Partisan

@partpartisan

Jewish YIMBY. Whatever the opposite of an enlightened centrist is. Citizen of the Greatest Nation in This or Any Age (aka Washington State). ✡️🌐🔰🏗🌃🚋⛈️🌲📈🗣

585 Following836 Followers4,509 Posts

YouTube Bluesky

Is this your profile?Claim it and partpartisan.dirty.social is yours.Claim profile

Partisan@partpartisan· 21d

His argument against Chartism btw was that poor people wouldn't be unhappy if only Britain had a ~stronger~ aristocracy. His obsession with "real aristocracy" was, of course, intimately related to his pro-slavery opinions.

Carlyle, who had studied extensively the causes of the French Revolution, was apprehensive about England's future. He presented Chartism as a symptom of a disease that affected England. The effect of it could be a revolution if government did not improve the living conditions of the labouring classes. A cure for this disease is, according to Carlyle, a "real aristocracy" which can lead the working class through the vicissitudes of modern history.

Carlyle argued that slavery was preferable to laissez-faire capitalism.[204] Henry Crabb Robinson heard Carlyle at dinner in 1837 speak approvingly of slavery. "It is a natural aristocracy, that of colour, and quite right that the stronger and better race should have dominion!"[241] The 1853 pamphlet "Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question" expressed concern for the excesses of the practice, considering "How to abolish the abuses of slavery, and save the precious thing in it."[242] Carlyle's defences of slavery contributed to his enduring popularity among pro-slavery figures of the antebellum South.[204] But liberals in Britain and the American North disputed such arguments, and among the objectors was the abolitionist John Stuart Mill, in the anonymous essay "The Negro Question".

Partisan@partpartisan· 21d

The irony here is that the argument "economics is an artless pseudoscience meant to justify a morally bankrupt ideology with its cooky concepts of 'supply and demand'" was first coined by race scientists who were very mad that economists kept producing charts that said "slavery bad for economy."

"The dismal science" is a derogatory name for the science of economics, coined by Scottish essayist Thomas Carlyle in 1849.[1] It contrasts with "the gay science", a then-current name for poetry

The phrase first appeared in "Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question" (1849), in which Carlyle claimed that emancipation had wrecked the economy of the West Indies by putting blacks in a position to demand unaffordable wages, thus depriving plantation owners of their labour supply. He argued for a return to some kind of forced labour system, albeit one more just than slavery. Economists of the time, following the principle of supply and demand, claimed that the labour problem could be resolved by opening the West Indies to African immigration, but Carlyle viewed this proposal with scorn, believing that it would lead to the development of "black Irelands" (i.e. impoverished, overpopulated islands liable to suffer terrible famines whenever crops failed). His contempt both for economists and the "Exeter Hall philanthropists" who had spearheaded emancipation moved him to write:

Truly, my philanthropic friends, Exeter Hall Philanthropy is wonderful; and the Social Science—not a "gay science", but a rueful—which finds the secret of this universe in "supply-and-demand", and reduces the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone, is also wonderful. Not a "gay science", I should say, like some we have heard of; no, a dreary, desolate and, indeed, quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science.[2]

Partisan@partpartisan· 22d

Partisan@partpartisan· 23d

Seeing self-proclaimed "libertarians" go to bat for a system of Car Dependency created by top-down federal and state-level mandates for highway expansions, parking minimums, and oil subsidies kinda gives way the whole charade.

"One of the more enduring myths about the mobility Americans have embraced and the freedom cars provide us is that its unsustainable because we can’t continue to pave over America. America has become an “Asphalt Nation.” It’s a nice bumper sticker but, like most bumper stickers, it’s wrong and even conveys bad information."

Partisan@partpartisan· 25d

They in fact did this on multiple occassions. (Menachot 37a)

Partisan@partpartisan· 26d

More people voted in the 2025 Seattle ~mayoral~ election than in the 2020 Wyoming senate election.

Partisan@partpartisan· Jul 12

Yeah this would be an Atlantic piece of course it would

Partisan@partpartisan· Jul 7

anyway, @katiekelaidis.bsky.social has been drumming this "history is not your friend" beat for literal years, and I guess she's decided to try and morph @kevinmkruse.bsky.social into yet another occasion to make this argument.

Partisan@partpartisan· Jul 7

The issue of Religious Tests was a key part of the election of 1800. Adams called the election a referendum on the establishment of state religion, and tried to smear Jefferson as an atheist. The voters picked the atheist!

Linn and like-minded ministers argued that voters should impose their own religious test—a voluntary restriction that would be all the more striking given the lack of a constitutional provision requiring Christianity.25 Voters rejected these arguments and elected Jefferson president.26 Adams attributed his electoral loss to popular opposition to a religious establishment, noting presumably false claims that Adams would have "introduce[d] an Establishment of Presbyterianism."27 In his view, a number of voters "said Let Us have an Atheist or Deist or any Thing rather than an Establishment of Presbyterianism."

Partisan@partpartisan· Jul 7

The only substantive historiographical disagreement in this argument about how liberal historiography is bad is... "liberals should cede that the United States is a fundamentally evangelical nation, over and against the wishes of its Founders, because some of the 13 Colonies were theocratic."

When Richardson, for instance, wrote about Rededicate 250, a bizarre event held on the National Mall on May 17 that was part political rally and part evangelical revival, she wrote with confidence, “...the United States of America was not founded as a Christian nation. The Founders were quite clear about that…,” and she went on to quote the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which famously declared that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” and “has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility [of Muslims].” It’s a bold, appealing proclamation, one that seeks to co-opt, if not to obliterate, a key trope on the right, where the Founders’ status as (almost exclusively) white Protestants and their invocations of the Almighty trump the constitutionally protected rights they enshrined, most notably in the First Amendment.

And it’s true, the Treaty of Tripoli does say exactly that. But this is not the whole story. Many states maintained a religious test for office, and an established church, well into the nineteenth century. In fact, Massachusetts, where Richardson was educated and continues to work, did not fully disestablish its state church until 1833. Moreover, institutional histories are not the only histories that count. Rededicate 250 can only be seen as an anomaly if you ignore the long history connecting evangelical revivals and American politics dating back to Colonial times—traditions that have continually reasserted themselves in figures like Billy Graham and the continued prominence of megachurches. In the lived history of the Republic, not only the Christian character, but the evangelical nature of the country, are hard to deny. It can certainly be complicated and contextualized via documents like the Treaty of Tripoli. But that is different than asserting that their existence trumps other relevant details and events in U.S. history.

Partisan@partpartisan· Jul 5

It's do funny he's doing this shit during the middle of AirBnB's massive "cosmopolitanism and cultural exchange is fucking awesome come use our product!!" ad campaign. The capitalist case against billionaires is that these petty wannabe-feudal-counts are an obvious liability to their OWN companies.

Partisan@partpartisan· Jul 2

You are not a "traditionalist" if you are defying the pope. Why on earth would the AP uncritically adopt the framing of the schismatics?

Partisan@partpartisan· Jun 28

textbook.

P1: "gentrification is bad!"
P2: "here's how to wtop gentrification" (end segregation. Let people make cheap housing.)
P1: i don't want to stop gentrification. I want to end capitalism.

Partisan@partpartisan· Jun 26

The meal this account is claiming Kat isn't allowed to order because it's too lavishly expensive for her is TWELVE DOLLARS by the way.

Partisan@partpartisan· Jun 18

You are not prepared for Shimon Riklin's response here.

Partisan@partpartisan· Jun 9

"Republicans cut off Roy Moore, making a strategic calculation that they were better off without a disreputable colleague." Charlie Brown did not have hoes.

Partisan@partpartisan· May 31

Literally doing the meme

Partisan@partpartisan· May 27

"oh, but Nintendo only actually made 4 of those games. Common misconception. Most 'Nintendo games' are developed by 3rd party devs licensing Nintendo IP." would be a good response if not for A) 4 is still a high number of games to release in one year and B) THE NEW YOSHI WASN'T MADE BY NINTENDO

Partisan@partpartisan· May 27

My man bibi breaks the scales

Partisan@partpartisan· May 20

Read theory.

Partisan@partpartisan· May 11

Berakhot 7a is absolutely wild for how it brims with mercy and compassion for all.

Partisan@partpartisan· May 1

Holy shit, it gets worse.

Partisan@partpartisan· May 1

It's crazy to see people pull this smol bean 'please don't attack my religion' stuff when the thing you're doing is adamantly defending your right to use "Pharisee" as a pejorative. "It's rude to be disrespectful of other people's religions. What are you, some kind of JEW???"

Partisan@partpartisan· Apr 29

MAKE. IT. HAPPEN. BOB.

Partisan@partpartisan· Apr 13

Sorry, but if "Sovereign of the State of Vatican City" and "Successor of the Prince of the Apostles" do not count as titles of nobility (the acceptance of which bars you from U.S. office) then what the fuck are we even doing here?

Partisan@partpartisan· Apr 10

There's a lot of people who seem to be under the impression that "We can't make nice things, what if someone charges money for it?" is in someway what Karl Marx would have wanted of them.

Partisan@partpartisan· Apr 9

Me, Jewish: "Never thought I'd die fighting side by side with a Papist." The g-damn Pope himself: "What about side by side with a Chicagoan?"

Partisan@partpartisan· Apr 3

I need more speculative fiction essays on how the socioeconomic history of sexism is evidence by our language. I NEED them.

Partisan@partpartisan· Apr 3

A white guy in *1985* wrote this.