I was the opposite. I could absolutely destroy the ball at bat, but I would literally sit in left field and pick grass.

I think we’re probably in more alignment than either of us realize. You hit the nail on the head in a lot of ways especially calling out differences in what we were taught. Down to brass tacks, we have much different life experiences so we’re coming at it from different angles. I’m filling in the gaps that weren’t taught to me and I had to discover for myself. On the other hand, you’re filling in the gaps that weren’t taught to you and you had to fill in for yourself.

In the 80s and early 90s there was a sort of veneration of the founding fathers where I grew up. There was also a ton of propaganda about how the, “The evil north just wanted to destroy the south.” The cotton gin, as you correctly pointed out increased the demand for slaves, was reframed as a tool that would end slavery because you somehow magically wouldn’t need slaves to to pick cotton anymore. Reconstruction was reframed as the North needlessly trying to punish the south. The founders were enlightened individuals that just didn’t know that slavery was wrong. It feels kind of shit to go out into the world and have completely re-learn the history of the place you grew up because people didn’t want to admit that your own country has flaws.

With that being said, I see how a swing in the other direction could be damaging. It sucks no matter which way to be taught just one side of history. It doubly sucks for it to be the history of the piece of land you’re standing on.

I do find it interesting that it somehow swung that far back in the other direction, or that it was taught so much differently regionally (not sure if it’s an age difference or a regional difference between our experiences). I think perhaps the best way to make sure we all stay on the same page is to have conversations like this though!

I get where you’re coming from and why you typed up 4 paragraphs condemning his horrible actions before we are allowed to acknowledge that he did one or two okay things.

I think it’s important to me personally for this specific figure. I grew up a leftist atheist in the deep south. When I learned about TJ, he was a very appealing figure to me. He was largely anti-establishment, anti-institutional, and at least mildly anti-religion. He was also, on the surface level, pro-science and pro-scientific method. He went as far as to re-write the Bible with all the miracles removed.

I say all this because when I was a teenager I pointed to him a lot as a bastion of progressiveness in America’s founding, and often used him to argue that the US was not founded as a Christian state because he clearly wasn’t Christian. The stuff I learned about him in textbooks and in school conveniently left out the much darker shit he did. It wasn’t until I started reading his own writings and finding non-history textbook recounts of his life that I saw the complete picture. He was sort of my first experience with a hero that falls short of expectations, and he fell extremely short.

It’s just frustrating that we still live in a such a racist society that you felt like you had to type that up before you could approach the nuance.

I don’t quite follow. I don’t think those were my motivations and I don’t quite understand the logic. I thought I did approach the nuance in my comment, but there’s way more that’s left out about the man. He was incredibly complex for sure!

I wish we could talk plainly to each other without this underlying paranoid one of us might accidentally come across pro the thing we are obviously very anti.

I don’t quite follow, but I personally don’t assume anything about you. I do agree that lemmy, and the internet at large, has become a weird obstacle course. I honestly can’t quite figure out the new purity test on the left that seem to be everywhere. I feel like you need to find your allies where ever you can (within reason). I do think paranoia of being infiltrated by right wing activist, and the long history of that happening, plays a big part in that paranoia. I agree, though, it’s more than mildly frustrating.

[My quote that you quoted for context] "I for sure agree that it is nuanced, but it’s also rather reductive to just leave it at, “he signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves.” [

I specifically said “While there’s no shortage of slave related evils to blame him for this is also the man who ended the trans atlantic slave trade.”

… down through …

I didn’t reduce anything, I specifically acknowledged his evils before giving him credit for ending the slave trade.

My apologies! I see how that comes off as directed at you specifically. Should have phrased that better for sure! I meant that more in the more esoteric, “when people at large do this.” Poor wording on my part! Didn’t mean to accuse specifically with that.

While that is exactly what ended up historically happening, especially due to the invention of the cotton gin, I would appreciate a source that this was Jefferson’s stated intentions.

I don’t think he ever outwardly states that was intentions because that would be far less self aware than he was about slavery. Here’s the source for his “breeding woman is worth more than a man”. I’m not sure if I can find the orginal source for it without really digging, but it’s widely accepted that he was in massive debt and perpetuating slavery was his only way out. He planned on ending the slave trade, but his actions and many of his writings seem to indicate that he planned on maintaining the system of slavery for his own gain.

I think there’s a few things in the quote you linked that seem to support that my position though.

… by bettering (Jefferson used the term “ameliorating”) living conditions and moderating physical punishment.

Is an example of a good thing within context. Which is kind of the equivalent of turning down the orphan crushing machine to a slower pace. Not even turning it off, just making it slower. Like yeah sure you aren’t as bad as those other guys but holy shit that’s still really bad. Which doesn’t really indicate to me that he was trying to stop it as much as make it more palatable.

Third, all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free, followed by total abolition.

That date was conveniently far into the future where he would be able to keep slaves to pay off his debt. That seems… dishonest at best. It’s what several politicians do still. It just seems to indicate that he was attempting to keep slaves while also virtue signaling that he didn’t like slavery. Which again seems to support my position.

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs… [to the end]

This seems to also point to him be hugely racist and believing that he could use black people like cattle to get out of debt cause they were “inferior.” I feel like what you quoted mostly supports what I’m saying. The dude perpetuated slavery for his own personal gain while denouncing it publicly to appear more liberal. I do agree he did several good things, and I like a lot of his more progressive writings. It’s just really hard to overlook some the absolutely fucked up shit he was doing to other people. All in the name of greed and to pay off his debts.

Fair enough! I think it’s a bit more complex hence the tangent that I didn’t want to get into. The man had 600 slaves during his life and he is often credited as freeing his slaves. He freed two. Which is a fair bit short of the 600 he owned. He denounced the slave trade as a “human right violation” but continued to own slaves himself. So he knew it was wrong and did it anyway.

He built Monitcello to basically run on slavery. He had dumb waiters and hidden compartments in the walls so his slaves could serve him and not be seen. He didn’t want his foreign visitors to know about them when they visited, because most other nations had denounced slavery as barbaric, hence the hiding them in the walls and behind pully systems. Which seems extra diabolical to make sure no foreign dignitaries brought back stories about how awful slavery was to their home country. Hiding his slaves like that really points to the fact that he knew it was wrong but did it anyway.

Yes he did end the US’s participation in the slave trade. His reaction to which was to have his slaves breed more, “…woman who brings a child every two years is more profitable than the best man on the farm.” Is a quote from his Letters on the state of Virginia (I believe that is the corrct source although it could be from one of his almanacs and I’m misremembering). He spent a lot effort trying to reduce infant mortality (which is a good thing) so that slavery could be more profitable (which is a fucked up psychotic thing). So he was outwardly trying to end the slave trade because he had a plan to perpetuate slavery by breeding. I don’t know if needs to be said again, but that seems to point to the fact that he knew it was wrong but figured out a way to do it anway.

He often had “relationships” (read raped) with his slaves, which seems to be more like prolific raping of black women than a “relationship” when held up to the light. He raped so many black women that there’s a absolute ton of his ancestry in the black American population still today. During his lifetime, and even for a while after, he hid the fact that he was doing this. In fact, it’s theorized that some of the children that worked on Montecello were in fact his own mixed race children. The fact that he hid his prolific raping and own children seems to point to the fact that he knew it was wrong and did it, to an unconscionable level, anyway.

I for sure agree that it is nuanced, but it’s also rather reductive to just leave it at, “he signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves.” He was outwardly antislavery, because he was trying to portray himself as progressive at the time while running an extremely regressive slave farm. His life and his views are just brimming with these sorts of contradicting actions too. So, you are absolutely correct in that it’s reductive on both sides of the discussion! I for sure think he was a monster and kind of think of him as a modern day “limousine liberal.” He ran around saying how slavery was bad while owning and perpetuating slavery. Much like limousine liberals run around saying the rich are destroying the country while riding around in their limo.

I feel like that’s incredibly reductive and it just kind of bothers me every time I see it. The Constitution was almost not ratified because there was a contingent of founders that opposed slavery. What’s important about that is that it completely destroys the moral relativism argument for the rest of them. Founders that supported slavery knew it was wrong and did it anyway cause they were greedy.

Well, except for Jefferson. His reasons are more rooted in being an incredibly lazy psychopathic rapist who had created a slavery powered life of luxury for himself. But that’s going off on a completely different tangent.

The no capitalization makes it hard for me. I think just re-writing with capitalization makes it a lot easier to read:

Note to UI designers. When reading a long piece of text. I select the text while I read it. I select the text while I read it!. I select the text using my mouse. While I read the text I often select the text. I don’t want to perform actions on the text. I don’t want to accidentally click share link. I want to select the text while I read it.

Here’s how I would mildly edit the punctuation in order to make it easier to read:

Note to UI designers; when reading a long piece of text, I select the text while I read it. I select the text while I read it! I select the text using my mouse. While I read the text, I often select the text. I don’t want to perform actions on the text. I don’t want to accidentally click share link. I want to select the text while I read it.

Here’s how I would have conveyed the thought in a JIRA comment:

UI designers could you please, for the love of all mankind, stop fucking putting fucking shitty ass popups in the god damn non-mobile website! There is no one, and I mean no-fucking-body, that is still using a desktop computer in 2025 that does not know about ctrl-c and ctrl-v. There is not sane reason for you to ever assume a user wants to visit some shitty twitter/reddit/digg/blog when they select text on a desktop computer. If I see a single one of you motherfuckers putting fucking text inside an action I swear to god I will come down there and beat you to death with your own fucking keyboard.

Rule of thirds or something. Idk I’m not an artist.

They changed the state anthem of Mississippi a couple of years ago from Go Mississippi to One Mississippi. It’s no longer contextually hilarious and not nearly as hoki. I guess Mississippi decided they were not on the right track and probably were never going to get to the top.

I got you.

The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.

There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

No, I can assure you they were just shitheads. Just a different flavor of shithead.

Too young to remember all the 90s kids acting like Beavis and Butthead on the bus? Too young to remember hearing people yell beefcake in the hall and being toxic as all fuck because the South Park episode they saw the night before? Did you not have a kid at your school seriously injure themselves doing something on Jackass?

How about get the fuck off my lawn.

Just curious but have you looked into that story on the Aurora apartment complex past the reactionary headlines you’re cherry picking? It’s way more nuanced and has little to do with gangs. I kind of find it funny that you decided to backtrack with a different article because you didn’t even read the first one you posted.

As for some nypost gibberish, I don’t care to read it. It’s obvious you’re a reactionary and have an agenda. The “immigrant problem” is a racist nationalistic bullhorn, and I suspect you fall into that crowd. Unless of course you support returning the US to the people that aren’t immigrant ancestors? Perhaps we could find some common ground there.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. That article says in multiple places, and even implies it with the scare quotes in the title, that they didn’t find a bunch of gang members in that complex. So what exactly are you trying to say?

Here’s a few quotes from that article:

Aurora Police Department Interim Chief Heather Morris said in a statement on Friday that “gang members have not taken over” the complex.

“I’m not saying that there aren’t gang members that don’t live in this community,” Morris said. “But what we’re learning out here is that gang members have not taken over this complex.”

…

Morris stated that the local authorities have “really made an effort” in recent days to ask specific questions about gang activity in the area and at the complex.

“Making sure that people aren’t paying rent to gang leaders or gang members,” she said.

According to Morris, the residents they’ve spoken with have assured them that this isn’t happening, and she believes they are being honest.

“We’re standing out here, and I can tell you that gang members have not taken over this complex.”

Holy crap the wait was worth it! I didn’t even know that was possible.

The title assured me that this was not satire. Since I have no critical thinking skills I’m not sure who to believe.

It’s real though.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/missing-woman-finds-herself-after-intense-search/

In almost every case in fictional writing it’s better to make up a poison then use a real one. That way you don’t have someone picking it apart later. Also you can give it whatever properties you want/need. Now excuse me while I continue to work on my immunity to iocane powder.

They’re not well liked.

I think that probably would’ve sufficed. Even the Republicans shun gay Republicans because they don’t want them to exist. Gay Republicans are like the most baffling thing to me. Like a Jewish Nazi.

I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!

Sure. Maybe they just kneecap you while you’re fighting the bear? I’m not sure that really flows from the above conversation though and kinda feel like you’re saying I’m brainless cause I didn’t go far enough with my bear fight analogy… Which seems a little extreme considering I equated them to someone that would just watch you get mauled by a bear and do nothing.