EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8746
| 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. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 16 2017 02:29 ChristianS wrote: I mean, "it should be decided locally" doesn't answer how the decision should be made, and I'm sure you have opinions about that. Wouldn't you think it was stupid if a local government took down a statue of Washington because he owned slaves? I would. But I also agree locally is where the decision should be made. The harder question is how. I'm not even sure why people are offended by Francis Scott Key? I also don't know what the goal is with covering up (edit: with) a tarp. If it's supposed to indicate they think his statue should be destroyed, I disagree. If it's just a form of protest, I guess it's kind of like burning the flag at a rally - I wouldn't do it, but I think people should have the right to do it and I'm not particularly offended by it when they do. If that local government polled my opinion, I'd tell them. I'd also tell them to ignore my damn opinion and poll their own people. If they're gonna drape my local cemetery around the wrongthink people from the past, I'd campaign to remove that shit and arrest for trespassing/vandalism (my only local example). It's too much used by the alt-left and fringes of the radical left to try and deny history, good and bad. Fuck that guy, his 18th century views didn't hold up to the test of time. And sincerely speaking, I think you're an idiot for responding to vandalizing Key's statue "If it's just a form of protest, I guess it's kind of like burning a flag at a rally." You bought the flag, you do whatever hairbrained thing you want. That statue is not yours and spray-painting it is not just another form of protest. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 16 2017 02:01 Liquid`Drone wrote: A protest is usually highly conscious about wanting to draw attention to something. Chances are imo pretty high we wouldn't know about it if the people involved had contacted the appropriate agency and agitated for a plaque rather than covered it up. And now instead, we're discussing it.  We'd know if there was any significant number chanting with signs and agitating with their local government. That they want to obscure it is just shitting on their own protest. It doesn't sit well with me the base logic that any huge transgressive act is necessary because then you get better national media attention ... you get the wrong kind of attention because ordinary Americans are disgusted by covering up statues and claiming its a protest. Make your case in the public square. On September 16 2017 02:06 Aquanim wrote: I am not saying that liking Thomas Jefferson makes somebody a "racist", or even is strongly correlated with being a "racist". I am saying that it is important when contemplating Thomas Jefferson to remember the bad things about him as well as the good, and that failing to do that is intellectually dishonest in a way that has some relationship to racism (but AGAIN FOR EMPHASIS, does not make somebody a "racist" or even more so a "white supremacist"). You appear to be completely unable to recognise that, and instead prefer to argue against the strawman you have built. The rest of your post is built on the same false premise so I won't bother replying to it. Unless you're willing to discuss my actual argument, I see no purpose in trying to explain this to you further. You've made a different point twice before and I don't blame you for changing it. If you're no longer seeing fit to quote or repeat it with substantial argument, I've gained my point and rest. “So, this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that (Thomas) ‘Stonewall’ Jackson’s coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You really do have to ask yourself, ‘Where does it stop?’” Trump told reporters. He's got single digit accuracy, but the left is trying to push him to double digits. Keep it up! | ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
and to your point about this protest not being your kind of protest and ordinary americans being 'disgusted,' well, something something outrage. hell of a drug huh, welcome to the party i guess. i question your use of ordinary though, surely you mean white. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23535 Posts
On September 16 2017 01:40 farvacola wrote: Antifa hate pretty much everyone they can label an incrementalist, including Democrats, socialists, and pacifist anarchists, so your suspicion with regards to the "two sides" logic being presented is well-founded Everyone should be ANTIFA (Anti-Fascist), what people usually have a problem with is black-bloc tactics which are probably more closely associated with "Anarchists". I just love how Danglars goes on a long rant about shrouding Jefferson and the slippery slope, but you know cops repeatedly getting off for crimes doesn't seem to rouse the same sense of outrage. Like why are we pretending at all anymore? | ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3265 Posts
On September 16 2017 04:39 Danglars wrote: If that local government polled my opinion, I'd tell them. I'd also tell them to ignore my damn opinion and poll their own people. If they're gonna drape my local cemetery around the wrongthink people from the past, I'd campaign to remove that shit and arrest for trespassing/vandalism (my only local example). It's too much used by the alt-left and fringes of the radical left to try and deny history, good and bad. Fuck that guy, his 18th century views didn't hold up to the test of time. And sincerely speaking, I think you're an idiot for responding to vandalizing Key's statue "If it's just a form of protest, I guess it's kind of like burning a flag at a rally." You bought the flag, you do whatever hairbrained thing you want. That statue is not yours and spray-painting it is not just another form of protest. Wait, they were vandalizing it? I think I misunderstood. Unless you are counting draping a shroud over a statue as "vandalizing," in which case that's a stupid definition of vandalism. If they're cutting its hands off or tagging it with graffiti, that's vandalism and should be punished as such. If they're covering it with a tarp or something, that's just a weird form of protest. I don't even know what it's trying to say, but I don't have much problem with it. It's not hard to pull a tarp off. | ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
FSK memorial in Baltimore was vandalized, with spray paint. but as far as i know there is no reason to link or equate the two at all. Nobody has claimed the act in the name of anyone or anything. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 16 2017 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote: Everyone should be ANTIFA (Anti-Fascist), what people usually have a problem with is black-bloc tactics which are probably more closely associated with "Anarchists". I just love how Danglars goes on a long rant about shrouding Jefferson and the slippery slope, but you know cops repeatedly getting off for crimes doesn't seem to rouse the same sense of outrage. Like why are we pretending at all anymore? I don't know. Why we pretending that ANTIFA means anti-fascist? You certainly wouldn't want to go against a wartime military necessity would you? Well that's what the internment of Japanese Americans was. So too is ANTIFA anti-fascist. They'd like to adopt that label, but their actual acts are fascist to the core. I'm glad most in the forum are not hesitant to denounce their tactics. You on the other hand ... well the penchant for using violence against the far-right and conservative speakers only rises to anarchy in your world. One thing about "you're all about x, but don't you know y injustice keeps happening." You have for years only focused on racial issues. Maybe you should switch to acknowledging that some problems in the US aren't just racially motivated. On November 13 2015 12:55 Falling wrote: I've defended in the past the idea that racism is prejudice + power, but I'm not so sure anymore. Or rather, there is an attempt to make the academic separation, but I'm not sure it's how the word 'racism' is used in the vernacular, at least not yet. And until the vernacular has changed, it comes off weird, the idea that in North America, only whites can be racist. I get the distinction intellectually- that there is a distinction between having prejudices and having prejudices and having prejudices with power... but in that case, the difference is power. Prejudice + power = Racism + power. Because on a visceral level, it feels like it is being said is that North American whites are a special kind of evil. That they are the only ones that can be prejudiced. That is not what is meant, but the prejudice + power = racism formula does tend to put the conversation on very weird footing as people naturally react against the idea that white North Americans are special kind of evil or that African-Americans cannot be prejudiced (which is the meaning most people get, when they hear 'cannot be racist" ...as in that video). Again, I get the academic distinction, but I don't think that's actually how the word is actually used day to day except in certain circles and the corresponding connotation feels intuitively wrong. On November 13 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote: White fragility is a hell of a drug. So stop pretending the white man is the source of all your problems. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 16 2017 05:21 Danglars wrote: I don't know. Why we pretending that ANTIFA means anti-fascist? Because that is what it means. | ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
On September 16 2017 05:22 ticklishmusic wrote: can someone eli5 me the francis scott key thing? i don't know too much about him beyond him writing the star spangled banner, but a quick look at his wikipedia page (which might be biased) makes him seem like generally an okay dude for his time. there's really no information out there other than a memorial was vandalized. it said 'racist anthem' monuments are spray painted all the time. vandals gonna vandal. this got on the news because the paint said the magic word. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 16 2017 05:10 ChristianS wrote: Wait, they were vandalizing it? I think I misunderstood. Unless you are counting draping a shroud over a statue as "vandalizing," in which case that's a stupid definition of vandalism. If they're cutting its hands off or tagging it with graffiti, that's vandalism and should be punished as such. If they're covering it with a tarp or something, that's just a weird form of protest. I don't even know what it's trying to say, but I don't have much problem with it. It's not hard to pull a tarp off. But any comment on vandalizing the statue of the author of the Star Spangled Banner? And is covering up the statue with a tarp just a form of contextualizing it? I talked about two separate incidents. On September 15 2017 09:32 Danglars wrote: Jefferson statue shrouded Francis Scott Key statue vandalized I was told it was just about the thrill racists got with Confederate generals. Apparently not. It kind of got lost because thread leftists thought a shroud was an easier avenue to attack than a poet. Like, I actually described the specific act of vandalism in a separated quote from a different news article. If you're not willing to read the thread, don't ask me to generalize on topics. "What Danglars said" is not the same as "let's just look at what others took issue with." | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I did go on to explain why I think that meaning is insufficient. Perhaps quote and read the whole thing? | ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
vandalism is bad. i'm certain that 'the leftists' went down the jefferson route because there lies the actual substance, and something that can be discussed. whereas a one sentence denunciation of vandalism is supremely boring. not because there's any difficulty in one avenue over the other. indeed rather you've mixed them up, with jefferson being the harder topic to get to the heart of. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On September 16 2017 05:22 ticklishmusic wrote: can someone eli5 me the francis scott key thing? i don't know too much about him beyond him writing the star spangled banner, but a quick look at his wikipedia page (which might be biased) makes him seem like generally an okay dude for his time. I'm confused too, but I'm guessing it has to do with some of the later verses: And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion A home and a country should leave us no more? Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution! No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave: And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. Oh, thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved home and the war's desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust": And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. We love it so much, I think you do too. Edit: here's a more detail description of what's seen at problematic about it: https://theintercept.com/2016/08/28/colin-kaepernick-is-righter-than-you-know-the-national-anthem-is-a-celebration-of-slavery/ On a side note our National Anthem sucks (even without any race related issues). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 16 2017 05:27 Danglars wrote: I did go on to explain why I think that meaning is insufficient. Perhaps quote and read the whole thing? I did some editing to get to the meat of the argument, which you poorly attempting to obscure. The meaning is fine, the tactics are what you have issue with. You would find a lot more in common with posters if you just let people use words, rather than try to confine them to areas you are comfortable with. I had this discussion yesterday at the bar about how online discussion would be a lot more productive if people were able to use words like feminism, racism, socialism and capitalism without the entire discussion grinding to a halt because someone is doesn’t like the words. I would add ANTIFA and Nazi to that list. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 16 2017 04:31 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: What could go wrong with Flynn, Bannon and Kushner in the same room? They are eminently qualified. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On September 16 2017 05:22 ticklishmusic wrote: can someone eli5 me the francis scott key thing? i don't know too much about him beyond him writing the star spangled banner, but a quick look at his wikipedia page (which might be biased) makes him seem like generally an okay dude for his time. I think the big thing is that people are asking why treat people relative to who they were at that time. People are saying "If the monuments built to honor people are still up, those people should be able to withstand modern critique". I have been pondering this, since I have always held the opinion that everyone should be judged by their entire being, not in a way where any good thing or any bad thing suddenly makes someone a hero or a villain. Many extremely accomplished scientists were downright horrible people. They usually just slept around and were nasty in other ways. It is hard to compare because a lot of them didn't own slaves. In science, we tend to say things like "they were a piece of garbage, but they did good work". This is fair in our context, but it doesn't work so well when the things they did were a lot worse and they are regarded more openly as a country-wide thing. I think it is entirely appropriate to hold monuments and the like to much higher standards. Monuments represent who we are as a people. Their symbolism shouldn't be understated. It is important. | ||
| ||
