Justice for Zimmerman
- Thread starter Adebisi
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
- Status
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Nah, anyone can edit wikipedia.
What matters is Kentucky fought for the North in the Civil War.
That's a standard metric that doesn't change with every poster. See, every poster has had some different standard by which they adjudge Kentucky to be southern. For you its wikipedia, for araysar, its some author, for lithose, its biscuits and gravy consumption, for Burnesto its the Florence Y'all tower.
All these subjective standards have no basis in just simple historical fact. So the metric must be equally applicable to all states, in order to determine if they were truly southern or not.
That standardized metric is participation in secession from the Union.
If you didn't secede because you stayed in the Union, you're northern. If you did secede because you joined the Confederacy, then you are the South. If you didn't participate because your state did not exist yet, then you are probably Midwestern, but it becomes complicated with Oklahoma because it was part of Texas at the time, which did fight on the side of the Confederacy. West Virginia actually seceded from Virginia so as to not participate in secession. So its northern as well.
What matters is Kentucky fought for the North in the Civil War.
That's a standard metric that doesn't change with every poster. See, every poster has had some different standard by which they adjudge Kentucky to be southern. For you its wikipedia, for araysar, its some author, for lithose, its biscuits and gravy consumption, for Burnesto its the Florence Y'all tower.
All these subjective standards have no basis in just simple historical fact. So the metric must be equally applicable to all states, in order to determine if they were truly southern or not.
That standardized metric is participation in secession from the Union.
If you didn't secede because you stayed in the Union, you're northern. If you did secede because you joined the Confederacy, then you are the South. If you didn't participate because your state did not exist yet, then you are probably Midwestern, but it becomes complicated with Oklahoma because it was part of Texas at the time, which did fight on the side of the Confederacy. West Virginia actually seceded from Virginia so as to not participate in secession. So its northern as well.
You know where I live. However, there isn't enough snow to go out and play unfortunately. Plus I don't play with racists.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
I dunno why anyone would lump Oklahoma as a southern state. Wrong side of the Mississippi.
This is lit-ra-lhy the only place I've heard Oklahoma referred to as a southern state. IRL, it's a midwestern state.
Also, from what I can tell, crazy people live there and occassionally wander out.
This is lit-ra-lhy the only place I've heard Oklahoma referred to as a southern state. IRL, it's a midwestern state.
Also, from what I can tell, crazy people live there and occassionally wander out.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
That's what I'm sayin bro. The metric is people are using is too broad, too subjective.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
By the way, for those who missed it, this is what Hodj calls "biscuit and gravy" consumption.
So lets begin. What makes someone, Southern. Well, how about the prevalence of a common religion? Namely, Southern Baptist?
How about attraction to southern accents, and "southern" cuisine? A shared identity in in language and cooking is pretty important. (Note: Below the Kentucky gets a 1.5-1.9 out of 2.0 for the respondents enjoying southern food, and accents.) This one is kind of silly, I know. Still though, it does show that people in Kentucky like biscuits and gravy a lot more than up north: Which is something you wanted.
Lets just say something silly, like a subscription to southern living. (Notice how the north is all blank?)
Naa, honestly, from an sociological perspective, identity is much deeper than that. And it can be hard to track it among cultures that bridge ethnic groups (Like the South). So in order to impartially track the American South, Reed did a study about the presence of "Dixie" and "Southern" in business names. The Reed study was old, but I found a new one. Interesting thing is that it was found that the presence of these names has INCREASED in Kentucky, while dropping in places like Texas. The theory is that as northerners move down, they bypass Kentucky and are moving to places like Texas--making Texas "less old south" than Kentucky! I know, right!
So I took a gander at them there study pictures, and wouldn't you know it? Kentucky ranked in the top quartile in the Dixie statics it produced.
And then they did one with Southern in the name. This time Kentucky was in the second quartile.
You know what these fellers at North Carolina who wrote Rethinking Boundaries of the South thought about Kentucky? That it was pretty darn south! Not "deep south" butpretty darn south. (So much so that you'd have to be an oblivious person to not believe it was Southern. (Citation: Rethinking the Boundaries of the South. Page 82..Since I couldn't include a picture of it
at my limit.) Reed also thought this, in fact the southern "culture" maps are from a short essay he wrote trying to define where the "South" is.
But fuck it. Lets actually ASK people in Kentucky if theybelievethey are from the South.
Survey (A literal survey) says!
93% of those interviewed from Kentucky and WV believe they were a Southern State (Southern Focus poll). The poll also showed 90% thought THEY were Southerners (But I ran out of picture room.) So really,it is just youHodj. Not sure why I decided to do this--rare moment of boredom during the busy season, I should in all honestly be asleep, I've been up since 4am. 15 minutes well spent though! Anyway though, seriously. Most people in Kentucky think they are Southern. There is a shared religion, food, customs, and even honor system (Book: Southern Honor a history of violence. Yeah Kentucky is included).
In addition, Sociologists foremost in the field, like Reed, all say Kentucky is south. There are multiple, valid authorities that say's it's South. In the polls conducted through SFP, Kentucky's answers matched the South's in terms of religion, political beliefs, personal beliefs, and identity. The fact that the entirety of the state chose to betray it's brethren over purely economic reasons is an absurd argument that Hodj has latched onto now in a final desperate bid to prove himself correct. It's frankly embarrassing. At this point I'm sure he's trolling or desperate because he was so embarrassed, and thankfully I'm just glad that the pathetic attempts at it are now contained to this thread. But lets be precise at what Hodj straw mans as "biscuits and gravy".
So lets begin. What makes someone, Southern. Well, how about the prevalence of a common religion? Namely, Southern Baptist?
How about attraction to southern accents, and "southern" cuisine? A shared identity in in language and cooking is pretty important. (Note: Below the Kentucky gets a 1.5-1.9 out of 2.0 for the respondents enjoying southern food, and accents.) This one is kind of silly, I know. Still though, it does show that people in Kentucky like biscuits and gravy a lot more than up north: Which is something you wanted.
Lets just say something silly, like a subscription to southern living. (Notice how the north is all blank?)
Naa, honestly, from an sociological perspective, identity is much deeper than that. And it can be hard to track it among cultures that bridge ethnic groups (Like the South). So in order to impartially track the American South, Reed did a study about the presence of "Dixie" and "Southern" in business names. The Reed study was old, but I found a new one. Interesting thing is that it was found that the presence of these names has INCREASED in Kentucky, while dropping in places like Texas. The theory is that as northerners move down, they bypass Kentucky and are moving to places like Texas--making Texas "less old south" than Kentucky! I know, right!
So I took a gander at them there study pictures, and wouldn't you know it? Kentucky ranked in the top quartile in the Dixie statics it produced.
And then they did one with Southern in the name. This time Kentucky was in the second quartile.
You know what these fellers at North Carolina who wrote Rethinking Boundaries of the South thought about Kentucky? That it was pretty darn south! Not "deep south" butpretty darn south. (So much so that you'd have to be an oblivious person to not believe it was Southern. (Citation: Rethinking the Boundaries of the South. Page 82..Since I couldn't include a picture of it
But fuck it. Lets actually ASK people in Kentucky if theybelievethey are from the South.
Survey (A literal survey) says!
93% of those interviewed from Kentucky and WV believe they were a Southern State (Southern Focus poll). The poll also showed 90% thought THEY were Southerners (But I ran out of picture room.) So really,it is just youHodj. Not sure why I decided to do this--rare moment of boredom during the busy season, I should in all honestly be asleep, I've been up since 4am. 15 minutes well spent though! Anyway though, seriously. Most people in Kentucky think they are Southern. There is a shared religion, food, customs, and even honor system (Book: Southern Honor a history of violence. Yeah Kentucky is included).
In addition, Sociologists foremost in the field, like Reed, all say Kentucky is south. There are multiple, valid authorities that say's it's South. In the polls conducted through SFP, Kentucky's answers matched the South's in terms of religion, political beliefs, personal beliefs, and identity. The fact that the entirety of the state chose to betray it's brethren over purely economic reasons is an absurd argument that Hodj has latched onto now in a final desperate bid to prove himself correct. It's frankly embarrassing. At this point I'm sure he's trolling or desperate because he was so embarrassed, and thankfully I'm just glad that the pathetic attempts at it are now contained to this thread. But lets be precise at what Hodj straw mans as "biscuits and gravy".
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
How bad does lithose feel that he can't edit that to fix all those attachments?
Hey Lithose, we've been over why your cultural arguments fall on deaf ears several times already. How's about you tell me why a subjective cultural assessment should be worth more than a cold hard historical fact?
Hey Lithose, we've been over why your cultural arguments fall on deaf ears several times already. How's about you tell me why a subjective cultural assessment should be worth more than a cold hard historical fact?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Here, for reference
Now Lithose. 500 words or less. Why should a cultural argument be taken as more valid than a cold hard historical fact. No filibustering, no fallacies of verbosity. Just a simple explanation without convoluted straw grabbing and rhetorical masturbation is all I want.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,133
- 160,299
Accuses everyone of using their own metrics when deciding whether KY is South or North. Then proceeds to use his own arbitrary metric (Civil War allegiance) to decide the question.
Completely ignores the fact that "The South" is much broader concept as to who wore what uniforms in the Civil War. But its the only rubric he can use that favors him, so he steadfastly refuses to allow anything else, knowing full well how shitty his argument is.
Daily Kos: When Did Kentucky Become Part Of The Confederacy?
Completely ignores the fact that "The South" is much broader concept as to who wore what uniforms in the Civil War. But its the only rubric he can use that favors him, so he steadfastly refuses to allow anything else, knowing full well how shitty his argument is.
Daily Kos: When Did Kentucky Become Part Of The Confederacy?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Civil War allegiance isn't arbitrary at all. Do you need me to get you the dictionary?
The Civil War metric is a reasoned system. Biscuits and gravy and country music and incest and the Florence Y'all tower are the definition of randomly chosen on personal whim.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
Because your historical fact doesn't make any sense in the context of other historical facts, logic or reason? Revolutions and civil wars happen all the time among thesamecultural region. When the Romans fought each other, were the leaders somehowNOTRoman during their wars? Were the French peasantsNOTFrench during their revolutions? Just because Kentucky took up arms against it's brethren does not make them any less Southern. Your supposition is as fucking preposterous as me saying someone in Virginia is not American because his great grand father fought for the Confederacy. Not only does time change the very reasonableness of your argument (IE the fact that you are different people from those whose sided with the North in the war) but also so does the fact that you can have a war where two peoples who share common ancestry, culture, values and everything we understand about identity, fight.
Kentucky is South. In fact, thanks to northern migration skipping Kentucky, there is proof that Kentucky is MORE "southern" than other states like Texas (Dixie/Southern study: Redrawing the lines of the South.) The fact is, a lot of poor southern red necks moved to your state, while rich Yankees moved to Florida and Texas...You've become more "Southern" over time.
The only "fact" you're trumpeting is that the Kentucky was union during the civil war. That's all your statement means. Your incessant crying won't change the overwhelming evidence against you, the most damning of which is that a VAST majority of your own people, from Kentucky, disagree with you. How do you even straighten that out in your delusional mind? That if I lined up 10 people from Kentucky, 9 of them would say they were a Southern State--and you'd be the lone dissenter. All because you're holding onto some historical "fact", that isn't relevant, about people from multiple generations ago, whose great grand children are already dead, fought for theotherside in a war against brothers--and they only did so because the economic impetus to do so was large?
Every shred of your argument is preposterous on it's face, from every angle we can look at it from.
- Status