EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8496
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28851 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24780 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22449 Posts
On August 20 2017 01:10 Mohdoo wrote: Are you really pretending the systematic enslaving of an entire race is not a unique critique? That there are all sorts of statues we have around with similar cons? I don't understand why you are applying such a low resolution perspective on this "this has bad qualities" "other thing ALSO is not purely free of any negative qualities" "Well, guess that's about the same then" We can think harder and give more nuance to ethics than that. We don't need to try to classify objects or beliefs in as few categories as possible. Vandalism is bad, regardless of what your vandalizing. The US is a somewhat normally functioning democratic country, if you want a statue removed, regardless of what it depicts, follow proper procedure. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On August 20 2017 01:15 micronesia wrote: Mohdoo you are going down a dark road. I agree, your concerns with a Lee statue are pretty obviously (to me) much worse than whatever concerns others have with George Washington statues. Don't change the rules though because slavery. If slavery was that bad (which it was) then get the statue taken down officially, not through vigilante vandalism to compensate for the fact that a given town is too backwards to realize what is wrong with worshiping Lee. Slavery doesn't give you a free pass to do whatever your emotions make you want to do... it's even more important with serious and charged issues like that to strengthen the system and use it to drive progress. Hopefully others can back me up because I fear this conversation is going in a direction where the two of us just talk past each other. I think the perspective of "just take the legal route" is ignoring how many big changes in our country are largely the result of civil disobedience and not playing by the rules. I suppose I see slavery as extremely distinct and that statues paying respect to people who fought to enslave blacks are utterly fucked up. Statues and other forms of immortalizing historical figures serve a similar function as laws. If I can make a comparison: gay marriage. When gays were told they had a uniquely lesser set of rights as straight people, it was more than that. It sets a "tone" so to speak with regards to where gays fit into society. It reinforced the idea that there really was something other-than about gays and it had big impacts on the lives and minds of people in society. To me, it is simply unfair to blacks for us to allow these symbols of hatred to exist in these areas. I understand that you agree these statues are negative and should be removed. I am just trying to explain why I think this is a uniquely awful situation where I understand people wanting to break the rules and make sure this ends immediately. I'm not saying slavery should allow people to just run around doing whatever they feel is necessary. I am saying that specifically on the issue of these statues, especially ones on government property, where it is fair to say a society is represented, it is acceptable to me for people to forcibly remove them. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11574 Posts
You could think of it this way- if the only way to take them down is through vigilantism, then how has anything changed really? The majority didn't think having a statue up was such a bad thing... and they would continue to think that way, only now they're mad because some vigilantes have taken the issue into their own hands. Isn't it possible one statue might just replace the other? But if you've gone through a process where enough people agree that it should be taken down, well that some real progress. And that's because people think differently, and that's a good thing. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
We cannot hide behind the defense of history to justify avoiding the conversation about how that history should be represented. Or omit facts like Lee himself was against confederate monuments. One cannot insist that people come together while also demanding that the status quo be maintained. Engagement requires acceptance that change will happen at some level. There are ways to celebrate those who served and died in the war without lionizing them in the center of public spaces. The vandalism is a result of long term denial of this discussion, resulting it civil disobedience. Much like throwing tea into the ocean when your interests are not represented in government. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On August 20 2017 01:45 Falling wrote: Well the statues are really symbols of perhaps a multiplicity of values, and so if you knock out the statue without a process, sure you've taken out an eyesore, but you're really just tackling the surface issue and not giving the rest of the community time to come to terms to bring it down in solidarity (because now the majority agree or at least a critical mass agree.) It'll take longer sure because people actually have to change their minds, but I think it's better because I think just knocking down statues is more likely to entrench positions. You could think of it this way- if the only way to take them down is through vigilantism, then how has anything changed really? The majority didn't think having a statue up was such a bad thing... and they would continue to think that way, only now they're mad because some vigilantes have taken the issue into their own hands. Isn't it possible one statue might just replace the other? But if you've gone through a process where enough people agree that it should be taken down, well that some real progress. And that's because people think differently, and that's a good thing. Can you elaborate on this? What are other values that were lost from the south losing the war? | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
I'm not sure how that would work out in practice but there's a lot of creative people out there, I'd be interested in seeing how they'd go about communicating this. Though some of the people marching against taking them down would probably dislike this even more. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 20 2017 01:55 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Is there really no way to make these proper educational monuments? I.E here's a monument to remind us that a lot of our people died fighting for a despicable cause, let's not do it again. I'm not sure how that would work out in practice but there's a lot of creative people out there, I'd be interested in seeing how they'd go about communicating this. Though some of the people marching against taking them down would probably dislike this even more. Of course there is. The debate over these monuments also represents a debate over history. The people southern states still, to this day, refer to northerners as Yankees. To publicly display that the war was fought to preserve slavery puts them on the wrong side of history. And adding further context, like the fact that the majority of these monuments were erected in the most raciest time in US history is not palatable to them. The problem is that the demographics in those states, specifically in the cities where these monuments are most prevalent, are changing. So you see pushes to remove or change the monuments. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28851 Posts
Obviously I agree that Robert E Lee should not be a celebrated figure. But I think it's highly likely that somewhere in the region of 40% of americans would disagree greatly with my idea of what a celebrated figure should be. While dismantling or destroying or defacing a statue or monument celebrating a person or idea that I find repelling might give me some instant gratification, it grants legitimacy to groups on the other side of the political spectrum who dismantle or destroy or deface statues or monuments that they find similarly offensive. It doesn't matter if there aren't actually any statues of Pol Pot in the US - the more ignorant part of the trump base considers Obama et al. just as bad as people like us find Robert E Lee. Only through being consistent in our condemnation of vandalism can we expect consistent condemnation of vandalism - otherwise it becomes something that people are okay with if they sufficiently disliked the vandalized object, and that is one more stepping stone towards vigilantism. We do not want this. | ||
mustaju
Estonia4505 Posts
On August 20 2017 01:55 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Is there really no way to make these proper educational monuments? I.E here's a monument to remind us that a lot of our people died fighting for a despicable cause, let's not do it again. Less glory, more 'tragically misguided'. I'm not sure how that would work out in practice but there's a lot of creative people out there, I'd be interested in seeing how they'd go about communicating this. Though some of the people marching against taking them down would probably dislike this even more. Isn't this a band-aid solution in a way? The statues themselves would be less of a problem if it wasn't for wide-spread unfactual revisionist history. EDIT: Ninja-ed by P6. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11574 Posts
On August 20 2017 01:49 Mohdoo wrote: Can you elaborate on this? What are other values that were lost from the south losing the war? Not really, I was trying to leave a back door for myself because I cannot account for all the motivations on why someone might want to keep the statue up- southern heritage or Lee was a great general or something (and yes you could append slavery behind pretty much any alternative reason- southern heritage, Lee, etc), but I generally dislike locking myself into ascribing one motivation to a large group of people I don't know. But statues of this sort aren't just the material they are made up of, but represent something- of course they do because otherwise why would people want to take them down as well? The point is really general, rather than specific, and it isn't a defence for keeping up the statues. It's a defence for taking them down as a community rather than via vigilantes in the night. And the reason for that is, whatever those statues mean to people, whether good or bad, the reasons they had that meaning will continue after the statue is taken out in the night. So what have you solved really? You've forced the issue, great. But how much do we care about the actual piece of rock vs that people still have reasoning that makes think that rock had some meaning? By making a case in public with slow pressure over time, the actual act of taking the statue down will have symbolic meaning for the entire community rather than some personal meaning for the vigilante few. I think it's powerful when a community can come to a point where it can publicly say, 'we were wrong, and in line with this understanding, we are taking down this statue to commemorate our change in understanding.' I don't know. Maybe it's not as important as I'm making it, but it's just a line of thought I had this morning. I just generally dislike vandalism as part of civil disobedience. It's not usually a very contained action, nor performed by the most constrained people and tends to attract the sort that just want to burn cars and break shop windows. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Boston has this on lock. The "free speech" is going exactly how I expected it to. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On August 20 2017 02:15 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/status/898944831673704449 Boston has this on lock. The "free speech" is going exactly how I expected it to. Amazing haha | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 20 2017 01:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: The way I see it, one major takeaway from 2017 is the importance of strong institutions and adhering to proper protocols. Do you also agree that that applies in reverse? That we should respect the due process of how the office of the presidency is supposed to operate, even when the president is a dangerously incompetent nincompoop? That, for example, being willing to throw out non-stop classified information just to make life worse for the hated president is a bad thing? I ask because you are pretty closely aligned with the political affiliation of the folk who see the merit of institutions when they're meant to limit Trump, but not when they're meant to allow him to do his job. Though I know that that doesn't mean that you necessarily agree with all of them on everything, including perhaps, perhaps not, on this issue. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11574 Posts
 Yeah, any of the actual free speech guys hightailed it out of there long before today. The only guys left are the overly optimistic supremacists. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 20 2017 02:02 mustaju wrote: Isn't this a band-aid solution in a way? The statues themselves would be less of a problem if it wasn't for wide-spread unfactual revisionist history. EDIT: Ninja-ed by P6. Truth is that's just a relic of how the US is divided in general and how historical truth propagates throughout. Although there was a conclusive military result from the US Civil War, culturally the rift that existed back then didn't exactly heal, it merely persisted. Add to the fact that the US has a rather awful education system (in that you can find world-class schools all across the country, but a high-quality education and especially a high-quality appreciation of the merits of education are not universal) and yes, you do generally have a culture where people live in alternate realities. And not just in the sense of how in most countries we interpret the merits of acknowledged historical events in different ways, it's genuine alternate histories. Like so: | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On August 20 2017 02:06 Falling wrote: Not really, I was trying to leave a back door for myself because I cannot account for all the motivations on why someone might want to keep the statue up- southern heritage or Lee was a great general or something (and yes you could append slavery behind pretty much any alternative reason- southern heritage, Lee, etc), but I generally dislike locking myself into ascribing one motivation to a large group of people I don't know. But statues of this sort aren't just the material they are made up of, but represent something- of course they do because otherwise why would people want to take them down as well? The point is really general, rather than specific, and it isn't a defence for keeping up the statues. It's a defence for taking them down as a community rather than via vigilantes in the night. And the reason for that is, whatever those statues mean to people, whether good or bad, the reasons they had that meaning will continue after the statue is taken out in the night. So what have you solved really? You've forced the issue, great. But how much do we care about the actual piece of rock vs that people still have reasoning that makes think that rock had some meaning? By making a case in public with slow pressure over time, the actual act of taking the statue down will have symbolic meaning for the entire community rather than some personal meaning for the vigilante few. I think it's powerful when a community can come to a point where it can publicly say, 'we were wrong, and in line with this understanding, we are taking down this statue to commemorate our change in understanding.' I don't know. Maybe it's not as important as I'm making it, but it's just a line of thought I had this morning. I just generally dislike vandalism as part of civil disobedience. It's not usually a very contained action, nor performed by the most constrained people and tends to attract the sort that just want to burn cars and break shop windows. Sorry but general isn't good enough. When the cons section includes slavery, you need to come up with more than "I dunno, just kinda south and stuff" to as pros. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
CLEVELAND (AP) — A dashcam video of a traffic stop that led to a white police officer with a history of disciplinary issues repeatedly punching a black man and hitting his head on pavement appears to show a different sequence of events than police had originally described. The initial statement from police in the Cleveland suburb of Euclid said Richard Hubbard III, who was pulled over on suspicion of having a suspended driver’s license, had refused Officer Michael Amiott’s orders to “face away” after getting out of his car Aug. 12 and then began resisting. But the video obtained this week in a public records request appears to show Amiott not giving Hubbard a chance to comply, Hubbard’s attorney said Friday. “Your own two eyes and common sense can lead to only one reasonable conclusion as to the propriety of the level of force used for a basic traffic stop and whether or not my client had a chance to comply,” attorney Christopher McNeal said. The dashcam video shows Amiott opening the car door and Hubbard getting out. Within a second of Amiott ordering him to “face away,” the video shows the officer grabbing Hubbard’s arms and wrestling him to the ground in the middle of a street as Hubbard’s girlfriend jumps out of the car and rushes over. <Cont> AP News | ||
|
Falling
Canada11574 Posts
On August 20 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote: Sorry but general isn't good enough. When the cons section includes slavery, you need to come up with more than "I dunno, just kinda south and stuff" to as pros. Well I'm not arguing for them to stay, so why should I have come up with a reason to stay? I'm just arguing against vigilante vandalism as a matter of principle as already outlined above. | ||
| ||
