All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[The Cool Thatguy]

Is there some list of the worst people in history that could be considered objective? Maybe by number of deaths they caused?

What I can think of on the top of my head:

Genghis Khan
Mao Ce-Tung
Lenin
Stalin
Hitler
...and now Putin

That would be 3 for russia.

Any other suggestions?

It feels unfair to place Khan on that list. The death toll he produced was more of a bug than a feature, and empire building was just what you did in his era. He promoted based on merit, gave women some rights, etc. As conquerors go, he wasn't that bad

For the others, Hitler et all, death wasn't a bug, but a feature. Or with Mao, they had the ability to know better

[Tendrin]

It feels unfair to place Khan on that list. The death toll he produced was more of a bug than a feature, and empire building was just what you did in his era. He promoted based on merit, gave women some rights, etc. As conquerors go, he wasn't that bad

For the others, Hitler et all, death wasn't a bug, but a feature. Or with Mao, they had the ability to know better

No, it's definitely fair to put Khan on a list of all time butchers. While we have reason to be wary of many of the accounts of his empire's barbarity, it's not 'presentism' because they were unmatched in brutality by the standards of their time, and the things we tend to assume were 'natural' when it comes to brutality and more usually weren't.

The Mongol army conquered hundreds of cities and villages and killed millions of people. One estimate is that about 11% of the world's population was killed either during or immediately after the Mongol invasions (around 37.75–60 million people in Eurasia).[1] If the calculations are accurate, the events would be the deadliest acts of mass killings in human history.

While this isn't about Ghengis Khan himself, his descendents followed the standard of brutality he himself set.

In 1260, Hulagu sent envoys to Qutuz in Cairo with a letter demanding his surrender that read:

From the King of Kings of the East and West, the Great Khan. To Qutuz the Mamluk, who fled to escape our swords. You should think of what happened to other countries and submit to us. You have heard how we have conquered a vast empire and have purified the earth of the disorders that tainted it. We have conquered vast areas, massacring all the people. You cannot escape from the terror of our armies. Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor armies stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations. Only those who beg our protection will be safe. Hasten your reply before the fire of war is kindled. Resist and you will suffer the most terrible catastrophes. We will shatter your mosques and reveal the weakness of your God and then will kill your children and your old men together. At present you are the only enemy against whom we have to march.

— Hulagu, [25]

The Mongols had ample reason to believe they would make good on their threats. They usually had before.

[Gray Lensman]

No, it's definitely fair to put Khan on a list of all time butchers. While we have reason to be wary of many of the accounts of his empire's barbarity, it's not 'presentism' because they were unmatched in brutality by the standards of their time, and the things we tend to assume were 'natural' when it comes to brutality and more usually weren't.



While this isn't about Ghengis Khan himself, his descendents followed the standard of brutality he himself set.



The Mongols had ample reason to believe they would make good on their threats. They usually had before.

If I remember my history correctly, Genghis Khan's deathbed order was for the death of an entire culture, and his troops obeyed, sacking the city, killing every last inhabitant, and then razing it to the ground, taking care to ensure that nothing survived.

[Tendrin]

If I remember my history correctly, Genghis Khan's deathbed order was for the death of an entire culture, and his troops obeyed, sacking the city, killing every last inhabitant, and then razing it to the ground, taking care to ensure that nothing survived.

Khan is one of those figures that's hard to get a real grasp on. A lot of his most brutal deeds were assigned to him by, well, his enemies. We don't have a whole lot of primary sources.

[Gray Lensman]

Khan is one of those figures that's hard to get a real grasp on. A lot of his most brutal deeds were assigned to him by, well, his enemies. We don't have a whole lot of primary sources.

True, but that story is one that fits - he was attacking them because they were supposed to send soldiers for some other battle and did not, and nothing angered the Khan like failing to meet such obligations.

[Tendrin]

True, but that story is one that fits - he was attacking them because they were supposed to send soldiers for some other battle and did not, and nothing angered the Khan like failing to meet such obligations.

There was a study a while back that showed that he killed so many people that he cooled the earth a little.

[Mister Mets]

Trump sells D.C. hotel lease to Miami investment group

This has implications for his presidential bid. We'd figure if he wants to be President again, this can be a source of revenue. Does this mean he's not running? Or does it mean he's running and recognizing the (correctly) bad optics? Or could it be something else (temporary tax break, exploitation of legal loophole, etc.)

And the thing with the GOP and the "We want Parents to decide what is taught in schools." is really BS and just a cover to avoid teaching black history and the facts about Slavery. Like I posted last week one of our local schools who have been having a Diversity day for the last 3 years had it canceled this year. They are still dragging their feet and refusing to reschedule it even though a majority of parents in the school district want it as do the students.

So it boils down to "We want the parents to decide as long as they dont want things like a Diversity Day in their school."

The law in Florida covers slavery. They've got material on it on their websites.

I posted this before, but as one random example, the Florida Commissioner of Education's African American History Task Force has a series of lessons on David Walker's Appeal, a famed call for action.

https://afroamfl.org/news/grade-6-8-...alkers-appeal/

It's not about slavery but a recent bill signed by Governor DeSantis is calling for the inclusion of the Ocoee Massacre of 1920 (when a small town near Orlando was burned to the ground by the white mobs, and dozens of African Americans were murdered because they wanted to vote) to social studies curricula.

https://www.aahtfevents.com/ocoeemasasacre

According to a bill passed by DeSantis and a Republican legislature, required instruction includes "The history of African Americans, including the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and the contributions of African Americans to society. Instructional materials shall include the contributions of African Americans to American society."
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...s/1003.42.html

I understand that people get nervous about any proposed laws in the context of the anti-CRT laws. But that's a different question from whether a particular law in isolation is a good thing. And I do think covering the crimes of communism counts, especially since political partisans want to downplay it and some of them are educators.

We should be able to teach about bad things people did without blaming their descendants. The greatgrandchildren of confederate generals, the grandchildren of Nazis, and the children of bigots are not responsible for what their ancestors did, and that's a pretty easy distinction to make.

"Anyone who blames someone for things committed by their ancestors is a piece of ****." That's an easy caveat.

[Mister Mets]

Some other companies are apparently being advised to stay silent as well.

PR giant advising corporate clients to stay silent on abortion rights
https://popular.info/p/pr-giant-advi...te-clients?s=r

It's probably better for our culture if there are some things that can be shared by people on the left and the right, rather than having all sorts of entertainment companies go out of their way to identify with one political group.

Here's his Tweet.
"Twitter deal temporarily on hold pending details supporting calculation that spam/fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5% of users"

Looks like he was given incorrect information on the number of spambots
or
Since he was looking for money to help him fund his buyout, maybe he couldn't find it
or
He was trolling all this time?

His argument is that he needs to verify Twitter's numbers on fake accounts. It could also be a pretext to abandon the deal, an effort at renegotiation, a way to keep the deal in the news or it could be God knows what.

Finland won't do this, but isn't this the exact same excuse that Russia used to take Crimea?

I could see Russians being concerned about this due to projection.

This supreme court justice will go down in historical infamy, along with the Roberts court more broadly.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...aaf9e43487e372

Why do you believe his legal argument to be unreasonable?

The English version often used is “we have more men than you have bullets”. (It would be interesting to know what the correct literal translation of the original Russian saying is.)

But effectively the Russian capacity to spend life prodigiously has seen them to success fairly often. They saw off Napoleon that way and played the largest single part of seeing off Adolf Hitler.

All countries have been blighted with ruthless rulers from time to time, but Russia I think has been spectacularly unlucky with some of theirs…by their standards Putin is a moderate and successful ruler.

Fortunately, bullets have gotten cheaper.

Actually Stalin was from Georgia.

And putin is quite an amateur next to those guys.

Hell, Bush did worst.

Stalin got to lead the Soviet Union, so he certainly counts as a bad Russian.

They aren't that complicated at all really, nor are they really contradictory.

I don't think it's the nuance of legal opinion, just a misunderstanding of health terms. Most people who aren't doctors seem to think that start of the second trimester coincides with when the fetus first becomes viable outside the womb but the truth is that doesn't actually happen until nearly the end of the second trimester. Basically, it goes back to the terrible standard of sex education that we have in this country as its so bare bones as to nearly be useless and usually only a mandatory class for a few short years(all most always in middle school/ jr. high).

I'd bet big cash that had the question been phrased, "Should abortion generally be legal before the fetus is viable outside the womb?" it would have yielded a much higher percentage of support than the phrasing of, "Should abortion generally be legal in the second trimester?" The phrase " viable outside the womb" is clear to even laymen who's only knowledge of reproductive health was severely lacking and occurred years ago, while "second trimester" is broader and more nebulous in meaning to the uneducated so much so that I question whether the intent of the pollster was to show a conflicted opinion where none truly exists.

Again, this comes down to the question of why should a small number of uneducated people get to dictate policy to the rest of the country?

The answer is, "They Shouldn't."

You believe abortions are wrong?

Don't get one, no one is forcing you.

"Don't want abortions, don't get one" is an argument that the left doesn't accept in other situations. "If you don't like discrimination in the workplace, don't discriminate in the workplace."

I certainly agree that many voters are ignorant, and this has implications for policy preferences (for example, people consistently overestimate the levels of foreign aid.)

I don't see any indication that the average American believes a fetus to be viable after 14 weeks, when the second trimester begins.

[Rev9]

Khan is one of those figures that's hard to get a real grasp on. A lot of his most brutal deeds were assigned to him by, well, his enemies. We don't have a whole lot of primary sources.

If it was one set of enemies you'd say maybe, but all sort of kingdoms and cultures suffered unspeakable horrors as a result of his campaigns with records of this in China, Russia,Islamic world ,Eastern Europe(Hungary) those are primary sources. This ain't a folktale, guy was absolutely the terror of the earth in his day.It was likely a mixture of a campaign tactic to sow disorder and fear in enemies but also probably a genuine savagery that was innate. If he united the clans through bloodlust why stop once he became emperor? Another reason why historically this is likely true is because Mongols were a nomadic people, vast expanses of forage land is what they craved, not holding towns and cities hence why razing these to the ground and depopulating swathes of land meant little to them.

[Mister Mets]

In some gross news, Eliot Cutler, a former gubernatorial candidate in Maine, was arrested with thousands of videos of child porn.

https://bangordailynews.com/2022/05/...-abuse-videos/

He was an independent who finished second to Paul LePage in the 2010 gubernatorial election. He ran again in 2014, but only got eight percent that time.

He was a political ally of Senator Angus King, who endorsed his earlier bids for Governor (although he switched his support to the Democrat in late October 2014 when it was clear that Cutler has not broken through.)

https://www.pressherald.com/2014/08/...ment-official/

I mention the Angus King connection to note that this guy was close to becoming Governor of Maine, not to suggest that anyone else had any hints of what he was really like.

In some good news, Mitch McConnell and several other Republican Senators (Susan Collins, John Cornyn, John Barrasso) are in Ukraine to meet with Zelensky.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcc...enskyy-meeting

[Catlady in training]

The position of the Democratic party isn't just pro-abortion, but they're in favor of it in pretty much all circumstances.

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.

"Don't want abortions, don't get one" is an argument that the left doesn't accept in other situations. "If you don't like discrimination in the workplace, don't discriminate in the workplace."

I don't understand this comparison. Abortion is something that affects just the woman, to a much smaller extent her family.
Discrimination in the workplace doesn't just affect the person responsible for the discrimination (which would be a parallel in your example), but people who are being discriminated. Not comparable at all.

It sounds like that argument that some conservatives like to use, that people achieving equal rights and protection is somehow a discrimination against those who had those rights already.

[Tendrin]

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.



I don't understand this comparison. Abortion is something that affects just the woman, to a much smaller extent her family.
Discrimination in the workplace doesn't just affect the person responsible for the discrimination (which would be a parallel in your example), but people who are being discriminated. Not comparable at all.

It sounds like that argument that some conservatives like to use, that people achieving equal rights and protection is somehow a discrimination against those who had those rights already.

Zero sum thinking is very common among conservatives.

[Panfoot]

It's a bad faith argument, nothing more nothing less.

[Ragged Maw]

On the subject of discrimination in the workplace, what would some of you here say about those cases (featured on the news or elsewhere) where a person seen among left-leaning circles as a privileged identity group (white; male; etc.) successfully sues said workplace for discrimination from peers conversely deemed less privileged (nonwhite and/or female)?

[babyblob]

On the subject of discrimination in the workplace, what would some of you here say about those cases (featured on the news or elsewhere) where a person seen among left-leaning circles as a privileged identity group (white; male; etc.) successfully sues said workplace for discrimination from peers conversely deemed less privileged (nonwhite and/or female)?

We have a case like this ongoing in Cincinnati right now in the police department. After the riots a decade and a half ago here and the police reform agreement there have to be a certain number of woman and minorities in leadership police positions. A captains spot opened up and a black officer was promoted. Two white LT are suing the department and city because they said they were passed over even though they had more experience and were better qualified but were passed over because of the mandate that a minority or woman had to be promoted. They have both been on the force longer. Not sure about better qualified because the police records are not released.

The case is still pending but the black officer did get promoted. Not sure how it will play out.