|
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. |
On September 16 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 07:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's a certain hypocrisy involved when a person can stand for the right of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech of white supremists and neo-nazis to march with guns, but not for the freedom of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech to drape a statue in cloth. One would had thought that to have the moral fortitude to stand for the rights of such would naturally lead to stand for the rights of others.
Btw, from an outsider's perspective, the mythology and worship of George Washington and your founding fathers is a bit odd. There really isn't anything comparable in Europe. Maybe Stalin. Or to a lesser extent Churchill. There's a certain pain involved when someone can't distinguish between what you have the right to do and what's a good idea in society.
TBH in a country where the justice system amounts to little more than a laughing stock of corruption, misplaced priorities and pure discrimination, distinguishing between legal rights and good ideas is sort of irrelevant, especially when it comes to protesting against exactly that injustice.
|
On September 16 2017 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:49 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2017 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2017 08:45 LegalLord wrote:
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime. It's not possible to throw away history, though. But you can throw out monuments. Nothing changes history or the recording of history by cycling out monuments. Yeah? Then do it through the proper legal channels of voting for its removal. Vandalism, or vandalism to coerce legal officials into taking the cowardly choice of moving the statue, really is a petty historical revisionism. And yes it does change history. There is plenty of precedent of statues being smashed being very closely tied to attempts to rewrite the books to a narrative more suited to the fancy of the vandals. That's true, much of "Western History" is this.
Surely you must think this is true of all types of history?
|
On September 16 2017 09:03 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2017 08:49 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2017 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2017 08:45 LegalLord wrote:
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime. It's not possible to throw away history, though. But you can throw out monuments. Nothing changes history or the recording of history by cycling out monuments. Yeah? Then do it through the proper legal channels of voting for its removal. Vandalism, or vandalism to coerce legal officials into taking the cowardly choice of moving the statue, really is a petty historical revisionism. And yes it does change history. There is plenty of precedent of statues being smashed being very closely tied to attempts to rewrite the books to a narrative more suited to the fancy of the vandals. That's true, much of "Western History" is this. Surely you must think this is true of all types of history?
Humans love to smash a good statue and replace it with a better statue.
|
U.S. President Donald Trump explained his botched response to a deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last month by saying he needed “the facts” before broadly denouncing violence from racist groups.
But Trump has repeatedly shown he’s not interested in waiting for the facts when it comes to other acts of terror.
Just hours after a bomb exploded in a West London Tube station on Friday ― with no information publicly available about potential suspects in the attack ― Trump attributed the violence to “loser terrorists” and “sick and demented people.” He also said his travel ban, which affects people from six Muslim-majority countries, “should be far larger, tougher and more specific.”
A police spokesperson told CNN that Trump’s comments about Scotland Yard were “pure speculation” and “unhelpful.” U.K. officials widely criticized Trump’s comments.
www.yahoo.com
|
On September 16 2017 09:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2017 07:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's a certain hypocrisy involved when a person can stand for the right of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech of white supremists and neo-nazis to march with guns, but not for the freedom of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech to drape a statue in cloth. One would had thought that to have the moral fortitude to stand for the rights of such would naturally lead to stand for the rights of others.
Btw, from an outsider's perspective, the mythology and worship of George Washington and your founding fathers is a bit odd. There really isn't anything comparable in Europe. Maybe Stalin. Or to a lesser extent Churchill. There's a certain pain involved when someone can't distinguish between what you have the right to do and what's a good idea in society. TBH in a country where the justice system amounts to little more than a laughing stock of corruption, misplaced priorities and pure discrimination, distinguishing between legal rights and good ideas is sort of irrelevant, especially when it comes to protesting against exactly that injustice.
I think it's an important job to distinguish between legal rights and good ideas. If you succeed in stamping out your supposed "laughing stock of corruption, misplaced priorities and pure discrimination," what do you rebuild with? You gather together your followers that have no clue what's legality and what's a good idea?
It sounds like you're ready to fight one cause and lose the battle.
|
On September 16 2017 09:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 09:02 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2017 07:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's a certain hypocrisy involved when a person can stand for the right of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech of white supremists and neo-nazis to march with guns, but not for the freedom of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech to drape a statue in cloth. One would had thought that to have the moral fortitude to stand for the rights of such would naturally lead to stand for the rights of others.
Btw, from an outsider's perspective, the mythology and worship of George Washington and your founding fathers is a bit odd. There really isn't anything comparable in Europe. Maybe Stalin. Or to a lesser extent Churchill. There's a certain pain involved when someone can't distinguish between what you have the right to do and what's a good idea in society. TBH in a country where the justice system amounts to little more than a laughing stock of corruption, misplaced priorities and pure discrimination, distinguishing between legal rights and good ideas is sort of irrelevant, especially when it comes to protesting against exactly that injustice. I think it's an important job to distinguish between legal rights and good ideas. If you succeed in stamping out your supposed "laughing stock of corruption, misplaced priorities and pure discrimination," what do you rebuild with? You gather together your followers that have no clue what's legality and what's a good idea? It sounds like you're ready to fight one cause and lose the battle.
We could just replace it with a system where unarmed black people don't get shot. I hear they have those in other countries.
|
On September 16 2017 09:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 09:08 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2017 09:02 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2017 07:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's a certain hypocrisy involved when a person can stand for the right of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech of white supremists and neo-nazis to march with guns, but not for the freedom of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech to drape a statue in cloth. One would had thought that to have the moral fortitude to stand for the rights of such would naturally lead to stand for the rights of others.
Btw, from an outsider's perspective, the mythology and worship of George Washington and your founding fathers is a bit odd. There really isn't anything comparable in Europe. Maybe Stalin. Or to a lesser extent Churchill. There's a certain pain involved when someone can't distinguish between what you have the right to do and what's a good idea in society. TBH in a country where the justice system amounts to little more than a laughing stock of corruption, misplaced priorities and pure discrimination, distinguishing between legal rights and good ideas is sort of irrelevant, especially when it comes to protesting against exactly that injustice. I think it's an important job to distinguish between legal rights and good ideas. If you succeed in stamping out your supposed "laughing stock of corruption, misplaced priorities and pure discrimination," what do you rebuild with? You gather together your followers that have no clue what's legality and what's a good idea? It sounds like you're ready to fight one cause and lose the battle. We could just replace it with a system where unarmed black people don't get shot. I hear they have those in other countries.
They still get shot, but their killer usually gets punished.
|
On September 16 2017 09:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 09:02 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2017 07:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's a certain hypocrisy involved when a person can stand for the right of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech of white supremists and neo-nazis to march with guns, but not for the freedom of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech to drape a statue in cloth. One would had thought that to have the moral fortitude to stand for the rights of such would naturally lead to stand for the rights of others.
Btw, from an outsider's perspective, the mythology and worship of George Washington and your founding fathers is a bit odd. There really isn't anything comparable in Europe. Maybe Stalin. Or to a lesser extent Churchill. There's a certain pain involved when someone can't distinguish between what you have the right to do and what's a good idea in society. TBH in a country where the justice system amounts to little more than a laughing stock of corruption, misplaced priorities and pure discrimination, distinguishing between legal rights and good ideas is sort of irrelevant, especially when it comes to protesting against exactly that injustice. I think it's an important job to distinguish between legal rights and good ideas. If you succeed in stamping out your supposed "laughing stock of corruption, misplaced priorities and pure discrimination," what do you rebuild with? You gather together your followers that have no clue what's legality and what's a good idea? It sounds like you're ready to fight one cause and lose the battle.
I made my point clumsily, but what I am saying is that people who see themselves as oppressed by injustice aren't necessarily going to be a position to take the legal ideas of their oppressors particularly seriously, especially when those legal ideas are demonstrably corrupt and discriminatory. The legality of this kind of protest, in the context in which we see it in a racially charged atmosphere, becomes an afterthought.
When you say these people have no clue about legality, I would offer that they do, they just don't care about legality imposed on them by a system which is actively working against them (specifically when they are in the act of protesting against that system).
Obviously there's differences here depending on the nature of the protest. Threatening people with guns isn't quite the same as throwing something at a statue.
|
On September 16 2017 09:15 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 09:10 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2017 09:08 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2017 09:02 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On September 16 2017 07:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's a certain hypocrisy involved when a person can stand for the right of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech of white supremists and neo-nazis to march with guns, but not for the freedom of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech to drape a statue in cloth. One would had thought that to have the moral fortitude to stand for the rights of such would naturally lead to stand for the rights of others.
Btw, from an outsider's perspective, the mythology and worship of George Washington and your founding fathers is a bit odd. There really isn't anything comparable in Europe. Maybe Stalin. Or to a lesser extent Churchill. There's a certain pain involved when someone can't distinguish between what you have the right to do and what's a good idea in society. TBH in a country where the justice system amounts to little more than a laughing stock of corruption, misplaced priorities and pure discrimination, distinguishing between legal rights and good ideas is sort of irrelevant, especially when it comes to protesting against exactly that injustice. I think it's an important job to distinguish between legal rights and good ideas. If you succeed in stamping out your supposed "laughing stock of corruption, misplaced priorities and pure discrimination," what do you rebuild with? You gather together your followers that have no clue what's legality and what's a good idea? It sounds like you're ready to fight one cause and lose the battle. We could just replace it with a system where unarmed black people don't get shot. I hear they have those in other countries. They still get shot, but their killer usually gets punished.
Police hate him, but with this one easy trick he made a functioning justice system.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Slightly through the Hillary book, still reading. I will say that I'm personally convinced she wrote this all herself without much ghosting or editing. Sounds fairly genuine.
|
On September 16 2017 09:34 LegalLord wrote:
Slightly through the Hillary book, still reading. I will say that I'm personally convinced she wrote this all herself without much ghosting or editing. Sounds fairly genuine.
I borrowed my attorney's copy for a couple lunch breaks and got that impression myself. Her editor might have helped her punch it up a bit. That person in the book is a far better candidate than the one she and her team constructed.
|
i dont know how ya'll can let danglars repeat the argument that draping a statue in protest is an attempt to erase history rather than the distinct recollection of history. its just insane.
|
On September 16 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 07:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's a certain hypocrisy involved when a person can stand for the right of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech of white supremists and neo-nazis to march with guns, but not for the freedom of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech to drape a statue in cloth. One would had thought that to have the moral fortitude to stand for the rights of such would naturally lead to stand for the rights of others.
Btw, from an outsider's perspective, the mythology and worship of George Washington and your founding fathers is a bit odd. There really isn't anything comparable in Europe. Maybe Stalin. Or to a lesser extent Churchill. There's a certain pain involved when someone can't distinguish between what you have the right to do and what's a good idea in society.
Almost like Nazis expressing their shit political stance.
|
On September 16 2017 09:39 IgnE wrote:
i dont know how ya'll can let danglars repeat the argument that draping a statue in protest is an attempt to erase history rather than the distinct recollection of history. its just insane.
what alternative is there to letting him repeat it?
|
On September 16 2017 09:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 09:03 Ghostcom wrote:On September 16 2017 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2017 08:49 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2017 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2017 08:45 LegalLord wrote:
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime. It's not possible to throw away history, though. But you can throw out monuments. Nothing changes history or the recording of history by cycling out monuments. Yeah? Then do it through the proper legal channels of voting for its removal. Vandalism, or vandalism to coerce legal officials into taking the cowardly choice of moving the statue, really is a petty historical revisionism. And yes it does change history. There is plenty of precedent of statues being smashed being very closely tied to attempts to rewrite the books to a narrative more suited to the fancy of the vandals. That's true, much of "Western History" is this. Surely you must think this is true of all types of history? Humans love to smash a good statue and replace it with a better statue.
"Better". Surely, having taught history yourself, you are aware that history is merely a fable agreed upon? Sometimes we revise the fable, but regardless it remains a fable.
|
On September 16 2017 04:45 Danglars wrote:
...
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.
...
No, that was my point all along. You just wildly misrepresented it to suit your agenda. Just like you wildly misrepresented that anybody's desired endgame was to have the statue covered, and the possible motivations for covering the statue in general, in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary that was presented *twice*.
I'd ask you to acknowledge the above as facts but I'm aware that you appear to be incapable and/or unwilling and I'm confident most of the rest of the thread can see it for themselves. If you can, though, that would be nice.
|
On September 16 2017 10:01 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 09:05 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2017 09:03 Ghostcom wrote:On September 16 2017 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2017 08:49 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2017 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2017 08:45 LegalLord wrote:
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime. It's not possible to throw away history, though. But you can throw out monuments. Nothing changes history or the recording of history by cycling out monuments. Yeah? Then do it through the proper legal channels of voting for its removal. Vandalism, or vandalism to coerce legal officials into taking the cowardly choice of moving the statue, really is a petty historical revisionism. And yes it does change history. There is plenty of precedent of statues being smashed being very closely tied to attempts to rewrite the books to a narrative more suited to the fancy of the vandals. That's true, much of "Western History" is this. Surely you must think this is true of all types of history? Humans love to smash a good statue and replace it with a better statue. "Better". Surely, having taught history yourself, you are aware that history is merely a fable agreed upon? Sometimes we revise the fable, but regardless it remains a fable.
It is a study of imperfect information that people desperately want to be truth.
|
On September 16 2017 10:01 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 09:05 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2017 09:03 Ghostcom wrote:On September 16 2017 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2017 08:49 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2017 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2017 08:45 LegalLord wrote:
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime. It's not possible to throw away history, though. But you can throw out monuments. Nothing changes history or the recording of history by cycling out monuments. Yeah? Then do it through the proper legal channels of voting for its removal. Vandalism, or vandalism to coerce legal officials into taking the cowardly choice of moving the statue, really is a petty historical revisionism. And yes it does change history. There is plenty of precedent of statues being smashed being very closely tied to attempts to rewrite the books to a narrative more suited to the fancy of the vandals. That's true, much of "Western History" is this. Surely you must think this is true of all types of history? Humans love to smash a good statue and replace it with a better statue. "Better". Surely, having taught history yourself, you are aware that history is merely a fable agreed upon? Sometimes we revise the fable, but regardless it remains a fable.
Facts remain facts. We don't really accept Holocaust denial in modern Western societies because there is zero doubt that the Nazis did commit such crimes. We shouldn't accept the justification to protect most of these confederate statutes either.
There's little positive heritage in statues that commemorate a group of traitors who fought against the rest of the United States to protect, in Lee's words, the necessary economic evil that was slavery. Not just that, a good number of these statutes weren't even erected during the civil war but during the civil right's movement. Hence why you have confederate statues in places you really wouldn't expect.
Hell, the man whose statutes they're trying to protect opposed confederate monuments. He was smart enough to see that they would ultimately romanticize a brutal time in American history.
|
its not hard to make a better case for preserving jefferson's memory than the one danglars has been making. maybe if he wasn't so busy sedulously turning all of his posts into unholy grammatical thickets of obfuscation a "dialogue" might emerge from the cleared soil.
of course poor danglars carrying a whole side of the debate by himself. we've already planted the thorny bushes ready to prick any intrepid conservatives with labels like "racist" and "nazi sympathizer." what is he to do? yada yada
|
On September 16 2017 10:36 TLnand wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 10:01 Ghostcom wrote:On September 16 2017 09:05 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2017 09:03 Ghostcom wrote:On September 16 2017 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 16 2017 08:49 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2017 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2017 08:45 LegalLord wrote:
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime. It's not possible to throw away history, though. But you can throw out monuments. Nothing changes history or the recording of history by cycling out monuments. Yeah? Then do it through the proper legal channels of voting for its removal. Vandalism, or vandalism to coerce legal officials into taking the cowardly choice of moving the statue, really is a petty historical revisionism. And yes it does change history. There is plenty of precedent of statues being smashed being very closely tied to attempts to rewrite the books to a narrative more suited to the fancy of the vandals. That's true, much of "Western History" is this. Surely you must think this is true of all types of history? Humans love to smash a good statue and replace it with a better statue. "Better". Surely, having taught history yourself, you are aware that history is merely a fable agreed upon? Sometimes we revise the fable, but regardless it remains a fable. Facts remain facts. We don't really accept Holocaust denial in modern Western societies because there is zero doubt that the Nazis did commit such crimes. We shouldn't accept the justification to protect most of these confederate statutes either. There's little positive heritage in statues that commemorate a group of traitors who fought against the rest of the United States to protect, in Lee's words, the necessary economic evil that was slavery. Not just that, a good number of these statutes weren't even erected during the civil war but during the civil right's movement. Hence why you have confederate statues in places you really wouldn't expect. Hell, the man whose statutes they're trying to protect opposed confederate monuments. He was smart enough to see that they would ultimately romanticize a brutal time in American history.
Sure facts remain facts. However establishing what is fact remains much more difficult. As such it is quite ironic you bring up the Holocaust to make your point as it was specifically extensively documented precisely because of the fear that facts would fade with time. Living now it can be easy to forget how poorly documented large parts of human history really is. But just take any given event today and read the Breitbart vs Huffpo descriptions of the events. Sometimes it can be hard to establish whether or not they are talking about the same thing. Further, you do of course realize, I hope, that you calling them traitors is by and large only because they lost the war? History is after all written by the winners.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing over whether or not the statues should remain (we've kinda been through that a couple of times already).
EDIT: Apologies in advance, but my shift is about to end, so I probably won't get the chance to continue this any time (I have some sleep to catch up on).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
