True to an extent, however I'm not condemning them for the implementation of it.

I'm using the implementation as a symbol of slavery's deeply rooted connection to our founding. Abstract yes, in hindsight I should have been more clear. However the very fact that the compromise was needed shows, to quote the text I was replying to; exactly how deep the "systemic evil is baked into our national dna".

The founders I'm condemning for owning slaves and supporting the trade. It's fantasy to frame the founders as working to abolish slavery, while there was some support for the idea on ideological grounds, abolitionism didn't have significant support even in the northern states until closer to the civil war, after the slave trade clause sunset.

Some founders embraced the practice, others later distanced themselves and opposed it, Washington is notable here, though that doesn't change his past acts.
In other words, If we must evenly credit their praiseworthy achievements, we must do the same to their repugnant ones when speaking of the group.

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

You don't need a replacement for something to recognize it was bad. It doesn't need to have a better option either. Sometimes, all options are bad.
And yes, we get to complain about it.

I'm not saying it would?

Why does everyone think I'm trying to argue a replacement for it?

I'm pointing out that it's one of only two references to slavery as an intuition in the Constitution, and thus serves as a symbol of slavery. Combine that with its recension as part of the 13th amendment, and you have a powerful reminder that yes, we did actually found the country on slavery.

The fact that things may have been much worse had it not been included is a strong argument for how strongly entrenched that way of life was to our nation and its founders.

Moral relativism falls short when it's subject matter is still the source of issues today. And while it's fine to weigh a historical figures actions against their contemporaries, it's also important to examine how we'd view those actions today. Both aspects are important to understanding history.

I'm not arguing for a replacement. I'm not sure why you'd even think that if you've read anything I've written beyond that line, what exactly do you think we're conversing about?

I'll straight out tell you it's not about the compromise, or the effects of it, good or bad.

This is the text I referred the compromise for:

"Take note about how all the people screeching about how 'fragile our democracy is' are the very same people and organization going on and on about how vile our founders actually were, and how much systemic evil is baked into our national dna, and how much 'change' is needed. Why you'd wounder why they care so much about saving the union in the first place, until you realize they don't care. The whole 'OMG an unruly crowd nearly destroyed our democracy' is just their latest narrative device to try to undermine that very thing!"

This poster is trying to characterize the idea that we need to be honest in our approach to history as a false front to cover up how those people really just want to destroy our democracy.
That recognizing problems means you want to destroy rather than improve.

That systemic evil this writing tries to cast doubt on is why I referenced the compromise. It stands as a symbol that slavery is closely tied into the core of this country's founding. A symbol enshrined so deeply that we had to amend the constitution to rescind it. IdealIy I would have used the slave trade clause instead if I had expected anyone to recognize it.

Moral relativism falls short when it's subject matter is still the source of issues today. And while it's fine to weigh a historical figures actions against their contemporaries, it's also important to examine how we'd view those actions today. Both aspects are important to understanding history.

If you're asking this question, you've completely missed the point.

But sure, let's answer that question.

The two most likely outcomes as I see it are either:

1) The U.S fails to form as a union and we split along ideological lines 100 years early/lose the war to the british.

2) The slave economy states wield an uneven degree of power and more greatly entrench that way of life into the countries framework.

Neither outcome is good.

Neither seem to make a good argument for 'How the US totally wasn't founded on vile economic practices' either though. You can see how trying to frame them as heros when they also were some of the most significant slave-holders in the nation. Hell, fully 8 of our first 12 presidents were slave owners.

A historical figures flaws are just as important as their strengths. It is unconscionable to wash away these things in the name of time, as these flaws have caused real, lasting harm to millions. To do so is to rewrite history just to suit nationalistic vanity.

Replying to myself to make a correction.

17 weapon offenses, not 2. Amongst them:

possession of an unregistered firearm

carrying a pistol without a license

carrying a rifle or shotgun outside of a home or place of business

possession of a large ammunition feeding device

unlawful possession of ammunition

In addition to the multiple firearms in the truck, he did in fact carry 2 pistols on his person, Oh and he has recent ties to armed militia groups.

But they will do something is evidence is presented that she planned crimes.

This is what a conspiracy charge centers around, and it's how the law handles people that were stopped prior to committing the crime they had clear intent to commit.

I'm very aware of all those things.

But those arguments ring hollow. It doesn't matter how beneficial it was, it doesn't matter how much it limited slave states power.

It's very inclusion codified slavery into the the founding documents, and more importantly represents the fact that had to include it. That is vileness, if it wasn't vile, the compromise wouldn't have been needed in the first place.

Arguing the "times" falls short as well, American style slavery is, ethically speaking, considerably worse than the rest of it's contemporary practice and this was known at the time. The "Complex Reality" as you put it, is that it was economically inconvenient to stop the practice.

This doesn't mean we cast off everything that was accomplished, but you can not wash away the stains of their shortcomings. They must be acknowledged.

1) The claim was the bomber was a lone actor. This is unsupported.

2) The Owner of the truck in question was charged with 2 weapons offenses, for the molotovs and for having an unlicensed weapon.

3) Oathkeeper(apologies, I did misname them) involvement is not 'made up' there is extensive evidence of their planning, as well as the involvement of other militia groups. Oathkeeper members have already plead guilty to conspiracy charges, finding their zello chat logs quite damning, including statements that they had trained for this.

4) The Oathkeepers own founder has stated they've stationed people around the capital to make sure Trump wouldn't be removed "or we wind up in a bloody fight – we all know that. The fight's coming."

5) Who cares how possible it was? The point was that's what people were there to do, as they've directly stated themselves in public, online and in the courts.

It's a typo.

Luckily you understood the subject, though you seem to think that it's relative upside somehow erases the vileness it represents.

Recognizing that our country was founded on vile economic practices is important to understanding how to address the problems it's legacy has led to today.

Unfortunately, you having stock doesn't mean there wasn't a supply problem.

I live with a Nurse. She had to make her own PPE, and had to rely on her own stock of N95 to last her the first several months of the pandemic. It wasn't until August that she could reliably get them again.

It's undeniable that full PPE levels were not reachable during the majority of the pandemic's first year.

A bomb doesn't need to be big to create panic, nor to split the attention of and man power of police staff.

There is no evidence to support the bomber was acting alone either. We don't know who his is, so we don't know the extent or lack of his connections.

The notable fact about the truck wasn't the guns(illegal they may be), but the dozen plus molotovs. There is no legitimate reason to have those and it's the height of bad faith to suggest that's normal. And that's not even mentioning the literal target list he had in the truck as well.

Never said they did. The idea, incase you have missed it, is that organized groups like the peacekeepers were waiting for a tipping point to be reached before taking action. Thankfully, that point never occurred. Perhaps because the bombs didn't go off.
Perhaps because the house session wasn't delayed,
Perhaps because Congress was able to evacuate before being trapped.

But the elements were in place for it to have been worse, much much worse.

Ignoring and downplaying those elements is dangerous.

Yes, and none of these things exclude significant, life changing events having occurred.

The idea that bad things need to be apocalyptic to be actually bad is the real fallacy here.

Ah the good old 'They want to change things, so they must hate the country' argument.

Because identifying active issues with something and suggesting improvements means you want to destroy something.

In reality, our founder were largely vile. The 3/4 compromise is evil baked directly into the key framework of our country. Personally, I'm not sure how you'd even begin to address the issues that have arised from this, and continue to exist because of the history involved it in, while denying that it was a problem.

It's not imbalance, but false balance.

Your CDC example is perfect for this.

The CDC changed stance on masks because the circumstances changed. They were initially more concerned about a panic exacerbating a a shortage amount medical personnel(a concern proven very real), and then that priority shifted when BOTH more data on cloth mask effectiveness(not N95) came and out the scale of the pandemic had increased.

No legitimate criticism of this was ever blocked or censored. No, the problem was that an 'equal' counter position against this was fabricated to create false balance, and instead of focusing on actually important issues, this was polarized into a hyper partisan debate that's greatly undermined the ability to convey clear information.

That's the problem. No agency is perfect and they need oversight and criticism, but that needs to be grounded in reality and good faith. Creating proxy fights and false balance to drive viewership is the deadly act here.