Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[laughing dog]

Please stop with your petty squawking. It's truly tiresome. Your deliberate denseness and Amelia Bedelia like treatment of language would be funny in fiction but not during a rational conversation.

Rational discussion requires clarity in language (which reflects clarity in thought). It helps to reduce implicit appeals to emotion. But I can understand why you feel the need to demean clarity by calling it "petty squawking".

This is a public forum. There are number of choices open to you - braying like an ass about it (your apparent preferred option), being clearer in thought and discuss, ignoring it or simply fucking off.

You're right it's a public forum, and your deliberate fucking denseness is on display for all to see. ....

I see, braying like an ass is your preferred response.

Your embarrassing avoidance of clarity of thought is on display for all to see.

You have a penchant for stating general principles that are not really general principles.

For example, you are against mob violence, saying that it is anti-democratic etc.... But you are fine if mob violence is directed against violations of what you consider human rights.

You routinely start OP filled with "petty squawks" when someone says some word or an idea in less than perfect wording gets upset when he is expected to live up to his standards.

 

[DBT]

Good, then you can get back on topic, which is the removal of monuments, not the burning of stores or looting of stores.
Glad we could get you back on track and stop bring up the straw man.




You assume incorrectly. You assume a straw man or three.
The destruction of statues portraying traitorous white spremacists is not indesciminate. So you can lose that straw-man, too.
We already agreed above that we are not talking about the violent ones, who are not the same as those deliberately targeting the removal of statues of traitorous white supremacists that were erected to send a message of domination to the black population.

So what is the dispute precisely about? If we all support peaceful demonstration and peaceful civil disobedience and we all denounce extremists who hijack peaceful demonstration, we all reject fighting, looting and indiscriminate destruction of property....what exactly is the problem?

You tell me. The statues should come down. It’s fine if it is done by the people, since the white supremacists have use tricks and intimidation to keep them up.

I’m glad you’re no longer arguing against this.
Congratulations, welcome to the humane side of the argument.

Yet it did go beyond reasonable protest, extremists did hijack peaceful demonstration, violence did break out, people were injured and killed, there was looting and indiscriminate destruction of property. Due process of determining what monuments should stay, go or be relocated was overruled by mob action, statues that had nothing to do with slavery were damaged...in a big, broad emotional sweep.

 

[laughing dog]

Most people accept the need for taxation, roads, schools, pensions, etc....the taxpayer benefits. If there was no benefit, I'm sure that people would protest.

The most effective form of protest being peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience, not rioting, looting, fighting on the streets and indiscriminate destruction of property.

First of all, civil disobedience simply means that a citizen refuses to obey a law and is willing to pay the consequence for that action. So pulling down a statue can be an act of civil disobedience.

Second, your claim is clearly counterfactual. The case of many of these statues, peaceful demonstration over the years accomplished nothing. Peaceful demonstration was not effective, but the mob was.

Perhaps you meant "preferable" instead of effective.

Civil disobedience as a form of protest entails failure to comply, which does not mean take to the streets and damage property....which is the antithesis of peaceful demonstration.

Actually, failure to comply with laws can mean damaging property (if damaging property is against the law). It means that the noncompliant will stand up and be arrested.

 

[zorq]

MISSISSIPPI DITCHES CONFEDERATE EMBLEM ON FLAG FOR "IN GOD WE TRUST"

https://www.foxnews.com/us/mississippi-gop-officials-call-to-replace-flags-confederate-battle-emblem

Apparently Mississippi doesn't want racial bigotry all over their flag... anymore... but religious bigotry is just A-Okay!

And people still insist that the South isn't full of bigots.

 

[DBT]

Civil disobedience as a form of protest entails failure to comply, which does not mean take to the streets and damage property....which is the antithesis of peaceful demonstration.

Actually, failure to comply with laws can mean damaging property (if damaging property is against the law). It means that the noncompliant will stand up and be arrested.

Depends on the nature of non compliance. Surgeons who go on strike by refusing to operate on gravely ill patients, for example, are not engaging with reasonable protest or civil disobedience. That is negligence.

 

[Toni]

Imagine you are Jewish and living in Germany. How would you feel about statues of Hitler on display in the public park where your children play? Or that you pass each day as you go to school or work or whatever?

I imagine it would be awful. I also imagine that no such statue exists in Germany because a clear majority of Germans would not allow it.

You say you are against 'mob rule.' What if the mob is the electorate? Until the 1960's, there were actual mobs wearing robes --and also lawmakers who served to disenfranchise voters they deemed undesirable, to limit the education of those they deemed 'less than,' to restrict the neighborhoods and schools and hospitals that the outgroups could utilize. Now, it's much more subtle: pay attention to the current primary election cycle where some states are eliminating polling places and attempting to enact voting measures that severely restrict the opportuntiy to vote for very carefully selected groups.

Sometimes it's the mob who is sitting in the chairs at the legislature and courts.

Antidemocratic practises should be opposed. A violent mob taking down statues is an antidemocratic force. It is an unelected gang using force to get what it wants. If these people actually had the support of a 'clear majority', the statues would have been gone 70 years ago.

Really? You think that ‘most people’ put up those statues? Or that democratically elected government officials commissioned such statues to memorialize the great struggle for this country? No. Little private, whites only, so called civics organizations devoted to exhalting and memorializng the Confederacy put those statues up. It is a mockery and a falsehood to suggest that such monuments were supported by a majority of the populace when huge numbers were not allowed to vote. Moreover, these statues were placed locally, not by federal forces.

Decent human beings are less concerned about ‘violence’ done in toppling monuments to people who fought to maintain slavery as the law of the land and a lot more concerned about the violence done to the citizenry by those sworn to serve and protect and supported by tax dollars.

 

[laughing dog]

Removal_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials

What laws? Name the laws that prevent a city removing a statue it doesn't want. If there are such laws they are bad laws. But are there such laws?

Educate yourself -  Removal_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials

Tennessee law

Tennessee passed its Tennessee Heritage Protection Act in 2016; it requires a ⅔ majority of the Tennessee Historical Commission to rename, remove, or relocate any public statue, monument, or memorial.[62] In response to events in Memphis (see below), a 2018 amendment prohibits municipalities from selling or transferring ownership of memorials without a waiver. (The Tennessee Historical Commission has never issued a waiver since it was established in 1919.) The amendment also "allows any entity, group or individual with an interest in a Confederate memorial to seek an injunction to preserve the memorial in question."[63]

According to The New York Times, the Tennessee act shows "an express intent to prevent municipalities in Tennessee from taking down Confederate memorials."[64] The same has been said about Florida's law.[65]
South Carolina law

The removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina capitol required a ​2⁄3 vote of both houses of the legislature, as would the removal of any other Confederate monument in South Carolina.[66]

Confederate monuments are largely located in cities, which, like other American cities, in the twentieth century became more diverse and more liberal politically than the remainder of the states in which they are located.
North Carolina law

In another legal impediment to removal, the Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina prohibited for 16 years the renaming of any university memorials. This was triggered by the University's 2014 decision to rename Saunders Hall (see below).

In 2019, North Carolina's law prohibiting monument removal was challenged indirectly. The Confederate Soldiers Monument in Winston-Salem was removed as a public nuisance, and a similar monument in Pittsboro was removed after a court ruled that it had never become county property, so the statute did not apply.[67]
Virginia law

On March 8, 2020, the Virginia legislature "passed measures that would undo an existing state law that protects the monuments and instead let local governments decide their fate."[68] On April 11, 2020, Governor Ralph Northam signed the bill into law.[69] Previously, the state law had prohibited local governments from taking the monuments down, moving them, or even adding placards explaining why they were erected.[70]
Alabama law

On January 14, 2019, a circuit judge ruled that the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act is an un-Constitutional infringement on the City of Birmingham's right to free speech, and cannot be enforced.[71][72] On November 27, 2019, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed that ruling by a vote of 9 to 0. In their decision, the court stated that "a municipality has no individual, substantive constitutional rights and that the trial court erred by holding that the City has constitutional rights to free speech."[73][74]

 

[DBT]

People can't just erect monuments in public spaces without council or government approval. Normally this allows for objectors or protestors to have their say in preventing the project from being approved. What people put on private property is different issue.

 

[laughing dog]

Civil disobedience as a form of protest entails failure to comply, which does not mean take to the streets and damage property....which is the antithesis of peaceful demonstration.

Actually, failure to comply with laws can mean damaging property (if damaging property is against the law). It means that the noncompliant will stand up and be arrested.

Depends on the nature of non compliance. Surgeons who go on strike by refusing to operate on gravely ill patients, for example, are not engaging with reasonable protest or civil disobedience. That is negligence.

You are mistaken. If the strike is legal, it would not be civil disobedience. If the strike is illegal and they are willing to go to jail, it is civil disobedience.

 

[Metaphor]

For example, you are against mob violence, saying that it is anti-democratic etc.... But you are fine if mob violence is directed against violations of what you consider human rights.

No, I didn't say 'mob violence' was fine in such cases. I was responding to the idiotic assumption that I think slaves were doing something wrong by running away.

I don't give a fuck whether you approve of my language or not, laughing dog. Your deliberate and sustained obtuseness is a matter of public record. Your selective aphasia is not any kind of way to debate people.

Let the mob burn down the entire United States, starting with Wendy's. Let the mob be judge, jury and executioner in your brave new world. Let the mob do whatever it fucking wants to public and private property, because it represents the clear majority and you have personally been fucking complicit your entire life, and now you can assuage your impotence and ineptitude by approving the actions of crazed young people destroying public property with abandon.

 

[DBT]

Depends on the nature of non compliance. Surgeons who go on strike by refusing to operate on gravely ill patients, for example, are not engaging with reasonable protest or civil disobedience. That is negligence.

You are mistaken. If the strike is legal, it would not be civil disobedience. If the strike is illegal and they are willing to go to jail, it is civil disobedience.

Legal? Did you notice that I said peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience. which need not be legal or mean that the two forms of protest are the same....nor does it mean that civil disobedience is violent, ie, damage to property, people being killed or injured....which is clearly the type of violence, having said it a hundred times, that I am talking about.

Going on strike be it legal or illegal, for example, doesn't necessarily entail anyone being injured, killed or property damaged.

 

[Rhea]

People can't just erect monuments in public spaces without council or government approval. Normally this allows for objectors or protestors to have their say in preventing the project from being approved. What people put on private property is different issue.

So when the racists are in charge, annd the black people are not allowed ot vote, you think “objectors and protestors have their say”?

I think maybe you missed several chapters of important US history. Like when police loosed biting dogs on black protestors.

Really, it seems so easy to say from the other side of the world that black people in America just didn’t speak up right, and so now they need to coddle their oppressors rather than fix the problem.

Taking down a statue is not violence, it is not indescrimnate, and the majority of statues that we’re talking about should have never been put up because they are statues elevating white supremacist traitors who ruled by violence and some of us can figure that out and not give their little feelings the justification of “public monument” status.

They are traitors. Who ruled by violence. And propagandized white supremacy.
And honestly, I cannot imagine why anyone would be fdefending them.

They ruled by violence.
They put up the statues, using violence to get their way.
The purpose of the statues was to perpetuate the violence.

 

[Rhea]

Legal? Did you notice that I said peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience. which need not be legal or mean that the two forms of protest are the same....nor does it mean that civil disobedience is violent, ie, damage to property, people being killed or injured....which is clearly the type of violence, having said it a hundred times, that I am talking about.

Going on strike be it legal or illegal, for example, doesn't necessarily entail anyone being injured, killed or property damaged.

Reminder:
The topic is “ Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases”

Not; “straw men we can employ to avoid talking about the removal of statues erected to propagandize violent white supremacist traitors.”

 

[laughing dog]

For example, you are against mob violence, saying that it is anti-democratic etc.... But you are fine if mob violence is directed against violations of what you consider human rights.

No, I didn't say 'mob violence' was fine in such cases. I was responding to the idiotic assumption that I think slaves were doing something wrong by running away.

You were fine with slave uprisings that destroyed private property while arguing against destroying private property.

I don't give a fuck ...

it is pretty clear you do not give a fuck about clarity of thought.

Let the mob burn down the entire United States, starting with Wendy's. Let the mob be judge, jury and executioner in your brave new world. Let the mob do whatever it fucking wants to public and private property, because it represents the clear majority and you have personally been fucking complicit your entire life, and now you can assuage your impotence and ineptitude by approving the actions of crazed young people destroying public property with abandon.

This is a perfect example of sloppy thinking and ad homs that frame your arguments. I have never argued that these mob represent the clear majority. You are babbling nonsense.

In this thread, I have numerous times said that mob action is not the preferred way to go, but that sometimes, mobs get it right. When they do, I don't think it something to be that bothered about. Unlike you, I am not worried about some imaginary slippery slope.

 

[DBT]

People can't just erect monuments in public spaces without council or government approval. Normally this allows for objectors or protestors to have their say in preventing the project from being approved. What people put on private property is different issue.

So when the racists are in charge, annd the black people are not allowed ot vote, you think “objectors and protestors have their say”?

I think maybe you missed several chapters of important US history. Like when police loosed biting dogs on black protestors.

Really, it seems so easy to say from the other side of the world that black people in America just didn’t speak up right, and so now they need to coddle their oppressors rather than fix the problem.

Taking down a statue is not violence, it is not indescrimnate, and the majority of statues that we’re talking about should have never been put up because they are statues elevating white supremacist traitors who ruled by violence and some of us can figure that out and not give their little feelings the justification of “public monument” status.

They are traitors. Who ruled by violence. And propagandized white supremacy.
And honestly, I cannot imagine why anyone would be fdefending them.

They ruled by violence.
They put up the statues, using violence to get their way.
The purpose of the statues was to perpetuate the violence.

Society evolves and changes over time, both in good ways and bad, thats iife on earth. The question is, do we want change to happen through peaceful means, peaceful resolution, or violence...mobs on the street, fighting, looting and indiscriminate destruction of property. I choose the former and reject the latter.

 

[Rhea]

Society evolves and changes over time, both in good ways and bad, thats iife on earth. The question is, do we want change to happen through peaceful means, peaceful resolution, or violence...mobs on the street, fighting, looting and indiscriminate destruction of property. I choose the former and reject the latter.

Nice false dichotomy you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

Society evolves and changes over time, both in good ways and bad, thats iife on earth.

You sound so sanguine about the violent oppression of black people in America.


But let’s take that out for a test drive...
“Toppling white supremacist traitor propaganda statues. That’s Life on Earth.”

Still good, right?

 

[Metaphor]

it is pretty clear you do not give a fuck about clarity of thought.

It is only clear that laughing dog in particular has selective aphasia. laughing dog imagines that 'x is not any way to do y' means 'y cannot be done via means x', because he can't help himself when he scores what he imagines to be a slam-dunk gotcha moment.

Baking a cake in the microwave is not any way to bake a cake.

In this thread, I have numerous times said that mob action is not the preferred way to go, but that sometimes, mobs get it right. When they do, I don't think it something to be that bothered about. Unlike you, I am not worried about some imaginary slippery slope.

Imaginary? When you allow and approve mobs to destroy public property, we're not on a slippery slope. We're at the bottom of the slide and your legs are fucking broken from impact.

 

[Metaphor]

This is a perfect example of sloppy thinking and ad homs that frame your arguments. I have never argued that these mob represent the clear majority. You are babbling nonsense.

Somebody upthread said the actions of the mob represent the will of a fairly clear majority. I didn't say it was you. That's where I entered the debate: questioning that the mobs represent a fairly clear majority.

Because if they did, in fact, represent a fairly clear majority, then the statues would have been gone 70 years ago, and not by mobs. But if in fact they don't, then the mobs are literally a tyranny, imposing their will on the majority, like any warlord.

 

[Toni]

People can't just erect monuments in public spaces without council or government approval. Normally this allows for objectors or protestors to have their say in preventing the project from being approved. What people put on private property is different issue.

Sure.

Now explain how that worked in Reconstruction South and Jim Crow South.

 

[Toni]

it is pretty clear you do not give a fuck about clarity of thought.

It is only clear that laughing dog in particular has selective aphasia. laughing dog imagines that 'x is not any way to do y' means 'y cannot be done via means x', because he can't help himself when he scores what he imagines to be a slam-dunk gotcha moment.

Baking a cake in the microwave is not any way to bake a cake.

In this thread, I have numerous times said that mob action is not the preferred way to go, but that sometimes, mobs get it right. When they do, I don't think it something to be that bothered about. Unlike you, I am not worried about some imaginary slippery slope.

Imaginary? When you allow and approve mobs to destroy public property, we're not on a slippery slope. We're at the bottom of the slide and your legs are fucking broken from impact.

No, this is, in a small way akin to Harriet Tubman leading slaves out of the South.