Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[laughing dog]

Not necessarily. Is a privately funded statue in a public space necessarily a public monument .

If the money was donated by a private citizen or group, but the public (via its representatives in the city) accepted the donation and erected it on public land, it is as much a public monument as a monument funded via the city's general revenue.

I do not think that is necessarily so.

But the mob can't decide to tear down everything they don't like just because they are gripped in a destructive fever.

Of course mobs have the capability - that is clear from these actions. The question in these cases is the mob wrong to do so?

 

[Rhea]

But the mob can't decide to tear down everything they don't like just because they are gripped in a destructive fever.

That’s an interesting statement. Do you think there’s no thought behind this, just “gripped by a destructive fever”?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ah, the old "no race problem here" canard.

The problem is your side treats "no racism here" as proof of racism. You're presenting a non-rebuttable claim--thus utterly worthless.

So let’s dig into this a little.

Loren, you seem to claim that there is NO RACISM in police actions. That they, in your words, are “not targeting blacks”.
Now, what would cause you to be able to dismiss as untrue all of the investigations, the scholarly work, the on-the-ground accounts, the investigative journalism that demonstrates repeatedly that the common denominator is not poverty, it’s color?

I'm not saying there is no racism, just that there isn't pervasive racism.

What there is is pervasive discrimination against those of low socioeconomic status. These are disproportionately black and thus will appear to be discrimination against blacks unless you are careful to consider whether black is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status. There is a lot of "scholarly" research that fails to consider this. It's amazing how often supposed discrimination disappears when you apply proper controls.

 

[Metaphor]

I do not think that is necessarily so.

But the mob can't decide to tear down everything they don't like just because they are gripped in a destructive fever.

Of course mobs have the capability - that is clear from these actions. The question in these cases is the mob wrong to do so?

Yes: I mean a moral 'can't'--or a moral should not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Granted there isn't strong evidence of racism in police data itself, but that is just b/c there are too many other factors muddying those waters. What allows us to be certain of racism are the numerous instances where individual cops are caught explicitly saying or doing racist things. Plus, almost never have these cops been disciplined for their racism prior to the video/audio proof of it. Since the odds of a first ever racist comment being caught on video/audio are very low, that means with extreme high degree of probability that many of them have been doing and saying racist things repeatedly and often in front of other cops with zero recourse, thus supporting the racism of the general police culture.

Of course there are some racists. There are enough police and we lack a perfect test of whether someone is a racist, even if we were very aggressively trying to exclude them we would have some.

In addition, we have evidence supporting premises that support the logical conclusion of widespread racism among cops. There is the fact that a large % of white males in the US are racists, plus the variables that predict which white males are most racist (e.g., political affiliation, conservatism, military service) are all highly over-represented among cops compared to the general population.

Evidence for that large % claim?

 

[Metaphor]

But the mob can't decide to tear down everything they don't like just because they are gripped in a destructive fever.

That’s an interesting statement. Do you think there’s no thought behind this, just “gripped by a destructive fever”?

Mobs rarely "think" rationally. That's why soccer (football) fans can riot when their team wins--or loses.

The woman who got into a screaming fit with a black man defending the Emancipation Memorial would not listen to reason. The protesters who tear down and deface statues of seemingly any white male--including ones who fought on the Union side against the slave owners--do not appear to be interested in reason.

Yes, mobs and rioters can be gripped by destructive fever.

 

[DBT]

That's all. Why is this so hard to grasp or accept?

Why is decades, scores of decades,, even a century of public propaganda to subjugate certain citizens and promote violent and racist ideology combined with voter suppression and political tricks to prevent the voice of the protesters from being heard so hard to grasp?

I do not know.

Why did it take so long for outrage to build to the point of rioting, looting and damaging monuments indiscriminately? Affirmative action in the form of peaceful protest and/or civil disobedience, being the most effective means of pushing for change, should have resolved the issue decades ago, removing what should be removed

 

[bilby]

That's all. Why is this so hard to grasp or accept?

Why is decades, scores of decades,, even a century of public propaganda to subjugate certain citizens and promote violent and racist ideology combined with voter suppression and political tricks to prevent the voice of the protesters from being heard so hard to grasp?

I do not know.

Why did it take so long for outrage to build to the point of rioting, looting and damaging monuments indiscriminately? Affirmative action in the form of peaceful protest and/or civil disobedience, being the most effective means of pushing for change, should have resolved the issue decades ago, removing what should be removed

This appears to be an almost perfect argument against your position. Perhaps you should think about it some more.

 

[Arctish]

That's all. Why is this so hard to grasp or accept?

Why is decades, scores of decades,, even a century of public propaganda to subjugate certain citizens and promote violent and racist ideology combined with voter suppression and political tricks to prevent the voice of the protesters from being heard so hard to grasp?

I do not know.

Why did it take so long for outrage to build to the point of rioting, looting and damaging monuments indiscriminately? Affirmative action in the form of peaceful protest and/or civil disobedience, being the most effective means of pushing for change, should have resolved the issue decades ago, removing what should be removed

You could say the exact same thing about gun control.

An overwhelming majority of Americans favor limiting the number and types of guns and amount /types of ammunition private citizens can possess. They also want high capacity semi-automatic weapons banned. They want weapons purchased for home defense to stay in people's homes unless being transported under lock and key to a gun range, gunsmith's repair shop, or to be sold by a licensed dealer. They do not want loaded guns being carried around in public by people with absolutely no training in how to handle them safely.

Meaningful change should have happened decades ago, but a small and influential segment of society has blocked every attempt. So now what? Should the people who want change simply give up? Should they continue to use tactics that have proven to be utterly ineffective? Or should they ratchet things up a notch and increase the pressure on the entrenched power that is obstructing reform?

 

[Jokodo]

We should keep up these statues of people who support human bondage, placed there by people that support human bondage, because....


HERITAGE!!

DBT didn't say that. Nobody here said it.

DrZoidberg did.

 

[DBT]

Why did it take so long for outrage to build to the point of rioting, looting and damaging monuments indiscriminately? Affirmative action in the form of peaceful protest and/or civil disobedience, being the most effective means of pushing for change, should have resolved the issue decades ago, removing what should be removed

This appears to be an almost perfect argument against your position. Perhaps you should think about it some more.

Oh? What exactly is my position?

 

[DBT]

Why did it take so long for outrage to build to the point of rioting, looting and damaging monuments indiscriminately? Affirmative action in the form of peaceful protest and/or civil disobedience, being the most effective means of pushing for change, should have resolved the issue decades ago, removing what should be removed

You could say the exact same thing about gun control.

An overwhelming majority of Americans favor limiting the number and types of guns and amount /types of ammunition private citizens can possess. They also want high capacity semi-automatic weapons banned. They want weapons purchased for home defense to stay in people's homes unless being transported under lock and key to a gun range, gunsmith's repair shop, or to be sold by a licensed dealer. They do not want loaded guns being carried around in public by people with absolutely no training in how to handle them safely.

Meaningful change should have happened decades ago, but a small and influential segment of society has blocked every attempt. So now what? Should the people who want change simply give up? Should they continue to use tactics that have proven to be utterly ineffective? Or should they ratchet things up a notch and increase the pressure on the entrenched power that is obstructing reform?

If an overwhelming majority want something badly enough they can achieve their goal. It may take some time and effort.

The most effective means to achieve their goal, according to the evidence, being peaceful organized protest and/or civil disobedience. Not rioting, looting and indiscriminate destruction

 

[DBT]

But the mob can't decide to tear down everything they don't like just because they are gripped in a destructive fever.

That’s an interesting statement. Do you think there’s no thought behind this, just “gripped by a destructive fever”?

I seem to have seen videos showing people rioting, looting and fighting each other on the streets. It wasn't a good look.

 

[DBT]

We should keep up these statues of people who support human bondage, placed there by people that support human bondage, because....


HERITAGE!!

DBT didn't say that. Nobody here said it.

DrZoidberg did.

Where did he say that?

 

[Metaphor]

Why did it take so long for outrage to build to the point of rioting, looting and damaging monuments indiscriminately? Affirmative action in the form of peaceful protest and/or civil disobedience, being the most effective means of pushing for change, should have resolved the issue decades ago, removing what should be removed

This appears to be an almost perfect argument against your position. Perhaps you should think about it some more.

What you and others appear to be saying is people felt like this for decades and nothing changed.

Well, let's explore that. Did a 'very clear majority', for decades, feel that way about the statues being scuttled? I don't think that's the case at all. In fact, I don't think a very clear majority supports it right now. In fact, I don't even think some of the people in the mob who are doing the tearing down necessarily thought, say six months ago, that it needed to be got rid of.

If a majority felt for decades that these particular statues should come down, they would have come down. There was no barrier except the will of the people, and the will of the people was simply not there. Nearly as soon as there was a majority of people in Australia who wanted same-sex marriage, we got it. People had not wanted it 'for decades'. Same sex marriage went from politically unthinkable to political reality in only a few years. If a majority of people in Australia had supported same sex marriage in the 1970s, it would have happened by 1980.

If there is really a 'very clear majority' that wants these statues removed, no city council could resist it. If that majority has come to be formed very recently (and I don't believe there is evidence of a majority), then cities will respond. And if there is not a majority, if the majority think a particular statue should stay, then it should stay.

 

[Jokodo]

Why did it take so long for outrage to build to the point of rioting, looting and damaging monuments indiscriminately? Affirmative action in the form of peaceful protest and/or civil disobedience, being the most effective means of pushing for change, should have resolved the issue decades ago, removing what should be removed

This appears to be an almost perfect argument against your position. Perhaps you should think about it some more.

What you and others appear to be saying is people felt like this for decades and nothing changed.

Well, let's explore that. Did a 'very clear majority', for decades, feel that way about the statues being scuttled? I don't think that's the case at all. In fact, I don't think a very clear majority supports it right now. In fact, I don't even think some of the people in the mob who are doing the tearing down necessarily thought, say six months ago, that it needed to be got rid of.

If a majority felt for decades that these particular statues should come down, they would have come down. There was no barrier except the will of the people, and the will of the people was simply not there. Nearly as soon as there was a majority of people in Australia who wanted same-sex marriage, we got it. People had not wanted it 'for decades'. Same sex marriage went from politically unthinkable to political reality in only a few years. If a majority of people in Australia had supported same sex marriage in the 1970s, it would have happened by 1980.

If there is really a 'very clear majority' that wants these statues removed, no city council could resist it. If that majority has come to be formed very recently (and I don't believe there is evidence of a majority), then cities will respond. And if there is not a majority, if the majority think a particular statue should stay, then it should stay.

If a majority of 50%+1 vote (or 25% of the population at 50% abstention) decides that the other 50% should be enslaved, then that's what should happen.

Right?

The logical justification is clearly the same.

 

[Metaphor]

What you and others appear to be saying is people felt like this for decades and nothing changed.

Well, let's explore that. Did a 'very clear majority', for decades, feel that way about the statues being scuttled? I don't think that's the case at all. In fact, I don't think a very clear majority supports it right now. In fact, I don't even think some of the people in the mob who are doing the tearing down necessarily thought, say six months ago, that it needed to be got rid of.

If a majority felt for decades that these particular statues should come down, they would have come down. There was no barrier except the will of the people, and the will of the people was simply not there. Nearly as soon as there was a majority of people in Australia who wanted same-sex marriage, we got it. People had not wanted it 'for decades'. Same sex marriage went from politically unthinkable to political reality in only a few years. If a majority of people in Australia had supported same sex marriage in the 1970s, it would have happened by 1980.

If there is really a 'very clear majority' that wants these statues removed, no city council could resist it. If that majority has come to be formed very recently (and I don't believe there is evidence of a majority), then cities will respond. And if there is not a majority, if the majority think a particular statue should stay, then it should stay.

If a majority of 50%+1 vote (or 25% of the population at 50% abstention) decides that the other 50% should be enslaved, then that's what should happen.

Right?

The logical justification is clearly the same.

If a majority of people wanted to enslave a minority, it would happen. If people had wanted to do it for decades, it would happen. It would happen even if it were unconstitutional--that's what revolutions are.

 

[bilby]

Why did it take so long for outrage to build to the point of rioting, looting and damaging monuments indiscriminately? Affirmative action in the form of peaceful protest and/or civil disobedience, being the most effective means of pushing for change, should have resolved the issue decades ago, removing what should be removed

This appears to be an almost perfect argument against your position. Perhaps you should think about it some more.

Oh? What exactly is my position?

I got the vague impression that it could, just possibly, be something like:

... The issue from the beginning was how to go about initiating change or reform, removing, relocating or destroying public monuments.

Which, to repeat, does not mean that there are not some that should be relocated or destroyed, only the process by which that is done: peaceful protest and/or civil disobedience.

...

 

[DBT]

Oh? What exactly is my position?

I got the vague impression that it could, just possibly, be something like:

... The issue from the beginning was how to go about initiating change or reform, removing, relocating or destroying public monuments.

Which, to repeat, does not mean that there are not some that should be relocated or destroyed, only the process by which that is done: peaceful protest and/or civil disobedience.

...

Yes that's where I repeated that there probably are statues that should be relocated or destroyed, that the issue here is how to go about achieving that aim, determining what should stay, what should be moved, what should destroyed, ie, peaceful protest and/or civil disobedience pressuring councils/government to assess and act, without rioting, looting, fighting in the streets and indiscriminate destruction.

 

[Jokodo]

What you and others appear to be saying is people felt like this for decades and nothing changed.

Well, let's explore that. Did a 'very clear majority', for decades, feel that way about the statues being scuttled? I don't think that's the case at all. In fact, I don't think a very clear majority supports it right now. In fact, I don't even think some of the people in the mob who are doing the tearing down necessarily thought, say six months ago, that it needed to be got rid of.

If a majority felt for decades that these particular statues should come down, they would have come down. There was no barrier except the will of the people, and the will of the people was simply not there. Nearly as soon as there was a majority of people in Australia who wanted same-sex marriage, we got it. People had not wanted it 'for decades'. Same sex marriage went from politically unthinkable to political reality in only a few years. If a majority of people in Australia had supported same sex marriage in the 1970s, it would have happened by 1980.

If there is really a 'very clear majority' that wants these statues removed, no city council could resist it. If that majority has come to be formed very recently (and I don't believe there is evidence of a majority), then cities will respond. And if there is not a majority, if the majority think a particular statue should stay, then it should stay.

If a majority of 50%+1 vote (or 25% of the population at 50% abstention) decides that the other 50% should be enslaved, then that's what should happen.

Right?

The logical justification is clearly the same.

If a majority of people wanted to enslave a minority, it would happen. If people had wanted to do it for decades, it would happen. It would happen even if it were unconstitutional--that's what revolutions are.

You said it should happen, not it would happen. One of them is a factual claim, the other a moral judgment. Do you stand by your moral judgment?