Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[laughing dog]

And no-one is suggesting otherwise. What you don't get is that having public space occupied by publicly funded and maintained statues etc. whose explicit purpose is to offend part of the population isn't "people being allowed to disagree". It is the state shoving a fist into the face of people whose interests it is supposed to defend.

What you do with your own money, on your own time, in your own home or backyard, is a whole other story.



Changing things when the public perception of them changes is also the spirit of democracy. I'm old enough to remember when their used to be ashtrays in the hallway outside the lecture halls of universities. Then the perception of what is and what isn't an acceptable setting for lighting a cigarette changed, so we removed those ashtrays. We didn't build a new series of universities, like the old ones but without smoking indoors.

What you're advocating is the spirit of an unchangeable divine order, not democracy.



...and build a new university without smoking in the hallway next to the one that allows smoking everywhere except in the lecture halls themselves?

Statues are focal points of hopes and aspirations. To see a statue is enlightening. No matter if you agree or disagree with it's creation.

Well that's just metaphysical woo.

What's the problem with being offended? That's what I don't get? How damn fragile do you think black people are? Life is hard for everyone. It's one of the given things in life. Racists are people to. They are also the losers of history. What do you think we are gaining by rubbing their noses in their loss?

The smoking is a good example. Today harassing smokers is, socialy acceptable. They are treated like second class citizens. I have never smoked. But the way we treat smokers today makes me feel uneasy. If they are not hurting anyone else, what's the problem?

While I do not feel smokers should be harassed, as someone who has been medically tested to show I am allergic to smoke, I can attest that smokers can and do hurt other people.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Today's political climate just makes me think Sherman didn't go far enough.

Ah well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today's political climate just makes me think Sherman didn't go far enough.

Ah well.

Yeah, it was pretty much a war crime, but fuck 'em they started it. Unlike Kings Landing, the Georgia didn't ring the bells.

 

[repoman]

Pelosi

In the letter, the Speaker wrote “Tomorrow, Americans will mark Juneteenth, a beautiful and proud celebration of freedom for African Americans. Very sadly, this day comes during a moment of extraordinary national anguish, as we grieve for the hundreds of Black Americans killed by racial injustice and police brutality, including George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and so many others.”

“To appropriately observe Juneteenth this year, I write today to request the immediate removal of the portraits in the U.S. Capitol of four previous Speakers who served in the Confederacy: Robert Hunter of Virginia (1839-1841), Howell Cobb of Georgia (1849-1851), James Orr of South Carolina (1857-1859), and Charles Crisp of Georgia (1891-1895).”

The last one elected 25 years AFTER the Civil War and served the confederacy as a teenager?

 

[DBT]

The protestors do have morality on their side on this one. Doesn't mean it their actions are the preferred way to go. Can you quote any participant who claims that their actions are the preferred way to go?

I said the support appears to be implicit, not explicit. If that was not the case, what is the argument about?

Nobody is arguing that certain statues represent a bad period of history, those that supported slavery , etc or that their fate should not be reviewed and decided.

Now is the time to do that.

The only question is how to determine what is to be done with them. Two principle ways appear to be through democratic process, debate, referendum, etc....and what we see the mob doing, just tearing them down or defacing them.

So who is supporting what? I know that I support the former.

Or is there another option, something I overlooked?

In other words, you were complaining about nothing.

Not so. Clearly I am complaining about the breakdown or failure of the Democratic process to deal with the issue in this instance, and probably many others. Which is not a trivial complaint.

 

[DBT]

You're essentially (one of) the idiot(s) at the back of the BLM protest yelling "all lives matter". Seriously.

No manners, hurling insults in the security of your anonymity makes you a coward and an ignorant prick.

You've earned the responses you get.

I'm sure you feel the same. But you're pulling the classic right wing 'he was rude' while not facing the actual points. aka 'tone trolling'. Look it up if you have to. Meanwhile, you're actually directly violating the rules of the forum. Well done. Not gonna report it, because your infantile trolling and name calling really is more a sign that you can't face the light.

So...good for you. Just little further, and you'll be goose stepping with the best of them.

Only in your own mind, an arrogant assumption of truth. Responding in a rude manner in the security of your anonymity like an internet coward. And I only say this because I am compelled to by your reprehensible attitude and manner of suppressing open discussion.

 

[DBT]

*SPROING!!!*

I never initiate it. Nor did I this time or the other times Worldtaveller chose to engage with ad Homs. His attitude is provocative, yet if I dish it back it becomes a holier than though moment.

But you are right, I should not have responded in kind, in future I'll refer such posts to the moderators.

I think it is awesome that we have such a familiarity with one another that such a vague reference is easily picked up. We need to chill the heck out.

We go back a ways. It's not the first time we have clashed. It's the same every time. I'd rather not respond to him at all, maybe he is a nice guy, but our initial encounter seemed to put me off completely.

 

[DBT]

It's like Half-Life hijacked DrZoidberg's account.

An RLM movement, anyone?

Do we have to conform in every way, nodding our heads in agreement? Can ideas not be discussed without insults being traded, contempt for dissent or unapproved ideas put on display? An impossibility of straightforward discussion?

 

[J842P]

Today's political climate just makes me think Sherman didn't go far enough.

Ah well.

Yeah, it was pretty much a war crime, but fuck 'em they started it. Unlike Kings Landing, the Georgia didn't ring the bells.

Lol Sherman wasn't a war criminal. Certainly, not as much as say, many of our actions during World War 2. I find the hate towards Sherman is mostly bullshit Southern revisionism

 

[Politesse]

He would certainly be considered a war criminal by modern standards. You're not allowed to target civilian livelihoods.

His actions paled in comparison to the horrific acts we took in WWII, but most things do look small compared to nuclear holocaust so that isn't setting much of a damn standard.

 

[J842P]

He would certainly be considered a war criminal by modern standards. You're not allowed to target civilian livelihoods.

Sure you are.

 

[Politesse]

He would certainly be considered a war criminal by modern standards. You're not allowed to target civilian livelihoods.

Sure you are.

Not under the Geneva Convention rules. What standard are you employing?

 

[laughing dog]

You've earned the responses you get.

I'm sure you feel the same. But you're pulling the classic right wing 'he was rude' while not facing the actual points. aka 'tone trolling'. Look it up if you have to. Meanwhile, you're actually directly violating the rules of the forum. Well done. Not gonna report it, because your infantile trolling and name calling really is more a sign that you can't face the light.

So...good for you. Just little further, and you'll be goose stepping with the best of them.

Only in your own mind, an arrogant assumption of truth. Responding in a rude manner in the security of your anonymity like an internet coward.

And passive aggressive responses in the security of anonymity are conducive to open discussion?

 

[DBT]

You've earned the responses you get.

I'm sure you feel the same. But you're pulling the classic right wing 'he was rude' while not facing the actual points. aka 'tone trolling'. Look it up if you have to. Meanwhile, you're actually directly violating the rules of the forum. Well done. Not gonna report it, because your infantile trolling and name calling really is more a sign that you can't face the light.

So...good for you. Just little further, and you'll be goose stepping with the best of them.

Only in your own mind, an arrogant assumption of truth. Responding in a rude manner in the security of your anonymity like an internet coward.

And passive aggressive responses in the security of anonymity are conducive to open discussion?

Obviously it's not. Nor do I initiate it. I do comment on it and while knowing it is wrong, if provoked - defence not being the same as offence - may dish it back with interest. It doesn't help, but there it is. What is to be done?

 

[laughing dog]

And passive aggressive responses in the security of anonymity are conducive to open discussion?

No, they are not. Nor do I initiate it. I do comment on it and while knowing it is wrong, if provoked - defence not being the same as offence - may dish it back with interest. It doesn't help, but there it is. What is to be done?

Perhaps stop the hypocrisy?

 

[DBT]

And passive aggressive responses in the security of anonymity are conducive to open discussion?

No, they are not. Nor do I initiate it. I do comment on it and while knowing it is wrong, if provoked - defence not being the same as offence - may dish it back with interest. It doesn't help, but there it is. What is to be done?

Perhaps stop the hypocrisy?

Defence is hypocracy? Someone attacks and you lay down and take it? You do that because it would be hypocracy to use violence under any circumstances?

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps stop the hypocrisy?

Defence is hypocracy? Someone attacks and you lay down and take it? You do that because it would be hypocracy to use violence under any circumstances?

This really should not be this hard to grasp. It is hypocrisy to decry techniques that are not conducive to discussion while simultaneously using techniques that are not conducive to discussion.

 

[J842P]

He would certainly be considered a war criminal by modern standards. You're not allowed to target civilian livelihoods.

Sure you are.

Not under the Geneva Convention rules. What standard are you employing?

LOL the Geneva convention!


The standard is whatever the strongest powers in the international community say they are, obviously. As of now, that is The United States, Russia, China. And I guarantee you, Sherman would not have been tried let alone convicted of war crimes if something similar occurred in the United States today. Maybe if the equivalent of the Confederacy had somehow gained the allegiance of Russia and China. But even then, I doubt it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

He would certainly be considered a war criminal by modern standards. You're not allowed to target civilian livelihoods.

His actions paled in comparison to the horrific acts we took in WWII, but most things do look small compared to nuclear holocaust so that isn't setting much of a damn standard.

Until the Geneva convention was agreed to every general was a war criminal. Because that's how wars were fought. Official sanctioned raping and looting was a way for kings to pay their troops. It was a major shift when this stopped

 

[Politesse]

He would certainly be considered a war criminal by modern standards. You're not allowed to target civilian livelihoods.

His actions paled in comparison to the horrific acts we took in WWII, but most things do look small compared to nuclear holocaust so that isn't setting much of a damn standard.

Until the Geneva convention was agreed to every general was a war criminal. Because that's how wars were fought. Official sanctioned raping and looting was a way for kings to pay their troops. It was a major shift when this stopped

So there was outrage at the time about what Sherman had done, and it violated such international law as existed at the time. And it would be even more illegal and outrageous now. But you're claiming that at some point in the past, it was hunky dory, and this absolves him?