Racket wrote:
1100 wrote:
Well, I could have told you that.
In fact, I did.
:-)
Dangerous thinking
How so? Are you ready to defend your fearful leader, Trump, at all costs?
Trump is the most feminine president ever. He takes over an hour every day to get his makeup and hair the way he likes it. Most women don't take anywhere near that long to get ready.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
When it comes to statues, this is a legitimate argument but there is also a legitimate counter-argument.
Sometimes fighting injustice requires illegal acts. In the civil rights era, protesters illegally occupied buildings, illegally staged marches, and performed all kinds of other acts of civil disobedience. It can be argued that without civil disobedience, the civil rights laws we have today would have never been passed.
The same thing can be said about destruction of confederate statues. These acts of civil disobedience are incredibly powerful. To see the physical destruction of these relics by people who are brave enough to face arrest sends a powerful message to the power structure that the people are rising up. And furthermore, that bravery becomes contagious to the point that government can no longer ignore it.
Often times, there are only two ways to bring about lasting social change:
1. Civil disobedience
2. Violent uprising
Which one would you prefer?
I don't accept your premise. I would prefer not having a group of people decide for the population what they feel is appropriate or not. That's why we have elections.
There can be a role for civil disobedience is cases of blatant evil that needs to be stopped. This doesn't meet that criterion. The population can debate which statues are appropriate or not. Some might say any person who owned slaves should have their statue removed. Others might say if the reason they are famous is due to their role in fighting for slavery then their statue should be removed.
I don't want a group of law breaking people to make the decision for the rest of us.
The image of law breakers, combined with liberal tolerance of it, works to trump's advantage. And who wants that?
Going to have to agree with this. I can even concede that some of this statue tearing down has helped to further other governments to officially remove statues, (like my own capital city of Columbus, OH which took down Columbus' statue this week), but the ends can't justify the means here. We still must be a nation of laws, and we can't just look the other way when there is a law being broken when we are in favor of that law being broken. Civil disobedience has its place, but, as much as I abhor most of those statues that are being torn down, this doesn't rise to that level.
The best solution to the statue issues is as someone suggested: don't put up so many statues.
opinion of the majority wrote:
The best solution to the statue issues is as someone suggested: don't put up so many statues.
So Trump announces an executive order to make more statues.
L L wrote:
Were there complaints about erasing history when the people of Iraq tore down the statue of Saddam Hussein?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/SaddamStatue.jpg/220px-SaddamStatue.jpg
Not bad as rhetorical questions go. But I think that the real answer is, "I don't know."
Unless you lived in Iraq at the time or followed very closely the local news of what was going on over there then I suspect that neither do you.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
When it comes to statues, this is a legitimate argument but there is also a legitimate counter-argument.
Sometimes fighting injustice requires illegal acts. In the civil rights era, protesters illegally occupied buildings, illegally staged marches, and performed all kinds of other acts of civil disobedience. It can be argued that without civil disobedience, the civil rights laws we have today would have never been passed.
The same thing can be said about destruction of confederate statues. These acts of civil disobedience are incredibly powerful. To see the physical destruction of these relics by people who are brave enough to face arrest sends a powerful message to the power structure that the people are rising up. And furthermore, that bravery becomes contagious to the point that government can no longer ignore it.
Often times, there are only two ways to bring about lasting social change:
1. Civil disobedience
2. Violent uprising
Which one would you prefer?
I don't accept your premise. I would prefer not having a group of people decide for the population what they feel is appropriate or not. That's why we have elections.
There can be a role for civil disobedience is cases of blatant evil that needs to be stopped. This doesn't meet that criterion. The population can debate which statues are appropriate or not. Some might say any person who owned slaves should have their statue removed. Others might say if the reason they are famous is due to their role in fighting for slavery then their statue should be removed.
I don't want a group of law breaking people to make the decision for the rest of us.
The image of law breakers, combined with liberal tolerance of it, works to trump's advantage. And who wants that?
Ah, a well-argued point here on LetsRun! Will miracles never cease?
Racket wrote:
1100 wrote:
Well, I could have told you that.
In fact, I did.
:-)
Dangerous thinking
Only for fools who take these words literally.
i assume, among us friends on LRC, that we are not fools who take such words literally.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
When it comes to statues, this is a legitimate argument but there is also a legitimate counter-argument.
Sometimes fighting injustice requires illegal acts. In the civil rights era, protesters illegally occupied buildings, illegally staged marches, and performed all kinds of other acts of civil disobedience. It can be argued that without civil disobedience, the civil rights laws we have today would have never been passed.
The same thing can be said about destruction of confederate statues. These acts of civil disobedience are incredibly powerful. To see the physical destruction of these relics by people who are brave enough to face arrest sends a powerful message to the power structure that the people are rising up. And furthermore, that bravery becomes contagious to the point that government can no longer ignore it.
Often times, there are only two ways to bring about lasting social change:
1. Civil disobedience
2. Violent uprising
Which one would you prefer?
I don't accept your premise. I would prefer not having a group of people decide for the population what they feel is appropriate or not. That's why we have elections.
There can be a role for civil disobedience is cases of blatant evil that needs to be stopped. This doesn't meet that criterion. The population can debate which statues are appropriate or not. Some might say any person who owned slaves should have their statue removed. Others might say if the reason they are famous is due to their role in fighting for slavery then their statue should be removed.
I don't want a group of law breaking people to make the decision for the rest of us.
The image of law breakers, combined with liberal tolerance of it, works to trump's advantage. And who wants that?
So institutional racism is not a blatant evil that needs to be stopped?
The toppling of statues is not just about the statues themselves. It is an act of civil disobedience that draws attention to the larger issues. People are bravely risking a lot of jail time to tear down the statues and make the larger point around BLM.
As I said, your point of view is perfectly valid. But we must recognize that the democratic process doesn't always work. Sometimes, it takes more than voter registration drives to change public opinion and affect change.
Hillary Clinton made a mistake in the 2016 referring to Trump supporters as a basketful of deplorables. That galvanized support for him.
Trump is shouting about radical liberal Democrats and maligning the whole group.
That’s a terrible strategy to get more votes.
L L wrote:
opinion of the majority wrote:
The best solution to the statue issues is as someone suggested: don't put up so many statues.
So Trump announces an executive order to make more statues.
It seems pretty obvious that his reasoning for that is to put up a lot of statues of himself across the USA. It can't be called vanity if the statue set includes his "heroes" Sean Hannity, Billy Graham, and Rush Limbaugh, with Trump at double size because the hands would be bigger.
opinion of the majority wrote:
The best solution to the statue issues is as someone suggested: don't put up so many statues.
I agree with that. Oddly enough many people almost have divine worship of such statues. Many of those same people also identify as Evangelical Christians which is very odd.
L L wrote:
We’re there complaints about erasing history when the people of Iraq tore down the statue of Saddam Hussein?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/SaddamStatue.jpg/220px-SaddamStatue.jpg
Wait, but these statues are OUR heritage, so it’s different
opinion of the majority wrote:
The best solution to the statue issues is as someone suggested: don't put up so many statues.
Better yet, let's get with a tech solution that is adaptable and can change as the needs of our people change. Wait for it...... holograms.
Can be changes with the flip of a switch.
You heard it here first!
Dan Kahneman wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
When it comes to statues, this is a legitimate argument but there is also a legitimate counter-argument.
Sometimes fighting injustice requires illegal acts. In the civil rights era, protesters illegally occupied buildings, illegally staged marches, and performed all kinds of other acts of civil disobedience. It can be argued that without civil disobedience, the civil rights laws we have today would have never been passed.
The same thing can be said about destruction of confederate statues. These acts of civil disobedience are incredibly powerful. To see the physical destruction of these relics by people who are brave enough to face arrest sends a powerful message to the power structure that the people are rising up. And furthermore, that bravery becomes contagious to the point that government can no longer ignore it.
Often times, there are only two ways to bring about lasting social change:
1. Civil disobedience
2. Violent uprising
Which one would you prefer?
I don't accept your premise. I would prefer not having a group of people decide for the population what they feel is appropriate or not. That's why we have elections.
There can be a role for civil disobedience is cases of blatant evil that needs to be stopped. This doesn't meet that criterion. The population can debate which statues are appropriate or not. Some might say any person who owned slaves should have their statue removed. Others might say if the reason they are famous is due to their role in fighting for slavery then their statue should be removed.
I don't want a group of law breaking people to make the decision for the rest of us.
The image of law breakers, combined with liberal tolerance of it, works to trump's advantage. And who wants that?
Nobody on the left wants to hand the orange man any advantage. I guess the one thing it’s doing is accelerating the conversation and need for action... it’s forcing trump’s hand and keeping him busy focusing on statues while the country continues to crumble around him for other reasons. I guess some are basically daring him to use his powers to force them to stop... they are betting more Americans are seeing this as an expression of anger against the racist system, obviously a symbolic move. I think it’s a risky move and may backfire but we will see.
I don’t know if this issue is yet big enough to make a difference going into November but it does seem obvious his neglect and total recklessness with COVID is hurting him bigly. Trying to change the subject doesn’t seem to be helping him this time either.
Racket wrote:
1100 wrote:
Well, I could have told you that.
In fact, I did.
:-)
Dangerous thinking
I hope you understood the reference.. but in all seriousness yeah you can’t turn your back on tens of millions of Americans who support trump but if it takes shutting these voters out of having a significant voice across a bunch of issues in order to keep the country rid of the likes of trump than so be it.
If you haven’t noticed we are well inside the danger zone here: thousands of Americans continue dying unnecessarily while other developed nations have COVID under control, we are seeing civil unrest across the nation without any shred of leadership to calm emotions, millions of jobs ain’t coming back anytime soon, and trump intentionally uses and accelerates divisiveness with every new tweet. We are stuck with a binary decision here so let’s call it what it is.
Fat hurts wrote:
Dan Kahneman wrote:
I don't accept your premise. I would prefer not having a group of people decide for the population what they feel is appropriate or not. That's why we have elections.
There can be a role for civil disobedience is cases of blatant evil that needs to be stopped. This doesn't meet that criterion. The population can debate which statues are appropriate or not. Some might say any person who owned slaves should have their statue removed. Others might say if the reason they are famous is due to their role in fighting for slavery then their statue should be removed.
I don't want a group of law breaking people to make the decision for the rest of us.
The image of law breakers, combined with liberal tolerance of it, works to trump's advantage. And who wants that?
So institutional racism is not a blatant evil that needs to be stopped?
The toppling of statues is not just about the statues themselves. It is an act of civil disobedience that draws attention to the larger issues. People are bravely risking a lot of jail time to tear down the statues and make the larger point around BLM.
As I said, your point of view is perfectly valid. But we must recognize that the democratic process doesn't always work. Sometimes, it takes more than voter registration drives to change public opinion and affect change.
Let me ask all posters this - how harmful is the act of taking a controversial statue down? For those of you who think it’s awful, is it because of the act itself of destroying property (seeing it similar to some other property with no actual practical use? Unlike a bus or light post..) Or are you annoyed at the history behind the statues being damaged?
While I think it’s u lawful and can give a poor impression of the protesters and movement behind it, I think it’s a very peaceful act. No one is getting hurt and no actual property with any useful value is being damaged. I acknowledge and respect that so much has been gained in history by civilians taking risks. I think they should be arrested but I do not think anyone’s blood should be boiling with anger because of some statue being brought down. The reactions across the country should serve as a measure of tolerance for change. Don’t forget that much of the world cheered when the wall was being torn down...
Flagpole wrote:
opinion of the majority wrote:
The best solution to the statue issues is as someone suggested: don't put up so many statues.
I agree with that. Oddly enough many people almost have divine worship of such statues. Many of those same people also identify as Evangelical Christians which is very odd.
AND many of those same folks will tell you that "Democrats put those statues up!"--which makes it harder for me to understand why they would object to their being taken down.
L L wrote:
Hillary Clinton made a mistake in the 2016 referring to Trump supporters as a basketful of deplorables. That galvanized support for him.
Trump is shouting about radical liberal Democrats and maligning the whole group.
That’s a terrible strategy to get more votes.
To clarify, he’s maligning a much bigger group than the basket of deplorables...
Flagpole wrote:
opinion of the majority wrote:
The best solution to the statue issues is as someone suggested: don't put up so many statues.
I agree with that. Oddly enough many people almost have divine worship of such statues. Many of those same people also identify as Evangelical Christians which is very odd.
That is fkn odd. Funny how agitated some of those folks can get at the destruction of a symbol while they are more than happy to try to control the sexual behavior of complete strangers and what they do with their pregnancies. Sorry, completely different topics but just pointing to the hypocrisy.
Flagpole wrote:
opinion of the majority wrote:
The best solution to the statue issues is as someone suggested: don't put up so many statues.
I agree with that. Oddly enough many people almost have divine worship of such statues. Many of those same people also identify as Evangelical Christians which is very odd.
I know you said "almost" and I know this is probably a tongue-in-cheek remark. But I do need to set the record straight here. As someone who has spent his whole life around evangelical Christians let me say that I have never seen or heard of any of them who ever come close to worship of statues.
They may now have a strong point of view on whether they should be torn down or not, but until this controversy, the subject of statues never came up. They weren't even discussed, much less worshiped.
