• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

I'm not against openness and transparency. My question was: how are these divisions and conflicts to be handled by society as a whole?

What do you propose when the system is stacked against the minorities asking for civility and equality?
We propose public demonstration and when something egregiously and irredeemably wrong is happening, action by the people.

I feel like you don’t really get the ongoing racism being defended here, and the use of satus quo to “win” that argument.

Public protest is a legitimate form of getting a point across. The question is how far reasonable protest can be taken before it tips into unreasonable violence? Rioting, looting and indiscriminate destruction, for example, appears to take protest too far.
 
I'm not against openness and transparency. My question was: how are these divisions and conflicts to be handled by society as a whole?


DBT - I am curious, what are your thoughts for the role and responsibility of those who want to keep those statues, knowing they are statues unwanted by most of society?

Do they have a responsibility to understand and make a motion to move the statues to a museum funded privately? Do they have a responsibility to respond to the decades old and century-old complaints? And what should be the consequences if they merely continue to employ systemic racism to get their way?
 
I'm not against openness and transparency. My question was: how are these divisions and conflicts to be handled by society as a whole?


DBT - I am curious, what are your thoughts for the role and responsibility of those who want to keep those statues, knowing they are statues unwanted my most of society?

Do they have a responsibility to understand and make a motion to move the statues to a museum funded privately? Do they have a responsibility to respond to the decades old and century-old complaints?

If most of society wants something gone, it should be removed.

The minority, whoever wants the statues, monuments or whatever to remain, should accept the majority decision in the spirit of democracy.
 
I'm not against openness and transparency. My question was: how are these divisions and conflicts to be handled by society as a whole?


DBT - I am curious, what are your thoughts for the role and responsibility of those who want to keep those statues, knowing they are statues unwanted my most of society?

Do they have a responsibility to understand and make a motion to move the statues to a museum funded privately? Do they have a responsibility to respond to the decades old and century-old complaints?

If most of society wants something gone, it should be removed.

The minority, whoever wants the statues, monuments or whatever to remain, should accept the majority decision in the spirit of democracy.

It sounds as though you are in support of people banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning people to death for adultery so long as there is a majority vote. All things being equal, I've gotta admit that's a brave stance to have.

I still disagree vehemently.
 
Interesting article about Louis IX statue in Saint Louis.

https://www.stljewishlight.com/opinion/commentaries/what-do-we-do-with-art-hill-statue-of-king-louis-ix/article_f0d6e470-b703-11ea-91dd-778e90b8180e.html

Has a posted comment that is about the sculptor.

So were the Jewish people the only ones allowed to be tax collectors to the mass of locals because they had no ties and would not go easy because of kinnship ties? Sort of like how the British used small ethnic minorities to help control the larger groups?

Wikipedia says

Peasants who were forced to pay their taxes to Jews could personify them as the people taking their earnings while remaining loyal to the lords on whose behalf the Jews worked.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_antisemitism#Restrictions_to_marginal_occupations_(tax_collecting,_moneylending,_etc.)
 
If most of society wants something gone, it should be removed.

The minority, whoever wants the statues, monuments or whatever to remain, should accept the majority decision in the spirit of democracy.

It sounds as though you are in support of people banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning people to death for adultery so long as there is a majority vote. All things being equal, I've gotta admit that's a brave stance to have.

I still disagree vehemently.

The ban on gay marriage was not democratically overturned. I think it would have moved with culture and most importantly woke corporate pressure (gay marriage is a nice deflection from shit wages, no healthcare and stealing pensions) and that 2025 it would have been legal in 40 states and by 2030 in all states.

However, without the Brown vs Board of Education desegregation would not have occurred from Eisenhower in 1957.

Interesting that one of the biggest lefties that I occasionally watch, Thom Hartmann, is against judicial review,
 
If most of society wants something gone, it should be removed.

The minority, whoever wants the statues, monuments or whatever to remain, should accept the majority decision in the spirit of democracy.

It sounds as though you are in support of people banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning people to death for adultery so long as there is a majority vote. All things being equal, I've gotta admit that's a brave stance to have.

I still disagree vehemently.

That's puzzling....how does supporting Democracy equate to supporting banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning as a penalty for adultery?
 
If most of society wants something gone, it should be removed.

The minority, whoever wants the statues, monuments or whatever to remain, should accept the majority decision in the spirit of democracy.

It sounds as though you are in support of people banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning people to death for adultery so long as there is a majority vote. All things being equal, I've gotta admit that's a brave stance to have.

I still disagree vehemently.

That's puzzling....how does supporting Democracy equate to supporting banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning as a penalty for adultery?

If enough people vote for it...I'm sure you can complete the rest.
 
We don't need democracy to answer questions of fact; it's insane to apply it to questions that can be resolved by reasoning or logic. And it's cruel to apply it to matters of compassion for minorities, who (by definition) the democratic process must ignore.

Well, that's bullshit. The number of people who ever, in their lifetime, want to marry someone of the same sex is surely less than a tenth of the population, and yet in Australia same-sex marriage went from political suicide to political reality in a remarkably short period of time.

Australia got same-sex marriage because a minority group had the support of the majority.

Much better to have the citizens who care take direct action. Fuck the system. The system is a bunch of guidelines, and democracy is the last resort for setting guidelines in matters of pure opinion.

Mob rule - if in fact the mob is a majority - is merely unaccountable, sloppy democracy with no safeguards.

Mob rule where the mob is in fact a minority is tyranny.
 
No.
Openness and transparency are two important hallmarks of effective democracy. Why are against them?

Besides, white supremacists, racist and their dupes are bullies who need a lesson in civility and hunan decency.

I'm not against openness and transparency. My question was: how are these divisions and conflicts to be handled by society as a whole?
In order to handle those anti democratic bullies, they need to come out on the open. Otherwise those bullies will thrive in their anonymity.
 
That's puzzling....how does supporting Democracy equate to supporting banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning as a penalty for adultery?

If enough people vote for it...I'm sure you can complete the rest.

Are you saying that the majority of people in a democracy support slavery, banning homosexuality and stoning for adultery? Don't we have a set of ethical standards as a part of our system which determines both law and socially acceptable behaviour?
 
That's puzzling....how does supporting Democracy equate to supporting banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning as a penalty for adultery?

If enough people vote for it...I'm sure you can complete the rest.

Are you saying that the majority of people in a democracy support slavery, banning homosexuality and stoning for adultery? Don't we have a set of ethical standards as a part of our system which determines both law and socially acceptable behaviour?
Only because we're willing to stage a riot every now and then.
 
Are you saying that the majority of people in a democracy support slavery, banning homosexuality and stoning for adultery? Don't we have a set of ethical standards as a part of our system which determines both law and socially acceptable behaviour?
Only because we're willing to stage a riot every now and then.

I thought we have an understanding of ethics that's built on centuries of thought and philosophical enquiry, universities, law, empathy, etc.

What percentage of the population in the West would support slavery, banning homosexuality or stoning for adultery? Very few people would, I'd wager.
 
I thought we have an understanding of ethics that's built on centuries of thought and philosophical enquiry, universities, law, empathy, etc.
You honestly believe that the ruling class thought their way into self-sacrificial empathy? Active resistance by the oppressed had nothing to do with it, it was just thousands of years of kindly noblesse oblige interspersed with occasional incidents of completely unnecessary violence? Don't be ridiculous. Empires play hardball, and citizens must also.
 
I thought we have an understanding of ethics that's built on centuries of thought and philosophical enquiry, universities, law, empathy, etc.
You honestly believe that the ruling class thought their way into self-sacrificial empathy? Active resistance by the oppressed had nothing to do with it, it was just thousands of years of kindly noblesse oblige interspersed with occasional incidents of completely unnecessary violence? Don't be ridiculous. Empires play hardball, and citizens must also.

Look what Ghandi achieved using peaceful protest and civil disobedience. There is a line between reasonable protest, civil disobedience and unnecessary violence, people rioting, looting and killing each other on the streets.
 
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

''There are, of course, many ethical reasons to use nonviolent strategies. But compelling research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University, confirms that civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics – by a long way.

Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.'

Advantages of Peaceful protest

-Positive solution: It reminds people that even when governed by an oppressive regime, the power still lies with the people.

-More common: On average, peaceful protests attract about 11 times more public participation than armed protest.

-Inspiration: Many activists link their methods to successors such as Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Figures like these serve as inspiration to resistance movements.

-Success rate: From 1900 to 2015, nonviolent campaigns succeeded 51 percent of the time, But violent campaigns succeeded 27 percent of the time.

- low-risk factor: Because peaceful protest is peaceful, there is a lot lower risk factor that you will get hurt if you choise to help protest.

-More organized: Peaceful protests are often more organized because the people participating have a calmer approach to change than their violent counterparts.
 
I thought we have an understanding of ethics that's built on centuries of thought and philosophical enquiry, universities, law, empathy, etc.
You honestly believe that the ruling class thought their way into self-sacrificial empathy? Active resistance by the oppressed had nothing to do with it, it was just thousands of years of kindly noblesse oblige interspersed with occasional incidents of completely unnecessary violence? Don't be ridiculous. Empires play hardball, and citizens must also.

Look what Ghandi achieved using peaceful protest and civil disobedience.

If you believe that Ghandi single-handedly brought independence to India, you need to refresh your Indian history.
 
That's puzzling....how does supporting Democracy equate to supporting banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning as a penalty for adultery?

If enough people vote for it...I'm sure you can complete the rest.

Are you saying that the majority of people in a democracy support slavery, banning homosexuality and stoning for adultery? Don't we have a set of ethical standards as a part of our system which determines both law and socially acceptable behaviour?

Assume they did. Would you support it because a majority is for it? Would you support a 50% + 1 vote decision to enslave the other 50% of the population because it was reached democratically?
 
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

''There are, of course, many ethical reasons to use nonviolent strategies. But compelling research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University, confirms that civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics – by a long way.

Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.'

Advantages of Peaceful protest

-Positive solution: It reminds people that even when governed by an oppressive regime, the power still lies with the people.

-More common: On average, peaceful protests attract about 11 times more public participation than armed protest.

-Inspiration: Many activists link their methods to successors such as Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Figures like these serve as inspiration to resistance movements.

-Success rate: From 1900 to 2015, nonviolent campaigns succeeded 51 percent of the time, But violent campaigns succeeded 27 percent of the time.

- low-risk factor: Because peaceful protest is peaceful, there is a lot lower risk factor that you will get hurt if you choise to help protest.

-More organized: Peaceful protests are often more organized because the people participating have a calmer approach to change than their violent counterparts.

Posting facts about the benefits of nonviolent protest is racist and gets you fired.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/202...m-tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html
 
That's puzzling....how does supporting Democracy equate to supporting banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning as a penalty for adultery?

If enough people vote for it...I'm sure you can complete the rest.

Are you saying that the majority of people in a democracy support slavery, banning homosexuality and stoning for adultery?

I'm saying your argument is if a majority of people support slavery, banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning as a penalty for adultery then it should be allowed. Because voting is superior to everything else. I'm also saying that's not a good look.

Don't we have a set of ethical standards as a part of our system which determines both law and socially acceptable behaviour?

Having a bunch of statues that promote slavery that were put up during Jim Crow Era and the Civil Rights Movement is unacceptable behaviour. You seem to think it should be up to a vote. That has been your argument this entire thread. I'm just wondering how far you will go in this belief. You appear to be equivocating. Can't put it any plainer than that.
 
Back
Top Bottom