I mean sure, the ruling men of more then a century ago by our standards were terrible people. But goddamn teddy Roosevelt was a man fighting for shit you’re still fighting for today and hell he got you closer to it then compared to you now… You can lump him in with slave owners and child rapists FFS.
It’s easy to pick on “the levels of bad”, when you’re not the one one enslaved in a priaon, but writing behind a screen.
Teddy Roosevelt never said “The only good indian is a dead indian.” That quote is typically associated with Philip Sheridan.
A number of sources claim a similar quote (“I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are…") alleged to be from an 1886 speech in New York, but this still goes against how he treated native americans generally and I can’t find the original speech so I’m a bit suspicious of this as well.
303 natives were convicted and sentenced to death following the Dakota War of 1862. Lincoln actually commuted the sentences of 264 of those natives, allowing the convictions to stand only for those he believed personally engaged in the murder of innocent women and children.
Therefore, the last one is deliberately and intentionally misleading.
The Dakota War came out of a strategic starvation campaign imposed by the Union Army over Sioux Territory. The original tribes had been forced off the productive soil around the Minnesota River and displaced into barren wasteland. Subsequent crop failure and long winter made trading for foodstuffs from their home territories the only means of survival. And the settlers took maximum advantage, deliberately scamming and price gouging the Sioux for the remains of their family wealth. This, after a series of treaties had been casually violated from administration to administration.
The war was quite literally a fight for survival by the Sioux. Lincoln’s largess in hanging only the young men directly involved in the raid did nothing to prevent the Sioux population from continuing its rapid decline, as the surviving elders were left to starve to death in the wilderness and the children were forced into Christian schools notorious for brutalizing and killing the kidnapped youths.
OK, but america had already been established. You have to ask who were the groups that pushed those policies. AoC is part of the machine that invades countries doesn’t mean she advocates for it.
Something stuck out to me in your response and that’s the religious aspect of the oppression.
He didn’t kill ALL the innocent, whose land he stole and whose relatives he murdered. Only those that dated fight back.
Yeah, sounds like Trump.
Bro he literally freed the slaves.
Instead of actually working towards something better, let’s just spend our time arguing over things we can’t change. /S
They still have slaves. They are just in prison. That’s my point.
the constitution even condones it. Fucked. Prisoners get paid like 70c an hour or some shit.
That’s still far from as bad.
Oh okay. I didn’t realize “a little” slavery is okay. As a treat if your white I guess.
What. Are you genuinely fucking with me or do you think enslaving a third of the population is the same level of bad as prison labor.
Do you straight up think there’s no difference between before and after the civil war.
No, I don’t think any slavery is okay at all. Do you?
and hitler was a pretty good painter …
I’m sorry, did you just compare painting TO ENDING SLAVERY*
*some exclusions apply
That’s objectively false. His line work was shit and this meme is inaccurate.
When has art ever been objective?
True, he was a horrible painter. I’ve seen better paintings from Alex Jones
Decent architect trying to be a painter
Removed by mod
It tirns out murdering people for their food, goods, and horses is something the government did not want to encourage
unless you’re a settler, then it’s called “manifest destiny”
The settlers have always been 100% evil
No, they were, very much. Europeans were invaders, taking land that didn’t belong to them by force. The government explicitly encouraged murder and turned a blind eye to any abuses. If you don’t want people to defend their land and avenge the love domes you murder, maybe don’t invade and ethnically cleanse the are to begin with?
Do you also think Russia v. Ukraine or Israel’s genocide don’t have “evil” vs “good” sides?
Because if you’re invading and murdering innocent people, its a clear cut for most people.
Removed by mod
My biggest complaint about Lincoln was the people he didn’t hang.
Kinda like how the only thing John Brown did wrong on May 24th, 1856 was stop at 5
Not to mention defacing a mountain by putting a bunch of faces on it
Not just a mountain. A mountain holy for native americans
It’s a lot more holey now
Defaced then refaced
It’s [not] funny actually - Trump would absolutely come up with this idea for himself while alive, had it not been done before.
Since it has been done, now he’s going to want a bigger mountain face.
I hate the “it was a different time” excuse for these awful human beings. It falls apart if you do any reading from the time. Plenty of people wrote about how shit these people were AT THE TIME. Our morals haven’t expanded somehow. Our systems of control have changed to be more sustainable. The ruling class learned that slavery was not sustainable. That’s it.
Also, this doesn’t give an excuse for the leaders of today. The slave owners of the past are not “less caring” than the current ruling class is. The current ruling class has just better distanced themselves from direct acts of violence while expanding their ability to perform mass violence. Slavery has evolved into mass incarceration for example. We’ve just normalized our violence into different systems and outsourced a lot of it to the global south.
If you’re a Billionaire today you are the equivalent of a slave owner of the past with significantly more violence and control than a slave owner could ever dream of.
Plenty of people wrote about how shit these people were AT THE TIME.
This. It’s disheartening to realise that in a hundred years’ time, most people will be excusing Trump and Putin with “that’s just how people were back then”.
I agree with most of this, but slave owners could dream of a lot of violence.
Also, don’t ignore shipping jobs overseas to where labor might as well be slavery if it technically isn’t.
There’s almost no national leader that is going to be a “good person”.
Removed by mod
I have never seen anybody on any platform anywhere defend Pol Pot.
I think it’s tremendously funny that you saw a list including Stalin, Putin, and Mao, and your only response was "I’ve never seen anyone defend Pol Pot.
Proves my point, there are plenty of leaders that users of this instance think were good people.
And I think it’s funny that you’re blatantly lying about what other people believe, and your response to that is, “Ha! Not every word that comes out of my mouth is a lie, only lots of them!”
“Fun fact”: Mount Rushmore or Six Grandfathers was a sacred mountain for the Lakota to actively disrespect their beliefs
other “fun” fact: the man who defaced Six Grandfathers, Gutzon Borglum, was a member of the KKK
Gutzon Borglum
I refuse to acknowledge this is a real name.
That’s a gnome NPC in WoW, right?
Much much worse, either villain or very minor supporting character from Harry Potter. Especially that he was member of KKK.
Lincoln also commuted the sentence of 264 other Dakotans that had to be executed the same day. If he didn’t intervene the executions would’ve been 303
Yeah. Cherry-picking can be used for good AND evil.
So what’s the real dirt on Lincoln? Did he snore or something? :P
Honestly the worst thing Lincoln ever did was choosing Johnson as his VP. Even then, I learned recently that he asked a different (better) guy, Benjamin Butler, to be VP but he turned him down. Had he lived to do Reconstruction, we might have more to critique, certainly he’d have done better than Johnson (not a high bar), but since he died he’s off the hook for figuring that one out.
You could also criticize him for not being committed enough to ending slavery from the start. But really, other than the mass hangings of the Dakotas (which could’ve been worse but was still not great), most criticism of him is just Lost Causers whining about “authoritarianism” by freeing the slaves and expanding the scope and power of the federal government as was necessary to free the slaves.
It is telling that while you can’t think of something cartoonishly evil he did off of the top of your head- you definitely remember that he was assassinated.
Edit: Apparently this edit is required. Whether Lincoln held the mission of abolishing slavery personally or not, he was associated with it. And was shot in cold blood for it. Do something less than the worst thing you could do as president and the American project will answer your arrogance.
I’m not American, so I don’t really know that part of your history.
Edit: he was assassinated for wanting to give black people citizenship is what I’m reading…?
A primer on the American Civil War, as understood by a natural born citizen of the state of North Carolina and a graduate of said public state’s school system.
The United States in the mid-1800s 1. did not yet span the entire width of the continent, this becomes important later and 2. could broadly be divided into two regions: the South, characterized by an agrarian economy featuring large plantations growing cash crops like cotton and tobacco via the labor of chattel slaves, and the North, with a more industrial economy that had abolished slave labor.
In the North, you get a lot of the day’s moralistic movements as they existed at the time. You see a lot of the Christian sects like the shakers, the early roots of the temperance movement, and most relevantly, abolitionism. People who wanted to see slavery abolished at the federal level. This became a popular political cause in the North and you start seeing legislation proposed.
Meanwhile in the South, slaves are where the money comes from, so obviously God says it’s the white man’s inalienable right to own black men.
Turns out there was pretty equal representation in congress about it; about the same number of Northern to Southern states, so nothing got done. Except remember earlier I said we didn’t span the continent yet? Well that was a project under active development at the time. Territory was being purchased or conquered, and new territories were drafting constitutions and applying for statehood. And what if more pro-abolition states than anti-abolition states joined the union?
We get a temporary pause with a compromise that states would be admitted in pairs, one free state in the North and one slave state in the South. You can still see the line they drew, the perfectly straight northern border of Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma. That’s why that’s like that. Notice it stops at Nevada. That’s about how far that went before war were declared.
Southern states decided to secede from the union, forming their own nation called the Confederate States of America. The South raised an army to repel what they now saw as a foreign invasion, the North deployed their army to put down what they saw as a treasonous rebellion.
During the conflict, the North passed increasingly abolitionist policy, culminating in the Emancipation Proclamation, an executive order signed by president Abraham Lincoln in 1863 which declared all slaves everywhere in the nation free, and the thirteenth amendment abolishing slavery except as punishment for a crime (this has present day ramifications) was ratified.
On April 14, 1865, actor and confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln via gunshot to the back of the head while the President was enjoying a play at Ford’s theater. His motive, quoting directly from Wikipedia:
On April 11, Booth attended Lincoln’s last speech, in which Lincoln promoted voting rights for emancipated slaves;[18] Booth said, “That means nigger citizenship. … That is the last speech he will ever give.”[19]
There’s a fascinating historical nonfiction book by Erik Larson that covers the early days of the American civil war.
The Demon of Unrest: A Saga of Hubris, Heartbreak, and Heroism at the Dawn of the Civil War is mostly focused on the soldiers and officers manning Fort Sumter in South Carolina, the site of the first battle of the war. But it also includes lengthy discussions of how Lincoln was vilified for things he never said and blamed for things he didn’t actually do.
The southern states, specifically the landed elite, were very interested in starting a war so they could maintain their wealth and power so they used Lincoln as a scapegoat to rouse the masses
You are correct. The only other thing that Lincoln is criticized for is suspending habeas corpus during the US civil war. I don’t know what the person you’re commenting on is on about. They may be a confederate sympathizer.
That’s the only other thing he was critiqued for? Brother, you must certainly have never opened a book before…
How do you read that from what I wrote?
My point was: he attempted or was associated with an attempt to do something less then the worst thing he could. And he was shot for it.
Ah! I see now. When you said “it’s telling that while you can’t think of something cartoonishly evil he did off of the top of your head,” I thought you were saying I was ignorant for not being able to think of something cartoonishly evil. My bad, I’m just primed to read hostility on Lemmy I guess.
I understand.
I can’t think of anything particularly bad he did, but someone will always have something to bring up. I wanted to sidestep that and just point out the reality of the office. There will never be a good American president- and it has little do to with the individuals involved.
Edit: Wait, you aren’t who I was replying to.
Removed by mod
I think he was a shitty husband? From memory he didn’t cope well after one of his sons died in the civil war and took it out in his personal life. He was also horribly depressed. Not that mental health was something people even considered at that time, so it’s not like seeing a therapist was on the cards.
I understand the point, but as an exercise, try to find four historical figures without glaring character defects. Eventually, I figure we’ll all be either judged or forgotten in time.
We only learn about the ones with defects, because they are the most interesting. Most people in history were fine.
One historic figure who had no known defects: Alan Turing
Its telling that your example is someone explicitly kept out of the public eye during his life. Basically any account of Turing is from personal friends or his professional work. He was a generally good person and great scientist that helped defeat the nazis, but he’s only celebrated by progressives for his persecution as a gay man.
I struggle to find any major social cause he publicly championed or records of his views on controversial topics. I’d like to be wrong, but it’s easy to not have a mixed record as a private citizen. Nobody was grilling him to free slaves or asking his opinion on systemic injustice.
Einstein is a contemporary comparable. He was a great scientist, opposed the nazis, and by most accounts a decent guy. He was even had to flee his homeland to escape persecution as a jew. Clearly lots of parallels. The main difference being he was an idol in his own day so we have way more first hand accounts.
Turns out he was a socialist with varying views on communism, had shifting support for zionism and wrote rascist shit in his travel diaries. You could probably find a quote like Roosevelt’s and slap it on a picture of him, that doesn’t sum up his life.
I can tell you that Turing is not only celebrated because he was gay. That man is one of the fathers of computer science as we know it today. His Turin machines are the basis for a lot of theoretical computer science
Again, that is an incredible technical achievement but it’s not inherently good or bad. A ton of problems today come from the proliferation of tech, maybe we’d be better off if he studied something else. Coming from someone who studied and can professionally appreciate his work: it’s not exactly discovering lifesaving vaccines.
He’s a relatable role model, especially for people who can are unfairly persecuted today. But that’s not the same as being a notable figure playing a role on the historical stage.
Edit: I’m not mad about down votes, but disappointed nobody has provided any argument all.
Is there any evidence that he tried to use his discovery to advance the wellbeing of the human race? Does his estate do any public outreach against the atrocities of the information age? I genuinely cannot find that. Even Alfred Nobel is still doing penance for inventing a new way to blow up rocks, and he’s been dead for nearly 130 years.
Taken alone, creating the theoretical model for modern computer science is as laudable as inventing the internal combustion engine. Both are the innocuous roots that directly sprout to massive problems in our modern world. Not sure why that in particular needs celebration?
I’m not certain many people even know he was gay. I’ve never heard of this. Interesting info tho- thanks.
Despite his contributions, he was forced to undergo chemical castration because of his sexuality, so it’s a pretty big deal.
Obama bombed a wedding of civilians not to mention hid Afghanistan casualty reports, was a part of the death of half a million Iraqi casualties, was part of the Syrian hell that targeted mainly children with fatalities at 191,000 by 2014, then there was Yemen and saber rattling on Iran and full support of Israel. Carter sadly oversaw the East Timor genocide at 25% of the population or 170,000 killed.
You might want to rephrase that as the East Timor genocide started while Carter was in office. Carter played no role in that genocide. The Indonesian government was responsible for it. It is odd that you are blaming Carter at all.
I’m not rephrasing shit because you’re incapable of reading.
Hey internet… the shitty bot account doesn’t know how to look info up on Carter and East Timor. Can you please do it for it?
Jimmy Carter’s administration faced significant criticism for its handling of the East Timor situation during Indonesia’s occupation. Despite Carter’s reputation as a champion of human rights, his presidency saw a continuation and even expansion of military support to Indonesia while it committed atrocities in East Timor[1][2].
In 1977-1978, as Indonesia engaged in wholesale destruction of East Timor through massive bombardment and forced relocation of populations, the Carter Administration increased the flow of military equipment to Indonesia[1]. This included supplying OV-10 Broncos, planes designed for counterinsurgency operations, which were used in ferocious attacks that devastated East Timor[1][2].
The administration’s response to the crisis was particularly troubling:
-
U.S. officials, including Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, misled Congress about the situation in East Timor, downplaying the severity of the conflict[2].
-
When the CIA reported that Indonesia was running out of weapons due to the intensity of its bombardment, the Carter administration responded by increasing military sales to Indonesia in 1978[2].
-
The administration provided ground attack fighters like OV-10 Broncos, A-4s, and F-5s, knowing they would be used against East Timor’s civilian population[2].
Carter later expressed regret for his lack of intervention, admitting in a 2007 interview that he was not as thoroughly briefed about the situation in East Timor as he should have been[2]. However, this does not negate the fact that his administration’s policies contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of East Timorese during his years in office[1][3].
Citations: [1] https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/12/30/jimmy-carter-the-false-savoir/ [2] https://www.democracynow.org/2025/1/10/jimmy_carter_indonesia_east_timor_genocide [3] https://inthesetimes.com/article/jimmy-carter-foreign-policy-palestine-legacy [4] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2025/1/10/historians-say-jimmy-carters-human-rights-legacy-includes-grim-failures [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Jimmy_Carter_administration [6] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/indonesia/2019-08-28/us-sought-preserve-close-ties-indonesian-military-it-terrorized-east-timor-runup-1999-independence [7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1999/08/12/carter-assails-indonesia-over-east-timor-security/b128a1a8-b856-404c-a84a-2202332e6fb5/ [8] https://sporastudios.org/mark/epluribusunum/carter.htm
Im not incapable of reading. Your writing clearly states that Carter was responsible. You claim he oversaw it which is just flatly incorrect.
You think Im a bot because my username contains the word “bot”?
“In 1977-1978, as Indonesia engaged in wholesale destruction of East Timor through massive bombardment and forced relocation of populations”
That REALLY sounds like Indonesia was responsible for the genocide they were committing. Why are you blaming an American president for a war waged by Indonesians due to choices made by the Indonesian government? Do you think Indonesia had no agency in the genocide they perpetrated?
Again it is really weird you are blaming Carter for this.
The US role in the East Timor genocide is common knowledge. Henry Kissinger is usually blamed for greenlighting and facilitating it, but Carter did not have clean hands.
due to choices made by the Indonesian government
If you knew anything at all about the thing you’re talking about, the democratically elected Indonesian government were some of the ones being targeted in the genocide, by far-right groups who were able to overthrow it due to US backing. Absolutely disgusting to try to blame this on the Indonesians and trying to absolve the US of guilt.
If I go through your post history, what’s the over-under I’ll find you blaming Russia for the rise of the far-right in the US?
-
These are a little more than character defects… theres lots of historical figures who didn’t rape and murder.
Yeah every political leader have little oopsies like being called “town destroyer” by the people which land they invaded and towns they destroyed. They also were proud of it, used it to invade even more land, and their grandpas were also called that because it’s their family and nation thing to do for generations.
Who here hasn’t made dentures from unwillingly donated teeth?
I dunno Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter, seem to have been personally good people. That’s two recent US presidents. Then I guess I would add some super low hanging fruit like Nelson Mandela, Frederick the Great, John II Komnenos, any of the Five Good Emperors, Cyrus the Great, Ashoka, and one could keep going.
EDIT: To all those pestering me about how US presidents presided over criminal imperialist policies, here is my answer from down below:
OP talked about “glaring character defects”.
These are policy failures and state crimes, arguably attributed to the American state as a whole, and the long term US imperialist policies, rather to the singular person of the president.
You might have noticed that I added Frederick the Great in the list, which tells you exactly what my understanding of the challenge was.
I’m not here to defend US imperialism, don’t @ me.
Without the US, the world would be much more peaceful today, most of the current wars and terrorisms are caused by US interventions, directly and indirectly.
That’s a claim I would LOVE for you to attempt to back up.
Just off the top of my head I would suspect UK, French, and Soviet imperialism to have been as big if not a bigger factor than the USA.
Just count military bases burgerbrain
That is an incredible list. Did a find for a few things I personally knew about and have always been disappointed in Obama for… and sure enough found them. First one I searched, was extending the Bush tax cuts on the rich. I remember Bill O’Reilly saying “Oh, if I have to pay taxes, I’m going to have to fire people, and that’s on Obama, so tax cuts means less jobs!” (so glad Bill got canned) and Obama just fucking caved like a spineless coward.
Obama?? Obama??? The Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya Obama? You must be joking, right?
OP talked about “glaring character defects”.
These are policy failures and state crimes, arguably attributed to the American state as a whole, and the long term US imperialist policies, rather to the singular person of the president.
You might have noticed that I added Frederick the Great in the list, which tells you exactly what my understanding of the challenge was.
Carter supported Pol Pot and Obama was a monster to people in the Middle East, neither can be considered to be “good people.”
Obama lied to the left to gain power, that’s enough to disqualify him right there.
Also Washington was the greatest president in our history because he willingly let go of his power. He could have been a king but he chose to step down instead to set future precedent.
Yes! Buying dentures made from slave teeth is overshadowed by the fact this man did what very few would have done by setting power aside.
Would we get labeled by history as evil because we might have bought a product from China made in a work camp?
Washington was the richest man in the US at the time, and had the most to gain from indigenous eviction. The Iroquios named him “the town destroyer”, for burning down dozens of their cities. He also owned slaves and supported the institution just like most presidents after him (I think 10 presidents in a row were southern slave-holders like himself).
And also, its the US, not China, that has slave labor camps. Just because an anti-semitic evangelical christian (adrian zenz) who works for the US government claims that China has forced labor, doesn’t make it so. These claims have been debunked over and over.
No, China has forced labor camps.
The US has prison work camps, but most prisoners don’t have to work if they dont want to, it isn’t forced.
Anything to back that up other than white-supremacist vibes?
Because the majority of Muslim countries disagree with you. The only ones who believe that China has forced labor, are the US and UK, countries that have been bombing Muslim countries for decades.
And also, its the US, not China, that has slave labor camps. Just because an anti-semitic evangelical christian (adrian zenz) who works for the US government claims that China has forced labor, doesn’t make it so. These claims have been debunked over and over.
China has forced labour, according the the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences: https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/51/26
I looked that doc, and they source debunked Zenz reports, and WUC. So nothing new.
If the UN fucking rapporteur deems it reliable enough, and if the UN HRC hasn’t found reason to retract this report, then I have zero reason to believe some internet rando that it has been debunked. For all I know, your one liner responses are no different from pro-Zionist hasbara casting doubt on UN reports on Palestine.
Fr, like look into the companies that get you your fruits and vegetables. You can’t escape unethical consumption.
There were many other types of dentures not made from human teeth
I mean we absolutely could call out their flaws too, someone with that much power/responsibility is going to do abhorrent things (drone strikes with Obama being an easy one to bring up). Just like the four on Mount Rushmore these things aren’t what we typically call out because they either were “of the times” or not on the same scale as their accomplishments.
They called Obama the Deporter in Chief. Trump wishes he could get a nickname like that. Carter himself was a nice guy but his below average presidency led to Reagan.
The drone strikes thing is a bad example. If he didn’t touch it, individual combat units could use drones with impunity. He required drone strikes to be approved by his office.
Tell me if you had the choice between sending in boots to kill a guy, or drone strike, would you really ever risk your guys getting shot?
He added red tape, the minimum thing he could do. I’ll agree with criticism that he did the bare minimum, but all these comments about this frame it like he was horny for drones. That’s reductive and misleading.
Your comment is exactly the point I was trying to make. The world is complex and imperfect, so anyone with the power/responsibility of a president is going to do controversial things.
Oh I get it.
Yeah running countries is a series of shitty compromises, unless you are small enough to gain consensus.
Seems like a good time to link the list of US atrocities
The history of Washingtons teeth is uncertain. The evidence that those were slave teeth seems to show that the teeth were purchased.
Internet pictures with words are fucking dumb.
Washington owned slaves. He was not some moral high ground individual. The only reason why they even got independence from Britain was that Britain wanted to stop the expansion of the territory and the people in the colonies wanted to continue it and kill all the natives.
Edit:
In 1784, Washington paid unnamed “Negroes” for nine teeth. We don’t know the precise circumstances, says Van Horn: “The president’s decision to pay his slaves for their teeth may have been a recognition on his part that teeth were something sacrosanct and personal.” On the other hand, being enslaved meant that any economic exchange was inherently not fair.
He literally took advantage of enslaved people to get their teeth and you consider it as just “bought”. Top tier cracker mindset. I guess that to you it was also fair for him to own his slaves because he “bought” them.
https://daily.jstor.org/were-george-washingtons-teeth-taken-from-enslaved-people/
I didn’t suggest anything about his character, and we could probably have an entirely separate discussion about imperialism.
What is important is how you source information when it comes to dental prosthetics.
Oh please, criticizing the meme because “the teeth were bought” Is an attempt to save his caharacter. And then saying that images with words are all dumb. People can see through your attempt of white washing.
I don’t give a fuck about his character.
You are making assumptions about my intent or what I believe, which is a childish argument tactic.
Again, internet pictures with words are fucking dumb. You might get a ton of likes on Facebook with that shit though.
Go on a seethe, cope calling me childish or whatever your manipulation tactic is, but your attempt of white washing is obvious. I am done talking to you.
I only see one person coping and seething. Dude has criticism about a meme because the source is questionable and you just bitch and moan. You literally put word in their mouth.
Lmao, “questionable source”, you can literally Google that in 5 seconds and see all the sources that confirm that. Now I know that memes are supposed to have sources when the users can easily Google it themselves /s. The white washing apologist just get funnier and funnier.
Lulz, wut? I called your discussion style childish and you literally just did the same thing again.
I could make all kinds of assumptions about your intents, and none of them good. But I don’t.
Wow that’s such a dumb thing I didn’t expect to read today. I can see why you would think so, but still… Wow.
Internet pictures with words are fucking dumb
Memers in shambles right now. Webcomic artists, to shreds. Researchers who use diagrams with legends in their publications, pulverized. Journalists, atomised.
A child draws a picture of his father and writes “I love you” for it is the man’s birthday. He posts the picture online.
YOU FOOLS!
Yells the mother, as she beats them both to death with a large brick.
In the halls of the United Nations, an envoy reads the latest finding of his commission: “I’m afraid every character of every alphabet is ultimately a drawing.”
“But that would mean…”
“Yes, I’m afraid. Every text online counts as internet picture with words. Including the meeting reports that Stephanie posts on our site.” Sound of typing stops, as Stephanie looks up, aghast The discussion resumes, the tone rises and descends again, a consensus is reached. It is a hard choice, but a fair one. All the lettered people are to be buried alive.
Absolute peak writing
insert blackbeard writing image
Walk up honey, new copypasta just dropped!
Lulz, good points. I should clarify that internet pictures with “facts” are fucking dumb. While that wording has gaps as well, maybe we can hone in on some specificity.
I’m 30 and this is the first I’ve ever heard about this. my southern Baptist homeschool curriculum told me that his teeth were made of wood and it was never something i thought to fact check as an adult.
gotta love homeschooling 🙄
According to a documentary I watched in passing on tv some years back, he had several types of dentures and most of them caused him great pain. One could even say his need for teeth helped in small part advance denture technology in the US.
I was at the museum at his estate on the potomac; the dentures were there. The plaque underneath claimed it was slaves.
Is that not how dentures worked at the time? Any tooth you got was from someone so poor they had to sell it or who had it taken from them.
Modern equivalent would be displaying shoes made in a sweatshop. Yeah terrible practice, but so commonplace its generally not a huge reflection on the character of the owner.
There were dentures made of wood, ivory, wax and other materials being made during the time period
Both conditions apply, was the intent. Teeth from slaves that were also purchased. My wording was unclear, sorry.
It was so unclear, it seems that I am white washing racist now.
it seems that I am white washing racist now
Me too, when I called out their childish behavior.
And that’s OK! Some people just need to blame everyone else for everything that is fucked up in their own lives. I don’t support that, but it is what it is.
I don’t mean to imply you are racist at all. Whatever it turns out the provenance of those teeth are has no bearing on whether or not you are racist.
I was referencing another thread in this post, so it’s not you. Sorry to give the wrong impression.
Washington’s teeth were made of diamonds and you can’t convince me otherwise.
Opponents beware
Carter was a pretty good person, at least post-Presidency, can’t really speak on how he was in the White House though.
Reagan, otoh, was irredeemable all the way through, given while he was in the White House, that guy effectively destroyed the middle class, created the current disaster that is unaffordable post-secondary education, and created the current credit score system among other atrocities, not to mention that whole Contra business.
Yes, really, if it weren’t for Reagan, there wouldn’t be a massive and progressively-widening gap between the bottom and top of society, it would still be possible to get affordably educated, and people wouldn’t be getting completely screwed by bad credit.
For a perfect foil of everything the US has stood for for at least the last four decades, look at most of the EU having universal healthcare, having an actually regulated education sector where for-profit grift schools like University of Phoenix or even the late ITT Tech or EDMC and its subsidiaries, wouldn’t have ever been allowed to take root to begin with.
Everything you mention for Reagan was passed by a democrat controlled Congress. Both parties killed the middle class
The reason to hate Carter is that a lot of the economic policies attributed to Reagan had their beginnings under Carter.
The post WWII economic consensus was Keynesianism, but beginning around the time of Nixon there was an economic phenomenon called “stagflation,” which refers high unemployment at the same time as high inflation, something that isn’t supposed to be possible under Keynesianism, which advocates confronting high unemployment with injecting money into the economy, and then reducing those injections when employment comes back down. Nixon attempted to address the problem with price controls as a short-term solution, Ford’s idea was just asking people to spend less, but Carter was the one who made the decision to view inflation as a bigger problem than unemployment and began moving towards Neoliberalism.
The big difference between Carter and Reagan was branding. Carter branded the policy terribly which is to say he was honest about it. Work was going to become more alienating and purchasing power would decrease, but it’s ok, because we as a society will just have to pursue meaning outside of the economic sphere, making do with less, cultivating out personal virtue. There’s likely a connection between Carter and the right’s meme of, “You will own nothing and be happy.”
Reagan has much better branding for these policies, which is to say he lied. Look at how cheap we’re gonna make everything! You’re gonna be able to buy so much stuff, it’s gonna be great, let’s party and celebrate capitalism and consumerism! Of course, with wages divorced from productivity and the decline of the power of organized labor, purchasing power would decrease, but the effects of that would take time to fully manifest.
There were a wave of wildcat strikes during this period but unions had already defanged themselves, they kicked out all the communists and the leadership sold out, because from the New Deal era up to this point things were going fine.
Reagan definitely bears a lot of the blame but there wasn’t a huge difference in economic policy, the democrats didn’t really have anything to propose as an alternative and voters weren’t given much of a choice about it.
For Carter the worst thing I know is that a lot of the free iran Iranian people really hate Carter for his actions in the Whitehouse and blame him for the current oppressive Iranian regime. I don’t really think that was something malicious on his part, just a policy mistake.
They aren’t wrong! Carter may have been the best president post office, but he is also the American most responsible for the religious dictatorship that took over Iran and much of the middile east.
I’m a leftist, but after finishing “Reading Lolita In Tehran” and watching the PBS documentary “Taken Hostage” I understood completely how Reagan defeated him in a crushing landslide. The outpouring of grief after Carters death was difficult to stomach understanding the damage he had done. Yes the man built houses and gave generously late in life, but that’s because he knew he had a lot to make up for it. The man destabilized several nations, including his own, with entirely foreseeable negligence.
Not pictured: the giant, shitty looking pile of rubble under them.
They just blasted chunks off the mountain and left the mess behind
Also not pictured: that the mountain is a spiritual site for the local tribes.
My wife and I found ourselves near Mt. Rushmore by happenstance durin a road trip several years back. We knew the history, but stopped in to see it for ourselves. We found it to be extremely shitty and underwhelming. The natural area behind the monument was incredible, and I absolutely understand why the indigenous people believed this place to be sacred, but the front was small, tacky, and depressing. I wish I could refund our admission and give it to some chill natives at a gas station instead.
You have to pay to be allowed to look at it?
Internet says there’s no admission, so I must have misremembered that part. We did look around the gift shop a bit.
Sadly I wouldn’t have put it past the US.
But yeah gift shops and stuff around it is the tourist norm.
