The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

About 20% of them will be normal, well-adjusted members of society.

40% of them will spend every waking moment being triggered by everything.  They will treat Buzzfeed as a legitimate news source.  Each one of them will have a unique gender.

40% of them will spend every waking moment thinking about cuckoldry.  They will go onto 4chan every day, which they think makes them very enlightened.  Each one of them will have their own podcast, the name of which will be a very cringeworthy holocaust pun.

Each of these groups will view the other as an enemy.  However, Only the first group will reproduce in large numbers, so the next generation will be okay.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It's upsetting that this is even a thread, let alone that people in it are expressing Incorrect and Wrong opinions. The Lord of the Rings is a legitimately great and important novel not just because of the extraordinary imagination required to create it, but in other ways as well: it's narrative structure is fiendish in its complexity and satisfying in its resolution, its descriptive passages are extremely strong  and its central characters are beautifully and realistically rendered. The book engages with a wide range of philosophical (esp. philosophy of language!), historical and theological themes, and also with the author's own personal history on the Western Front. Additionally, the sense of landscape and of place that Tolkien was able to create can't be praised enough; I'll go so far as to compare his abilities in this regard to those of Lawrence. It isn't everyone's cup of tea, of course, but then no novel ever can be. Star Wars is candyfloss: enjoyable enough but not very substantial (and neither is it supposed to be). Comparing the two is a great example of the worst sort of cultural relativism.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I actually disagree with the premise of this thread.  I don't even think it's necessarily accurate to say most movies with strong Christian religious themes are necessarily bad.  There are Christian movies which are both legitimately good films, some of which were extremely subversive by the standards of the time period.  

For example, I'd argue that The Exorcist has one of the most explicitly pro-Christian spiritual messages I've ever seen in a film.  The movie is at its core about overcoming the evil in the world (depicted as the devil itself taking possession of an innocent little girl's body in a truly horrific manner) through faith in God.  The main character arc in the movie is Father Karras' transformation from a disillusioned/lapsed Catholic into a true man of God, a change which climaxes in Father Karras successfully confronting the devil by sacrificing his own life to save an innocent child (seems like a clear Christ analogy).  This is not only one of the greatest movies ever made, period; it was also about as subversive and terrifying as you could possibly get with a movie at the time.  Even so, there's a reason the Catholic Church permitted Friedkin to shoot some of the film's scenes on church grounds and that one Catholic priest even accepted an offer to play a minor role in the film.  The people who said it was anti-Christian because Regan stabs herself in the crotch with a crucifix while possessed by the devil completely missed the point imo.  

It's a Wonderful Life (a very different type of Christian film, but one which I'd argue is – for good reason – the definitive Christmas classic) may not seem particularly controversial today, but keep in mind it was made in the mid-40s and I'd encourage anyone who hasn't done so to pay close attention to the pre-third act conflict between Mr. Potter and George Bailey.  Mr. Potter is the archetypical cinematic rogue Capitalist and was basically the trope codifier for that type of character until Gordon Gekko came along.  When It's a Wonderful Life was made, its anti-corporatist, anti-greed message was not only highly controversial, but it led to many folks accusing Frank Capra of being a Communist and arguably damaged his career.  In fact, J. Edgar Hoover considered the film to be "Communist propaganda" and opened an FBI file on Frank Capra specifically due to 1) the film's depiction of Mr. Potter and 2) his belief that the movie's message was incompatible with capitalism.

And of course, there's the fact that – in a 1940s Christmas movie – the main character nearly commits suicide.  That was something folks simply didn't talk about at the time (it was even considered remarkable when Ordinary People dealt with suicide all the way in 1980) and yet here we have a film in 1946 where the protagonist nearly jumps off a bridge to his death.  

The Last Temptation of Christ wasn't a classic like the other two, but it was still an extremely controversial, subversive, risky film that (if memory serves) went where just about no film had ever gone before and depicted Jesus being tempted by sexual fantasies (among other things).  I haven't seen it in quite some time, but I'm sure there's other stuff I'm forgetting.  

For that matter, you can say a lot of things about The Passion of The Christ (among my issues with that movie are the blatant anti-Semitism, the fact that it – imo, no offense to those who disagree – often devolves into torture porn, etc; plus, I just don't think it was a very well-made movie), but I don't think anyone would argue the issue with that movie was it played things too safe  

Now there has been a recent spat of (often direct-to-video) films marketed exclusively to the Christian Coalition crowd, but I'd argue it's far more accurate to call The Exorcist a Christian film than it is to call  something like God's Not Dead or God's Not Dead 2 (I'm gonna pick on them a bit because they're the only films in this subgenre that I've seen, albeit only for "so bad it's good" comedic value).  If the God's Not Dead films are anything to go by, these films are about two things and neither of them are Christianity.  They're about hating the "right" people and the mass-indulgence of a truly remarkable persecution complex.  We never see Christian characters doing things like helping the poor, showing compassion for the less fortunate, or making compelling arguments in support of Christianity (IIRC we barely see the Christian guy's arguments in the Christian vs. obnoxious straw-Athiest "debate" in the first one, probably because the filmmakers didn't care enough to actually think of any).  There's a reason for this: these sorts of movies aren't really about the Christian characters so much as the deliberate hate sinks of anyone who doesn't think the exactly way the target audience does.  

One atheist immediately breaks up with his girlfriend when she tells him she has cancer and won't visit his mother who has Alzheimer's b/c he's an atheist and apparently only Christians aren't complete sociopaths.  Speaking of that character's girlfriend (who is a laughably one note caricature of a #FakeNews liberal blogger), God's Not Dead asks its viewers to basically take an attitude of "if you are liberal then you deserve to get cancer" (or if you are an atheist, you deserve to get hit by a car because...umm...hate the sin, love the sinner or something).  The series hits all the notes you'd expect if Roy Moore had a Fox News show.  There's the spoooooky Muslim who makes his daughter where a hajib and then beats/disowns her when he finds out she listened to a Christian sermon.  The film's chief antagonist is an emotionally abusive, one-note, hyper-narcessistic atheist who is given such weak "arguments" by the writers that even a scarecrow would call him a strawman and who (like all atheists in these sorts of films) can't be an atheist b/c he simply doesn't believe in God; it has to be that he really does believe and just hates God for some reason.  We have the random immigrant who also disowns his son for converting to Christianity.  And of course, there's the "ACLU prosecutor" (whatever that means lol) who always wears all black, randomly goes around telling Christians that he hates "everything you stand for," and literally says at one point "And soon we we will finally be all to prove once and for all that God is...DEAD!  *evil laugh*"  Yes, that is an actual line from one of the movies (I forget which one).  

The point is, I don't consider such movies to really be Christian films.  They exist only to give a certain segment of the country its 90 minutes of hate and I wouldn't call that clean.  I'd just call it hateful and disgusting in a way that doesn't involve swearing or torture porn (every once in a while they slip into that territory from what I've read).  I'm obviously not a Christian, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Christianity is about and I think such films give a bad name to Christians who do take their faith seriously instead of just using it for superficial tribalistic virtue signaling to show how much they hate "the enemy."  Well...that post was much longer than I intended.  Sorry, I went off on a bit of a tangent there

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Just your moderator dropping in and making a statement that "____ is _____ country" threads will be deleted as spam. Put this gag in the wastebin next to the Arrow to the Knee memes, thanks.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

So I'm not someone who's overly favourable towards US foreign policy (perfectly normal for a European socialist) and I have issues with the way that NATO sometimes operates.  However, I don't think that criticism of NATO expansion into Central and Eastern Europe is overly fair, really.  Those nations joined NATO primarily for two reasons: the first was a fear of a renewed Russian threat in the future (which in the case of the Baltic States is probably justified, especially in the cases of Estonia and Latvia which have large Russian populations) and the second was more symbolic: membership of NATO demonstrated to the world that they were clearly separate from Russia.  Saying that its America wanting to create "puppet states" or anything is ludicrous - unless anyone can provide evidence of America interfering in the Domestic Affairs of those new NATO members at least.  This is the reason why most of those states also joined the EU: it wasn't just to take advantage of the benefits of membership (free trade of goods and services plus Objective 2 funding supporting infrastructure developments in the region, etc) but also a symbolic statement about the place of those countries in the world.

Indeed I would argue that denying those nations NATO membership would likely put the world at more risk than allowing them to join.  Those nations were either already progressing towards EU membership in the case of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic or effectively joined the EU and NATO at the same time in the case of everyone else (other than Albania and Montenegro who are irrelevant to this discussion: the former left the Soviet sphere of influence with the Sino-Soviet split and the latter never were in it since Yugoslavia was the main non-aligned nation) and I would argue that it makes perfect sense for those nations to integrate their military within the primary European military alliance if they elect to integrate their economies into Europe's largest trading organisation.  Unless you also think that those nations should have been denied EU membership, which would have led to massive alienation after being excluded from the European club (which even symbolically would have been terrible) and would likely have led to tensions between those countries and the EU/NATO and potentially risk the development of democratic norms in those countries which even today aren't built on the firmest grounds.  Your perspective is a very Cold War one and the idea that Eastern Europe should be left to the Russians or whatever is incredibly outdated and the people who live in the region would heavily object with the idea that they ought to be excluded from NATO or other Western supranational organisations.

Ukraine is more contentious in terms of NATO membership however that's why the deal between NATO and Ukraine isn't that they become members in the future but its enhanced cooperation of some matters.  Ukraine's relationship with NATO is most similar to Serbia, the Caucasus nations, Moldova and Kazakhstan and is not designed to lead to full membership in the future, in the way that the relationship between Bosnia and Herzegovina and NATO does.

If all of this makes me a neoliberal or neoconservative then, well, I need a good laugh today!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Hell must have frozen over - I am putting a Fuzzy Bear post in here:

Private prisons are a conflict of interest.  A company that profits on the incarceration of others has the financial incentive to lobby for more restrictive drug laws, minimum-mandatory sentences that take away judicial discretion in sentencing. abolition of parole, "truth-in-sentencing" laws that minimize the possibility of early release for good behavior, and the sort of corruption that leads to inmates being unnecessarily (or even wrongly) infracted questionably for rule violations while confined that lead to loss of good time toward earlier release or a negative mark on their incarceration record that a parole board will see at a parole hearing.  To say nothing of Judges being on the take and handing out prison sentences to people who would have ordinarily received probation (e. g. first-time non-violent offenders) in order to use up "bed space", as if prison is some kind of hotel and the Judge is getting a booking fee like Expedia.

Democrats and Republicans alike spread this cancer, but the GOP is far worse, and the industry has far more GOP officials that are pretty much in their pocket.

Bullock's not the worst in this area, and I wouldn't rule him out just because of this.  It's possible that the Montana Legislature is pushing this and he has more pressing priorities.  This was, however, his chance to be part of the solution, and he passed on it.  Private Prisons are a stain and a cancer.

It doesn’t seem so surprising when you realize that soneone’s worldview can be multi-faceted and not necessarily tethered to a left-right (or, from a subjective perspective, good-bad) axis. I would submit that, quite simply, Fuzzy believes in public virtue, and that this has implications that may be varied in their reception by others.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I hope he's confirmed. What's been happening against him, without a shred of real, tangible evidence has been a disgrace.

Your's a serious guy, and pretty thoughtful.

What would be the MORAL effect of, say, Roe v. Wade being cut back by the vote of a Judge whom people believe did what he did?  The Senate allowing Dr. Ford to testify at least frames and constrains the allegation (which, I must add, I find credible). 

If this had not gone to a Senate vote, the allegation would still be out there.  There would be the official version (but not under oath) and there would have been the embellishments.  If Roe v. Wade were to be cut back by the decisive vote of a Justice whose own behavior made back-alley coat hanger abortions necessary, what would the effect of THAT be on the Supreme Court?  Indeed, what would the effect of THAT be on our governmental institutions, all of them?

I am an ardent pro-lifer, and seeing abortion ended in America would give me great cause to celebrate.  I would view it as America righting a massive wrong, as much as it could.  But are these particular means good means?  What is the likekihood that if this were brought about by KAVANAUGH would produce a groundswell of public opinion that would result in a pro-choice Constitutional Amendment that would entrench not only abortion on demand, but Federal Funding of abortion as well? 

I see Kavanaugh's elevation to the SCOTUS as an unmitigated disaster for the pro-life movement, in that an improved position on the Court would be achieved at the expense of the moral authority we now have.  It is the moral argument for Life that enables the pro-life movement to be a force in our politics, despite being a minority constituency.  How disheartening would it be for millions of people who are at least marginally pro-life to think that the guy who cast the deciding vote to cut back Roe v. Wade was the kind of guy that once was responsible for women seeking out unsafe illegal abortions?

Trump could have, and should have, pulled Kavanaugh and substituted a new nominee.  For the good of the country, the Court, and the pro-life movement.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Historically, liberalism operates under the assumption that to secure to citizens their natural rights will yield a more perfect society; progressivism operates under the assumption that the pursuit of a more perfect society will best secure to citizens their natural rights.

In contemporary parlance, "progressive" tends to be used in reference to the left wing of the Democratic Party, juxtaposed with "moderate" Democrats (in contrast to even twenty years ago, when New Democrats began describing themselves as "progressives" to escape Reagan-era baggage attached to the liberal label). This usage is a novel interpretation of the term, and leads to no shortage of confusion when discussing the historical progressive movement: the notion that 'Lincoln would be a Democrat today' stems in part from the fact that, while certainly not a liberal, Lincoln was arguably a proto-progressive when it came to his views on government.

Early twentieth century progressivism grew out of American conservatism as it then existed; while liberalism did eventually come around to progressive modes of thinking, it was hesitant to do so, and liberal politicians never quite grew comfortable with the progressive label in its earliest iteration. This progressivism was a response to perceived social and civic ills plaguing Gilded Age America; capitalist excess, alcoholism, poverty, and official corruption were seen to undermine the moral underpinnings of the republic. More seriously, progressives like Theodore Roosevelt believed the worst excesses of nineteenth century industrial capitalism posed an existential threat to the economy as a whole, and by extension American democracy. In the aftermath of the sweeping social changes wrought by the Industrial Revolution and the nationalist revolution of 1861–1869, and in the tradition of Protestant social reformers who lived a half-century previous, these elements were more inclined to view the centralizing power of the state as a suitable organ to achieve their ends, both economic (embodied in the anti-trust legislation and consumer protection laws that were enacted during this period), political (civil service reform), and social (most famously, Prohibition). By the second decade of the twentieth century, liberalism had composed its answer to Rooseveltian progressive-conservatism in the form of Wilsonian "New Freedom," which shared many of the same motivations and principles of its Republican counterparts, but which was born of an opposing ideological heredity.

These early progressive schools shared a few key characteristics that set them apart from other broadly 'reformist' ideologies of their time (namely, Bryanite populism and socialism). First, they had the basic assumption that the people would benefit from a more perfect society. This is in opposition to the traditional liberal notion, espoused by Jefferson and Bryan, that society would benefit from policies that help the people; and it is this notion that lent itself to support for prohibition and eugenics, among other less odious social policies. Second, they arose as answer and in opposition to radical ideologies that sought to varying degrees the overthrow of the existing socio-political order. The progressives of this era were not populists, even as they employed populist rhetoric to mobilize public opinion in their favor. Roosevelt in his time as president considered William Jennings Bryan and Eugene Debs as dangerous radicals whose ideas would be the undoing of the republic. While it is a mistake to take Roosevelt's view as the view of all progressives, it is generally true that progressives held stemming the tide of radicalism to be of equal importance to their work undoing Gilded Age corruption in politics and industry.

"New Freedom" was a turning point for the Democratic Party and American liberalism, which had previously eschewed state action as a viable means for achieving their desired ends. This was not, as is commonly misstated, the product of a libertarian perspective that was displaced by the mythic "party switch" of the 1930s; but rather, a belief that the state was a tool of the financial elites wielded for the purpose of preserving an artificial social hierarchy and maintaining the social and political dominance of the upper classes. As such, Jeffersonian liberalism advocated for minimizing the power of the state, with the view that in its absence, the artificial boundary of class would be abolished. Even into the late nineteenth century, the majority of liberals persisted in this view; the rise of the Populist Party and the nomination of William Jennings Bryan in 1896 began to break the stranglehold of laissez faire philosophy on liberal orthodoxy by convincing a key constituent to the liberal coalition—the rural Midwest—that state intervention in the economy was the sought-for remedy to their economic woes. Philosophically, this represented a shift in liberal thinking, in which industry and unregulated capitalism came to replace the medieval state as the force imposing an unequal class structure from on high. It was not until Wilson's election in 1912, however, that American liberalism completed the transition from viewing freedom as inimical to active government, to a belief that "mere freedom" is insufficient to secure the natural rights "endowed by their Creator" to mankind.

In practice, these philosophies lend themselves to similar conclusions, which is why they are often used interchangeably to describe the generic center-left perspective in American politics; but they come from very different places, and from my point of view anyways, it's not a good idea to confuse the two.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Had meant to post that myself at some point.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Honestly, a very good candidate for the name of the thread, not because of this post alone:

He'll never get the credit he deserves thanks to the liberal elite.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This is an interesting topic and you gave a quite thorough response, so I'm going to talk with you point-by-point.  There's a lot of interesting history here and I think reasonable people can disagree, but I think it’s pretty apparent that historically Virginia was much more "Southern" than states like Arkansas, Tennessee or Kentucky.  I think that difference is key in explaining whey there was more racial amicus in Virginia during the civil rights era than in some other Southern states.
 

The fact that VA had a large black slave population is pretty much the only thing it ever had in common with the Deep South.  There have been significant differences ever since, from the antebellum period up to the modern day, which is why Southerners themselves rather hesitantly describe VA as a Southern state (and many will insist it is not Southern at all).

Having a large Black/slave population is the most distinguishing identifier of “[Deep] Southerness” there is in the textbook.  Having different racial groups in close contact is pretty much a prerequisite of a place developing identifiable racial animosity/conflict.  Virginia checks that box; its black population (22.1%) is higher than that of West Virginia (3.6%), Kentucky (8.3%), Missouri (11.6%), Arkansas (15.4%), or Tennessee (16.8%).  

Moreover, I've never met any credible individual who flat-out denies that Virginia is a Southern state.  The recent “de-Southernization” of Virginia is a trend driven almost exclusively by the growth of the D.C. suburbs, which is very recent and doesn’t give us any help in answering OP’s question.  I also would argue that the recent trend doesn’t erase the fundamentally Southern core of Virginia culture:  its governor wears that funny tie at inauguration, the state’s flagship universities are in Charlottesville and Blacksburg, sweet tea is readily available, etc., etc.  

Take, for example, the founding of VA.  VA was founded first as the Virginia Company, established with the purpose of finding gold in the New World (there was none in VA, as it turned out), and then later after the colony was established, it was primarily settled by English gentry (some of which actually had ties to English nobility- some of the only settlers in US history that were legitimate aristocrats) with the aim of setting up country estates modeled off of say, Yorkshire.  These estates came about around the James River and the Chesapeake Bay, and were originally worked by indentured servants- some of which were black, but many were actually white.  The formal establishment of slavery was not until much later in the late 1600s-early 1700s.  Contrast now to, for example, SC- which was settled much later by an entirely different group of people, i.e. English slavers coming over from Barbados with the explicit intent of starting plantations.  Or contrast to a state like LA, which was not originally an English colony at all.

American Slavery began in 1619 in Virginia.  The institution is intimately connected with the state and its elite families going back to its very founding.  We can get wishy-washy over where these families or their slaves were coming from, or exactly what crops they were growing and when, but that makes very little difference in:

• 1)  Realizing that the economic benefactors of slavery were invested in protecting the institution at all costs, thus leading to the Civil War, and;
• 2)  Affecting how the Lost Cause narrative was able to take ahold among Virginian Whites following Reconstruction (which is probably more key to understanding OP’s question of why Virginia was acting more like Mississippi or Alabama when it came to the Southern Manifesto).         

   

The western parts of VA were settled by Scots-Irish, and some Germans, many of which came down from central PA into the Shenandoah Valley along the Great Wagon Road.  So to say the state has "less" Appalachian influence than TN or NC.. while perhaps technically true, is quite misleading since a whole half of the state was mostly settled by those who would comprise of modern "Appalachian culture", and for practically the entirety of VA history, to the current day, there has always been a pretty stark difference (both culturally and otherwise) between the mountainous western half, and the piedmont/coastal plain in the east where most of the population is and where the wealthier English planters originally settled.

The parts of Virginia that were mostly settled by Scots-Irish, German and other Appalachian ethnic groups on the Great Mountain Road during the 1740s-1780s (a full 120 years after the Virginian slavers arrived in Jamestown, mind you) largely chose to secede from the state following the outbreak of the Civil War and form West Virginia.  Secessionist sentiment in Appalachian Virginia (i.e., Westsylvania) predates the American Revolution.  The experiences of Appalachian Virginians were informed by them locating within the state after political and cultural life was already squarely centered around Williamsburg (note: this is actually very similar to the experiences of Appalachian immigrants to Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia; hmmm).  Contrast that with Tennessee and Kentucky, where the Appalachian regions of those states were the first to be settled by British/American colonists.  That’s an immensely stark difference and, resultantly, Virginia is less culturally Appalachian than more interior Southern states.
  

Your description of VA being profound in terms of Southern Agrarian culture is, again, explaining the state in a superficial, sort of "junior high textbook" way.  VA's plantations were founded at a much earlier date than the Deep South, and in contrast to the Deep South, were primarily tobacco and some wheat.  Compare to the Deep South, which was primarily sugar, rice, and of course- cotton.  However, VA had few cotton plantations and by 1860, they were practically non existent.  The economic interests of state like VA were not necessarily going to be the same as a state like, say, AL, GA, or MS.

I have alluded to this above, but I’ll just reiterate that marginal differences in what types of crops plantations were growing during the Antebellum era is pretty trivial to understanding racial animus during the civil rights era.  Reconstruction/Jim Crow/Civil Rights political debates were much more influenced by the racist Lost Cause narrative, which was more potent in Virginia than say, Tennessee or Kentucky, due to the state’s larger Black population.  

Which, speaking of economic activity, when you say that VA was the "economic and political center of the CSA," you are again, being misleading.  The capital was indeed in Richmond, but was not originally there and moved for political reasons.  When you say that VA is the "first state to secede after Fort Sumter", you are obfuscating the history- I'm not sure if intentional or not, but clearly misleading.  VA's reasons for secession were not exactly the same as say, SC, and VA was the one of the last states to secede- it was 8th, on April 17, 1861, and did not do so until Lincoln called for states to provide volunteers to recapture the fort.  This was after the Montgomery Convention and when the first Confederate Constitution was signed, which was in March and VA was not a signatory at that time.  Your mention that VA had many Confederate veterans really says nothing and is a bit of a distraction- VA was by far the largest state in the CSA, so obviously it was going to have the most veterans; that should not be surprising.

Yes, the Confederate capital was relocated to Richmond to reflect the Virginia planters’ historical social and economic dominance over Southern society.  Virginia seceded before Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee (which are three former Confederate states with obviously better race relations during the civil rights era, hmmm….).  I don’t see how anything in the above quote establishes why Virginia would be “less Southern” than those states.  

Also, in terms of economics, it could be said that VA was the closest thing the CSA had to an industrialized state, which is not saying much- but it did have 3 of the largest cities in the top 10 of the confederacy (more than any other state), the confederacy's only real iron works, some of the only shipyards (the only naval yard, I believe), the largest flour mills, a more extensive rail network, and so on.  Even in those days, VA was resembling (and had actual links to) the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast much more than, say, MS or AL.

The only proper Confederate “city” would be New Orleans, which was the sixth-largest city in the United States at the time (population: 170,000).  The largest Virginian city at the time was Richmond, which had a population of 37,000.  Sure, Virginia benefitted from commercial and industrial links to the Northeast (and even Europe) but what made those links valuable was that Virginia was a natural thoroughfare for Deep South cotton and other commodities in transit to northern textile mills.  If Virginia had been more economically dependent on the Northeast than the Deep South, it wouldn’t had seceded in the first place.  
  

About the only thing I really agree with is when you state that social structures were insular and restrictive in VA, and that is probably a true statement... there is an argument to be made that VA has been the most elitist state throughout US history- something that perhaps gets closer to the real answer of the OP's question.

That difference exists because Virginia was a Southern, agrarian planters’ society that benefitted immensely from chattel slavery; doesn’t have the same historical influence of Appalachian culture as Tennessee, North Carolina or Kentucky; and because Virginia Whites were much more willing to buy-into Lost Cause narration and Jim Crow due to state’s large Black population.  Those factors make Virginia during the 20th century act more like a “Deep South” state than somewhere like Tennessee.  

Also, I’ll just make a general comment about the “junior high school”-ness of my responses:  Occam’s razor.  We don’t need complicated answers where simpler ones will suffice; critical history is taught using arcs and themes because these are generally consistent with observable historical events and trends.  

Context:

Because it was a practically a Deep South state with less Appalachian influence than Tennessee or North Carolina

It would appear your understanding of Virginia history is quite.. shall we say, unsophisticated.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Calling the attempt to interfere with election certification a "riot" in the first place is nothing short of dishonest revisionism

Almost like hand waving away hundreds of riots in a matter of months as "firey but mostly peaceful protests that escalated due to hundreds of years of oppression". Even during the Rittenhouse trial you still had violence appologists claiming the violent rioters who were shot were "racial justice protesters at a protest" even though it occurred at night time, while trespassing on private property, and involved illegal arson, window smashing, property destruction, vandalism, and assault. That is not a protest. Legitimate protests dont happen at night and dont involve arson and window smashing. The 2020 rioters and the Capitol rioters should both be punished severely. Yet when the Biden transition happened, DOJ dismissed most of the 2020 prosecutions and focused on MAGA meemaws walking between the velvet ropes rather than the Portland Antifa terrorists.

In June of 2020 when violent rioters breached the White House and burned the church across the street there were a ton of posters on this site gleefully mocking Trump as a coward for being evacuated to the White House bunker. Then on Jan. 6 when an ostensibly less destructive riot forced members of congress into bunkers yall claim its literally a treesuncoo. Both should be prosecuted as violent riots. Instead Biden claimed Antifa didnt exist and had most of the 2020 prosecutions dismissed while shamefully comparing Jan. 6 to 9/11 and pearl harbor.

So much cover was given to the 2020 riots that it desensitized the nation to political violence. Dozens of politicians encouraged 2020. AOC told rioters to wear "heat-resistant gloves" and to conceal their identities. Popular Mechanics did an article on how to illegally pull down statues. The VP tweeted bail funds for rioters. There were articles on how looting was "reparations". Louise Lucas in Portsmouth ordered the police to stand down from stopping a riot. Seattle and Portland local governments permitted riots, autonomous zones, and attacks on federal property and Soros prosecutors refused to prosecute the violent rioters. The 2020 riots were an order of magnitude worse than Jan. 6 and yet you expect us to forget that and just focus on the 1 riot that scared the Dems. If yall had been consistent on locking up rioters and werent just trying to claim "insturrection" to invoke the 14th amendment I doubt most of the Republicans would have boycotted the Commission. I want the Jan. 6 rioters prosecuted too but I refuse to accept the Dem propaganda that it was worse than 2020.

What would your response be to someone who thinks both are bad? This type of reply only works as a rebuttal, not a standalone argument.