|
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. |
Why is this guy allowed inside the UN lol
|
So, if i am getting the facts correctly, a bunch of people protested with regards to that Jefferson statue, and they put a shroud over it during this protest. Then, after the protest was over, the shroud was removed.
What exactly is the problem with any of this? I don't get it. That sounds like basically the tamest protest possible next to just standing about. Nothing was damaged, no one was injured. People put a piece of cloth over a statue and removed it afterwards. Why is this controversial?
|
On September 18 2017 22:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 22:30 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 22:09 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 10:21 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:02 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 09:58 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 09:48 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 08:31 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:51 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
I mean, the US itself is the result of a revolution and in a way ahistorical. Seems kind of weird to be obsessed about historical founding figures and great men. Isn't the whole point of the US that it renews itself and is whatever new generation makes it and all of that?
I think you're confusing us with banana republics. They viva la revolucion! On September 18 2017 08:00 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Ok so if, when you say, "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" you mean "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety only so long as everyone agrees with me" you should just come out and say that. You should really try to actually answer the question. We have enough people trolling on side memes as it is. Tell me, What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Aside from "Haha you only want people to agree with you I refuse to answer." I quite explicitly told you what it means: you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man Nah, if they're accomplishments are large and vital enough to recommend them to the public consciousness, leave them up. Don't whitewash their flaws. See them in the context of the time and revile them as you choose. Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the clear implication of most of these statues is praise for the depicted person, and by leaving them up we're tacitly accepting their praisworthiness? The clear implication is far from what you think the clear implication is. You have some kind of white knight view of humanity? Can people that do great things also do bad? Come on now. Okay, let's ignore that then. But what if you evaluate the complicated man in his entirety, and decide that his accomplishments aren't large and vital enough to be worth remembering in this public way? Or do you think that because someone thought they were important enough to make a statue of them, it necessarily follows that that person was right? Evaluate away. I presume the American people capable of seeing both the good and the bad. One statue doesn't remove one's rational judgement, unless you're some sort of psychotic hyperpartisan. Then let's get specific. It's not just any statue, it's this statue. + Show Spoiler [If you want to see it] +Would you say that statue seems like it's built to praise the man it depicts? I would. "Regal" is one of the first words that comes to mind when I look at it. The people who put the statue up agreed – they wanted people to remember the man on the horse. Who is it? Nathan Bedford Forrest. Slave trader. Brilliant Confederate general. First Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The statue sits in a park in Memphis – the city council has voted to remove it before, but the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act of 2013 prevents local governments from renaming, relocating, or otherwise tampering with war memorials on public land. This isn't the only monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Here's another one, which protesters want to remove as well. In fact, you can see they had a similar idea to what you're criticizing: + Show Spoiler [Recontexualizing] +Would you say these protesters wanted people to forget the history of the depicted individual? Because adding signs describing the man seems like a funny way to accomplish that. Now imagine for a moment that you're a Memphian. There's a statue in your city, in a public park, glorifying the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. Do you think it should stay up? Do you think it should be moved? Do you think a plaque should be added to recontextualize it? Or do you think that leaving it there, in that park, unaltered, is the best way to help people consider the man in all his complexity? How long do I have to repeat myself? The slippery slope is first you talk about is confederate war heroes. Then you apply it to founding fathers and important revolutionary war heroes. I made an explicit point that moving from vandalizing and toppling the confederates in the night and doing the same to founding fathers writes the message that history is not politically correct and should be removed/hidden/forgotten. I think you're missing the forest for the trees by dipping back into the Civil War. Of course, if you just protest everybody that mattered to US History, you'll have a hard time repealing stuff like the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act because everybody and their grandma can say, "See? It wasn't just about the war over slavery, they just want to get rid of everybody that's inconvenient to modern political perspectives!" Jesus Christ, is it so much to ask what you actually think about an issue you've spent this much time discussing? You don't have to repeat yourself, you can just say for the first time what you actually think should happen. It's like you've been an anti-anti-Trumper so long you've forgotten how to have an actual non-reactionary opinion on something. If you think the statue should stay up to push back against the slippery slope, say that. If you think it should come down but unfortunately the current extremism on this issue makes that hard to do, say that. And while we're here, tell me if you really think that statue doesn't clearly imply praise for the general, but merely encourages people to "consider the man in all his complexity," or why you think it wouldn't do so better with an added plaque. Was it xDaunt arguing the other day that anybody should be able to give a binary "good" or "bad" on any given issue? If I ask you whether leaving this statue up unaltered is good or bad and you continue to not answer, can we expect xDaunt to come in and start calling you a coward? I'd appreciate the consistency from him, at least. Is it too much to ask you to address the point I've been making? Serious question. If you have to reflect back to civil war figures to try and make a point, I say you're trying to change the issue to an easier one. Figures like Jefferson and Washington have so much merit to memorializing what they meant to the country. Your Forrest, and in some ways Lee, represent more than themselves but the war, so if some cities want to take them to a museum or take them down, have at it. I thought it was obvious with the slippery slope that you moved from arguable cases (localized, legal, confederates in a civil war) to inarguable ones. America polls against removing both. Polled African Americans are against removing those statues (NPR/PBS/Marist). So get off your high horse and comment on the points until you're done. You have like two conservative defenders, and your goal seems to be bringing back in civil war statues and persons from the civil war to exhaust my time. Do you see how moving from Lee/Jackson to Jefferson/Key might hurt repeal of the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act? You're literally on the side that suffers from your silence. If the civil war statues is just the lever action to diverse protests on all sorts of statues, the other side makes a compelling argument that the first should be opposed merely on the grounds that the next is bound to follow.
Didn't I already say I don't support removing Jefferson or Key? I don't think much of the left does either. Sure, the probability was basically 100% that somebody's hot take would be "you're right, mr. president, let's take down Washington and Jefferson too," just like it was basically 100% that there would be a few people on the other side saying "you're right, Washington is about white supremacy, that's why we should leave him up."
The answer to a slippery slope where a movement could start out good but turn into something bad is to figure out where it turns bad and rally all your defenses to that point. If you instead refuse to do the good stuff for fear of bad stuff happening later, you run the risk of a slippery slope being a less appropriate analogy than a rubber band. Work with the third estate to introduce democratic reforms you can make reasonable progress. If you stonewall them, pretty soon they're storming the Bastille and guillotining everyone. In other words, if we had more reasonable public debate on statues like Nathan B Forrest, maybe there wouldn't be as much reaction against Jefferson and Washington.
Speaking of, you still haven't been able to muster an answer for that simple question. I didn't ask "if locals wanna take down the Nathan B Forrest statue should they be able to?" I asked if you were a Memphian, would you be one of those locals wanting to take it down? Is leaving it up good or bad? Don't make xDaunt come and call you a coward, I'm sure he has important lawyer things to do.
|
On September 18 2017 23:40 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 22:39 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 22:30 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 22:09 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 10:21 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:02 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 09:58 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 09:48 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 08:31 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I think you're confusing us with banana republics. They viva la revolucion!
[quote]
You should really try to actually answer the question. We have enough people trolling on side memes as it is. Tell me, What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Aside from "Haha you only want people to agree with you I refuse to answer." I quite explicitly told you what it means: you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man Nah, if they're accomplishments are large and vital enough to recommend them to the public consciousness, leave them up. Don't whitewash their flaws. See them in the context of the time and revile them as you choose. Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the clear implication of most of these statues is praise for the depicted person, and by leaving them up we're tacitly accepting their praisworthiness? The clear implication is far from what you think the clear implication is. You have some kind of white knight view of humanity? Can people that do great things also do bad? Come on now. Okay, let's ignore that then. But what if you evaluate the complicated man in his entirety, and decide that his accomplishments aren't large and vital enough to be worth remembering in this public way? Or do you think that because someone thought they were important enough to make a statue of them, it necessarily follows that that person was right? Evaluate away. I presume the American people capable of seeing both the good and the bad. One statue doesn't remove one's rational judgement, unless you're some sort of psychotic hyperpartisan. Then let's get specific. It's not just any statue, it's this statue. + Show Spoiler [If you want to see it] +Would you say that statue seems like it's built to praise the man it depicts? I would. "Regal" is one of the first words that comes to mind when I look at it. The people who put the statue up agreed – they wanted people to remember the man on the horse. Who is it? Nathan Bedford Forrest. Slave trader. Brilliant Confederate general. First Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The statue sits in a park in Memphis – the city council has voted to remove it before, but the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act of 2013 prevents local governments from renaming, relocating, or otherwise tampering with war memorials on public land. This isn't the only monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Here's another one, which protesters want to remove as well. In fact, you can see they had a similar idea to what you're criticizing: + Show Spoiler [Recontexualizing] +Would you say these protesters wanted people to forget the history of the depicted individual? Because adding signs describing the man seems like a funny way to accomplish that. Now imagine for a moment that you're a Memphian. There's a statue in your city, in a public park, glorifying the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. Do you think it should stay up? Do you think it should be moved? Do you think a plaque should be added to recontextualize it? Or do you think that leaving it there, in that park, unaltered, is the best way to help people consider the man in all his complexity? How long do I have to repeat myself? The slippery slope is first you talk about is confederate war heroes. Then you apply it to founding fathers and important revolutionary war heroes. I made an explicit point that moving from vandalizing and toppling the confederates in the night and doing the same to founding fathers writes the message that history is not politically correct and should be removed/hidden/forgotten. I think you're missing the forest for the trees by dipping back into the Civil War. Of course, if you just protest everybody that mattered to US History, you'll have a hard time repealing stuff like the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act because everybody and their grandma can say, "See? It wasn't just about the war over slavery, they just want to get rid of everybody that's inconvenient to modern political perspectives!" Jesus Christ, is it so much to ask what you actually think about an issue you've spent this much time discussing? You don't have to repeat yourself, you can just say for the first time what you actually think should happen. It's like you've been an anti-anti-Trumper so long you've forgotten how to have an actual non-reactionary opinion on something. If you think the statue should stay up to push back against the slippery slope, say that. If you think it should come down but unfortunately the current extremism on this issue makes that hard to do, say that. And while we're here, tell me if you really think that statue doesn't clearly imply praise for the general, but merely encourages people to "consider the man in all his complexity," or why you think it wouldn't do so better with an added plaque. Was it xDaunt arguing the other day that anybody should be able to give a binary "good" or "bad" on any given issue? If I ask you whether leaving this statue up unaltered is good or bad and you continue to not answer, can we expect xDaunt to come in and start calling you a coward? I'd appreciate the consistency from him, at least. Is it too much to ask you to address the point I've been making? Serious question. If you have to reflect back to civil war figures to try and make a point, I say you're trying to change the issue to an easier one. Figures like Jefferson and Washington have so much merit to memorializing what they meant to the country. Your Forrest, and in some ways Lee, represent more than themselves but the war, so if some cities want to take them to a museum or take them down, have at it. I thought it was obvious with the slippery slope that you moved from arguable cases (localized, legal, confederates in a civil war) to inarguable ones. America polls against removing both. Polled African Americans are against removing those statues (NPR/PBS/Marist). So get off your high horse and comment on the points until you're done. You have like two conservative defenders, and your goal seems to be bringing back in civil war statues and persons from the civil war to exhaust my time. Do you see how moving from Lee/Jackson to Jefferson/Key might hurt repeal of the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act? You're literally on the side that suffers from your silence. If the civil war statues is just the lever action to diverse protests on all sorts of statues, the other side makes a compelling argument that the first should be opposed merely on the grounds that the next is bound to follow. Didn't I already say I don't support removing Jefferson or Key? I don't think much of the left does either. Sure, the probability was basically 100% that somebody's hot take would be "you're right, mr. president, let's take down Washington and Jefferson too," just like it was basically 100% that there would be a few people on the other side saying "you're right, Washington is about white supremacy, that's why we should leave him up." The answer to a slippery slope where a movement could start out good but turn into something bad is to figure out where it turns bad and rally all your defenses to that point. If you instead refuse to do the good stuff for fear of bad stuff happening later, you run the risk of a slippery slope being a less appropriate analogy than a rubber band. Work with the third estate to introduce democratic reforms you can make reasonable progress. If you stonewall them, pretty soon they're storming the Bastille and guillotining everyone. In other words, if we had more reasonable public debate on statues like Nathan B Forrest, maybe there wouldn't be as much reaction against Jefferson and Washington. Speaking of, you still haven't been able to muster an answer for that simple question. I didn't ask "if locals wanna take down the Nathan B Forrest statue should they be able to?" I asked if you were a Memphian, would you be one of those locals wanting to take it down? Is leaving it up good or bad? Don't make xDaunt come and call you a coward, I'm sure he has important lawyer things to do.
As has been stated previously, you won't get him to give you a straight answer. I fell into his circuitous method of debating once. Never again. I implore you to give up on getting a 'good or bad' answer from him.
|
On September 18 2017 23:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 23:40 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 22:39 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 22:30 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 22:09 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 10:21 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:02 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 09:58 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 09:48 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
I quite explicitly told you what it means:
[quote]
Nah, if they're accomplishments are large and vital enough to recommend them to the public consciousness, leave them up. Don't whitewash their flaws. See them in the context of the time and revile them as you choose. Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the clear implication of most of these statues is praise for the depicted person, and by leaving them up we're tacitly accepting their praisworthiness? The clear implication is far from what you think the clear implication is. You have some kind of white knight view of humanity? Can people that do great things also do bad? Come on now. Okay, let's ignore that then. But what if you evaluate the complicated man in his entirety, and decide that his accomplishments aren't large and vital enough to be worth remembering in this public way? Or do you think that because someone thought they were important enough to make a statue of them, it necessarily follows that that person was right? Evaluate away. I presume the American people capable of seeing both the good and the bad. One statue doesn't remove one's rational judgement, unless you're some sort of psychotic hyperpartisan. Then let's get specific. It's not just any statue, it's this statue. + Show Spoiler [If you want to see it] +Would you say that statue seems like it's built to praise the man it depicts? I would. "Regal" is one of the first words that comes to mind when I look at it. The people who put the statue up agreed – they wanted people to remember the man on the horse. Who is it? Nathan Bedford Forrest. Slave trader. Brilliant Confederate general. First Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The statue sits in a park in Memphis – the city council has voted to remove it before, but the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act of 2013 prevents local governments from renaming, relocating, or otherwise tampering with war memorials on public land. This isn't the only monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Here's another one, which protesters want to remove as well. In fact, you can see they had a similar idea to what you're criticizing: + Show Spoiler [Recontexualizing] +Would you say these protesters wanted people to forget the history of the depicted individual? Because adding signs describing the man seems like a funny way to accomplish that. Now imagine for a moment that you're a Memphian. There's a statue in your city, in a public park, glorifying the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. Do you think it should stay up? Do you think it should be moved? Do you think a plaque should be added to recontextualize it? Or do you think that leaving it there, in that park, unaltered, is the best way to help people consider the man in all his complexity? How long do I have to repeat myself? The slippery slope is first you talk about is confederate war heroes. Then you apply it to founding fathers and important revolutionary war heroes. I made an explicit point that moving from vandalizing and toppling the confederates in the night and doing the same to founding fathers writes the message that history is not politically correct and should be removed/hidden/forgotten. I think you're missing the forest for the trees by dipping back into the Civil War. Of course, if you just protest everybody that mattered to US History, you'll have a hard time repealing stuff like the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act because everybody and their grandma can say, "See? It wasn't just about the war over slavery, they just want to get rid of everybody that's inconvenient to modern political perspectives!" Jesus Christ, is it so much to ask what you actually think about an issue you've spent this much time discussing? You don't have to repeat yourself, you can just say for the first time what you actually think should happen. It's like you've been an anti-anti-Trumper so long you've forgotten how to have an actual non-reactionary opinion on something. If you think the statue should stay up to push back against the slippery slope, say that. If you think it should come down but unfortunately the current extremism on this issue makes that hard to do, say that. And while we're here, tell me if you really think that statue doesn't clearly imply praise for the general, but merely encourages people to "consider the man in all his complexity," or why you think it wouldn't do so better with an added plaque. Was it xDaunt arguing the other day that anybody should be able to give a binary "good" or "bad" on any given issue? If I ask you whether leaving this statue up unaltered is good or bad and you continue to not answer, can we expect xDaunt to come in and start calling you a coward? I'd appreciate the consistency from him, at least. Is it too much to ask you to address the point I've been making? Serious question. If you have to reflect back to civil war figures to try and make a point, I say you're trying to change the issue to an easier one. Figures like Jefferson and Washington have so much merit to memorializing what they meant to the country. Your Forrest, and in some ways Lee, represent more than themselves but the war, so if some cities want to take them to a museum or take them down, have at it. I thought it was obvious with the slippery slope that you moved from arguable cases (localized, legal, confederates in a civil war) to inarguable ones. America polls against removing both. Polled African Americans are against removing those statues (NPR/PBS/Marist). So get off your high horse and comment on the points until you're done. You have like two conservative defenders, and your goal seems to be bringing back in civil war statues and persons from the civil war to exhaust my time. Do you see how moving from Lee/Jackson to Jefferson/Key might hurt repeal of the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act? You're literally on the side that suffers from your silence. If the civil war statues is just the lever action to diverse protests on all sorts of statues, the other side makes a compelling argument that the first should be opposed merely on the grounds that the next is bound to follow. Didn't I already say I don't support removing Jefferson or Key? I don't think much of the left does either. Sure, the probability was basically 100% that somebody's hot take would be "you're right, mr. president, let's take down Washington and Jefferson too," just like it was basically 100% that there would be a few people on the other side saying "you're right, Washington is about white supremacy, that's why we should leave him up." The answer to a slippery slope where a movement could start out good but turn into something bad is to figure out where it turns bad and rally all your defenses to that point. If you instead refuse to do the good stuff for fear of bad stuff happening later, you run the risk of a slippery slope being a less appropriate analogy than a rubber band. Work with the third estate to introduce democratic reforms you can make reasonable progress. If you stonewall them, pretty soon they're storming the Bastille and guillotining everyone. In other words, if we had more reasonable public debate on statues like Nathan B Forrest, maybe there wouldn't be as much reaction against Jefferson and Washington. Speaking of, you still haven't been able to muster an answer for that simple question. I didn't ask "if locals wanna take down the Nathan B Forrest statue should they be able to?" I asked if you were a Memphian, would you be one of those locals wanting to take it down? Is leaving it up good or bad? Don't make xDaunt come and call you a coward, I'm sure he has important lawyer things to do. As has been stated previously, you won't get him to give you a straight answer. I fell into his circuitous method of debating once. Never again. I implore you to give up on getting a 'good or bad' answer from him.
But why? What's the point of arguing on bad faith on an internet forum with zero power over any policy outcome? You can barely even influence votes, since so many of the posters aren't US citizens. Maybe xDaunt likes to pride himself on being able to manipulate a jury or something, but I really don't want to assume Danglars is arguing in bad faith. He's probably just really frustrated lately because his pick for President has turned out so poorly.
|
That question seems really unlikely to get a constructive response from anyone.
|
On September 18 2017 23:57 Aquanim wrote:
That question seems really unlikely to get a constructive response from anyone.
Which question? Should the statue be taken down? LL was happy enough to answer it.
|
On September 19 2017 00:02 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 23:57 Aquanim wrote:
That question seems really unlikely to get a constructive response from anyone. Which question? Should the statue be taken down? LL was happy enough to answer it.
The question about "why is so-and-so arguing in bad faith". Anyone you ask either agrees with your premise that they're arguing in bad faith and doesn't understand it either, or doesn't agree with your premise and so can't give a meaningful answer to the question.
|
On September 19 2017 00:04 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 00:02 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 23:57 Aquanim wrote:
That question seems really unlikely to get a constructive response from anyone. Which question? Should the statue be taken down? LL was happy enough to answer it. The question about "why is so-and-so arguing in bad faith". Anyone you ask either agrees with your premise that they're arguing in bad faith and doesn't understand it either, or doesn't agree with your premise and so can't give a meaningful answer to the question.
It was more "why would he argue in bad faith." I was the one who thought he wasn't, part of my reasoning being that I don't think he has a good reason to.
|
Yeah ChristianS, frankly you been asking a few too many loaded questions lately. Doesn't make for a good argument even if I'm willing to answer a few of them.
|
On September 19 2017 00:07 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 00:04 Aquanim wrote:On September 19 2017 00:02 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 23:57 Aquanim wrote:
That question seems really unlikely to get a constructive response from anyone. Which question? Should the statue be taken down? LL was happy enough to answer it. The question about "why is so-and-so arguing in bad faith". Anyone you ask either agrees with your premise that they're arguing in bad faith and doesn't understand it either, or doesn't agree with your premise and so can't give a meaningful answer to the question. It was more "why would he argue in bad faith." I was the one who thought he wasn't, part of my reasoning being that I don't think he has a good reason to.
Okay, fair enough. I don't think you'll get a useful answer to that question either, because the only possible answers that I can see are unverifiable speculation about the character and life of the person behind a username on the Internet.
|
I don't get this discussion at all. In the time before the THird Reich, a lot of Statues of old German Rulers were erected to show the greatness of the national state that had not existed 50 years before. The Nazis continued that trend. Now, some of those were taken down after 45 because they were not about Karl or Friedrich or Heinrich but about national supremacy. No body in his right mind would take down statues of Karl from the 9th century even though, compared to current ethics, he was a cunt.
|
On September 19 2017 00:07 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah ChristianS, frankly you been asking a few too many loaded questions lately. Doesn't make for a good argument even if I'm willing to answer a few of them.
I'd ask which questions you found loaded, but that might be a derailment (although sounds like a lot of you might not mind getting off the topic of statues anyway). PM me examples if you want to I guess, otherwise for present purposes I'll just ask: do you think the question "should this statue be left up unaltered or not" is loaded? Why? I can't think what assumptions I'm presupposing, or what possibilities I'm not including. You could alter it without necessarily melting down the metal or something, but what's stopping someone from answering "no, I think we should alter it by _____"?
|
Well listen, people on this thread have already dug their heels into whatever position they want to believe.
You got Kwark, P6, zlefin who believes in white males oppression (which is historically accurate) vs LegalLord, Danglar, xDaunt who are like but that was past, the country should be mature enough to move pass that.
I personally think that the country should be divided into two via the libertarian route because it is now impossible for the two sides to see each other's point without getting violent.
|
On September 19 2017 00:10 Broetchenholer wrote:
I don't get this discussion at all. In the time before the THird Reich, a lot of Statues of old German Rulers were erected to show the greatness of the national state that had not existed 50 years before. The Nazis continued that trend. Now, some of those were taken down after 45 because they were not about Karl or Friedrich or Heinrich but about national supremacy. No body in his right mind would take down statues of Karl from the 9th century even though, compared to current ethics, he was a cunt.
Nobody wants the FF statues taken down, they just want to be given the proper historical context instead of being made out as the Justice League, saving the colonies from the evil British Empire.
|
United States43866 Posts
On September 19 2017 00:13 RealityIsKing wrote:
I personally think that the country should be divided into two via the libertarian route because it is now impossible for the two sides to see each other's point without getting violent.
Divided into two by states? Or do we each get to decide for ourselves which new country we owe our allegiance to? Or does one side claim the land and the other the seas? What if neither new country wants Florida?
|
On September 19 2017 00:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 00:13 RealityIsKing wrote:
I personally think that the country should be divided into two via the libertarian route because it is now impossible for the two sides to see each other's point without getting violent. Divided into two by states? Or do we each get to decide for ourselves which new country we owe our allegiance to? Or does one side claim the land and the other the seas? What if neither new country wants Florida?
Why does this sound like Civil War lite? All the makings of a civil war, without slavery.
|
On September 19 2017 00:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 00:13 RealityIsKing wrote:
I personally think that the country should be divided into two via the libertarian route because it is now impossible for the two sides to see each other's point without getting violent. Divided into two by states? Or do we each get to decide for ourselves which new country we owe our allegiance to? Or does one side claim the land and the other the seas? What if neither new country wants Florida?
Set up a vote.
|
On September 19 2017 00:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 00:13 RealityIsKing wrote:
I personally think that the country should be divided into two via the libertarian route because it is now impossible for the two sides to see each other's point without getting violent. Divided into two by states? Or do we each get to decide for ourselves which new country we owe our allegiance to? Or does one side claim the land and the other the seas? What if neither new country wants Florida?
Alternate picks, like basketball on the playground. If you complain about having Florida on your team Coach takes you aside and yells at you.
|
On September 19 2017 00:27 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 00:22 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2017 00:13 RealityIsKing wrote:
I personally think that the country should be divided into two via the libertarian route because it is now impossible for the two sides to see each other's point without getting violent. Divided into two by states? Or do we each get to decide for ourselves which new country we owe our allegiance to? Or does one side claim the land and the other the seas? What if neither new country wants Florida? Set up a vote.
With hookers and blackjack? The country is already divided into two. We just inhabit the space close to each other. This is bordering War of 1812.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9R9PrIX.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LKfRa1G.jpg)
