mind doesn’t go there instantly then you are not qualified to tell relly bad sex jokes.
We’ve got two succubi on the scene. Professional pride would probably prevent them allowing really bad sex, even as a joke.
Clearly, Sydney got the head action wrong.
From out anime 80’s past and the EarthDefenseCommand of DFW Kon scene by YouKnowWho
this is how Gallytin?sp should have a mercenary company https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks_cdTU_BoY
And I should note that it’s 3 months combat duty with six months accumulated downtime for most combat contractors not 6 vs 9 , that is a lousy deal for those supers.
From out anime 80’s past and the EarthDefenseCommand of DFW Kon scene by YouKnowWho
this is how Gallytin?sp should have a mercenary company BillCO ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks_cdTU_BoY
And I should note that it’s 3 months combat duty with six months accumulated downtime for most combat contractors not 6 vs 9 , that is a lousy deal for those supers.
Wait, they are talking about invading Dirt? o_O
Super dimension anime references Macross, Orguss, Megazone23, etc. all earth next door tropes.
Foreshadowing being buried here.
Sidney has clearly been taking more trips to Fracture station than we thought, to the point she will openly discuss it with other members of her team. I think at this point it is clear Sidney has forgotten her portal is the sort of thing even 2nd tier civilization have a hard time making without tons of sacrifice or energy output, and presumably even 3rd tiers aren’t known to do it so easily with so small a device *assuming theirs would be some crystal gateway the size of a room guarded by a monster and/or riddles as a test to access the Grand Door of the Stars Beyond, or whatever*, still a wall sized device is still loads more complex than needing a massive ship and sacrificing a few hundred psychics or something.
but yeah Fracture is on the look out now and knows the Aethereum causeways are coming from Earth now.
speaking of, Deus is lending out employee assistance/military assistance with incentive, to one interplanetary military faction. No word on if Infernum is part of the Xevoarchy or not,
and seeing as how most planets seem to think in one world governments mindsets, chances are they could accuse the Earth its self not just Deus and Galtyn for taking sides with and sending supers as mercenaries for Infernum.
In my experience, the best way to know if you should be offended on someone elses behalf is to wait till they TELL you they are offended and then back them up.
This situation feels borderline for historical reasons but if its done with no coersion and with full up front info? Yeah it seems fine?
Maybe Vehemence should go with Tom…?!?
And how would they get him back again? Or be able to stop him from coming back?
As V himself pointed out when he made this same suggestion, him being in prison is mostly because he is too dangerous to be loose on Earth. Going with Tom puts him somewhere where he is not an immediate danger to Earth. As long as he stays with Tom they can keep in contact about where V is, and stopping him if he comes back involves the same plan as stopping him if he tries to escape from one of his sparring matches, send Max and Halo after him.
And we saw how much trouble they both had when he was just powered up by the Restaurant Rumble… now imagine him powered up from an actual planetary war (or three)
Sydney’s little trick with her porta-gate won’t work a second time (specially if he targets her first and removes a limb or three)
I’m not sure if they’d want to do that.
I’m wondering how Sydney would pay for a foray off planet but the whole Alien you tube eat the peppers probably made her 37 or 38 sepjiooon space bucks
Sexy genarian here. Er, oops, I meant sexagenarian*. That was totally accidental and you can’t prove otherwise.
You remind me of an old joke: What did Geronimo yell when he jumped out of an airplane? “Meeeeeeeeeeeee!” Also similar jokes about Christ swearing by referring to himself and/or his parents using improper nouns after stubbing a toe, such as “Me, my mom and my dad!”
…I suppose it could be inferred that I just basically said “Sure, kid, it’s all been done before. Nothing new under the sun” but really I’m just here to tell Dad jokes.
*65, as it happens.
Deus and Tom are actually reminding me of the Israeli agricultural programs starting in the 1950s, helping newly liberated African nations to learn how to do all the things that the colonizers had told them only white Europeans could do. Golda Meir wrote about it in her autobiography, “My Life.” How one of her primary objectives was to treat the Africans with respect, as equals. Which was something that they were unused to, and which they greatly appreciated. She also emphasized the importance of education, and self-reliance (again, to assure the Africans that they DIDN’T need to rely on European nations to provide “civilization,” that they could do it all for themselves).
Unfortunately, after the Yom Kippur War intense pressure was put on the African nations and the formal ties were forcibly severed. Though things did gradually resume in the decades since. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-cooperation-with-africa
when your sending well paid mercenaries out across the Multi-Verse to do what ever, a little thing like their planet of origin’s slavery history will probably not even get a mention. who’s going to really care if they are humans or Wampa’s? when their fighting Kif
Identifying the stamps on the suitcase – the top one looks like it says “Aiur” (Starcraft reference), the script for the bottom looks like Babylon 5 Centauri…. Anyone abe to confirm, disprove, or most importantly, expand on this?
Bottom is Star Wars
I think the one with the circles on top might be the Gallifreyan language, i.e. Doctor Who.
How has nobody commented on Warsyl? That is absolutely gorgeous work. Wow.
What’s a Warsyl?
The vote incentive portrait of the character in Tamer Enhancer 2.
Oh! I did not know that! Cool.