Thread of Statue Removals

[RomaVicta 30508]

7 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Does not compute.  These people are just being assholes now.

Yea. Embracing the symbolism rather than the cause. Victory won't be won by tearing down all the statues but only by actual reform and legislation.

I get the impression that the overzealous statue toppling is mostly done by white people. The original targets were Confederate statues because they glorify an actual defense of slavery. Makes sense.

It gets more complicated when you go after anyone who owned slaves. Some inherited them. Some freed them (Washington). Some were vicious, callous plantation tyrants. 

It may sound odd, but I'd be fine with representative from the local black community deciding what they want to come down. Ask them to be fair, and then do as they decide. If they say Washington goes, then down he comes even though I revere the man. A united country is more important to me and likely to George Washington as well. He was a truly great man.

White people running around tearing up things independent of black input may have strange impetus. Guilt, shame, virtue signalling, ingnorance? Who knows? Just support BLM and let them stay in the lead. They're good at it.

[elfenix 34661]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

As ignorant as they may be, the mobs removing statues show greater historical/symbolic awareness than the groups who erected the statues in the first place.

i think the daughters were well aware of what they were doing

[Brisketexan 106642]

 

I gotta say...I find it pretty ironic to hear about “abandoning ideals” from the folks who defend a regime that launched a militarized attack on people peacefully exercising their sacred first amendment rights (wait, I forget - the only constitutional provision that’s really sacred is the 2nd amendment)....so that the president could take a picture holding a Bible upside down.

Or who celebrate the police, who are on video literally hundreds of times in the past few weeks attacking people who are just protesting - doing their first amendment thing.

Statues are nothing. Actually oppressing and attacking people - that’s the kind of “abandoning ideals” that should matter.

[bad_teammate 13481]

6 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Yea. Embracing the symbolism rather than the cause. 

Who determines the symbology?

That's a serious question that no one is addressing. Who made the determination?

Quote

I get the impression that the overzealous statue toppling is mostly done by white people.

Most Americans are white so, sure.

Are white people supposed to not ally themselves with anti-racism?

Quote

It may sound odd, but I'd be fine with representative from the local black community deciding what they want to come down. Ask them to be fair, and then do as they decide. If they say Washington goes, then down he comes even though I revere the man. A united country is more important to me and likely to George Washington as well. He was a truly great man.

Wouldn't unity be indiciated by mass, cross-racial popular action?

Are black people mad about Grant being taken down? Do they care?

Quote

White people running around tearing up things independent of black input may have strange impetus. Guilt, shame, virtue signalling, ingnorance? Who knows? Just support BLM and let them stay in the lead. They're good at it.

You're inventing this. Literally an invention in your mind.

2 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I don’t think they took it down because they viewed is a symbol against slavery.  I really don’t know why they did it - maybe they don’t know who Grant was or what he worked to accomplish, maybe they thought it was someone else, maybe it was just the closest statue at hand and they were swept away in the transcendent monument vandalism spirit.  But I don’t care what their intentions were.  I know why you would like to frame the discussion on their righteous motives, but I don’t care and I don’t think stupidity and exuberance are valid excuses.  

Then you have nothing worthwhile to say, because intentions are the key issue at play.

Otherwise you're just mad about vandalism like a fucking authoritarian dork.

[RomaVicta 30508]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Who determines the symbology?

That's a serious question that no one is addressing. Who made the determination?

Most Americans are white so, sure.

Are white people supposed to not ally themselves with anti-racism?

Wouldn't unity be indiciated by mass, cross-racial popular action?

Are black people mad about Grant being taken down? Do they care?

You're inventing this. Literally an invention in your mind.

Then you have nothing worthwhile to say, because intentions are the key issue at play.

Otherwise you're just mad about vandalism like a fucking authoritarian dork.

Either I have a problem writing or you have a problem reading.

[bad_teammate 13481]

More on the idea of black people only being qualified... fuck that.

If my brother rapes someone I'm not going to say, "Well he's my brother so I'm not going to do anything, I'll wait for rape victims to do something."
If my country invades a country and kills 1M of its people I'm not going to say, "Well I'm not Iraqi so I shouldn't say/do anything, I'll let Iraqis take the lead."

Fuck that shit.

It is our responsibility to police ourselves, not wait around for blacks to drag us into the future. We created the mess, we should clean it up.

[GRHorn 105]

49 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

These are american citizens taking down a symbol against slavery on American soil, not by vote or popular consensus, but by mob rule representing a minority opinion.  I'm an American citizen who lives on american soil.  I don't like vandalism of monuments against slavery by mobs caught up in a mindless frenzy anywhere in the US.  If conservatives took down the exact same statue, there would be massive public outrage.  Since it is your fellow leftists, you wonder why anyone should care - just look the other way as their motives were pure, even if they don't know history.  

 

Yes, historical ignorance and "overexuberance" of mindless mobs is the crime.  People do not like mindless shit for brains imbeciles vandalizing what they do not understand.  

What you need to understand is B_T just wants to watch the world burn. 

[bad_teammate 13481]

Just now, Axiom of Choice said:

The most dangerous & destructive people are those who are angry and stupid and perceive themselves as righteous.  

Depending on their motivations and intentions, sure.

"Nazis feel strongly about things. Anti-Nazis feel strongly about things. Who can say what the difference is?" - complete moron who thinks he's smart

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2649]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

That actually pisses you off? I see red when seeing cops murder someone on the street not some statue that doesn’t matter.

besides Ulysses isn’t even the best Grant.  Cary, Bud and Lou have him beat.

That’s why I said pissed. You realize there is a whole spectrom of anger right?  
 

annoyed all the way to furious?  

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Direct question for you, comrade:
Do you agree with the decision to pull down the statue of Grant, or do you not agree?

I neither agree nor disagree. I don't care and genuinely can't imagine caring.

I don't see Grant as a very divisive figure but I also don't think he's important and in need of recognition of honoring. It's like being mad about a Wendy's closing down 1500 miles away. I don't care.

I DO care, however, about white conservative men wanting to make sure their ideology and worldview are enshrined on public lands forever.

[Brisketexan 106642]

You either are in the category or agreement or not agreement.  This is by law of excluded middle.  Non agreement does not necessarily  mean against.   Based on your answer, I presume you are in the category of non agreement.  
 
More to the point, this is a spineless attempt at a non answer and obvious shift in focus.   If you ever happen to find yourself in the company of non imbeciles, you should not give responses like this or they will immediately see through it and dismiss you as a simple dishonest proselytizer. 

I think it’s problematic that a lot of people, mostly white men, care 1000x more about the fate of a statue of a man famous for a war over 150 years ago than they are about, say, ongoing systemic racism, a regime that happily runs violently over the 1st amendment, and similar matters. That’s what I care about. That this country is run mostly by people who care more about bronze depictions of people than they do actual people.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

 

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Yea. Embracing the symbolism rather than the cause. Victory won't be won by tearing down all the statues but only by actual reform and legislation.

I get the impression that the overzealous statue toppling is mostly done by white people. The original targets were Confederate statues because they glorify an actual defense of slavery. Makes sense.

It gets more complicated when you go after anyone who owned slaves. Some inherited them. Some freed them (Washington). Some were vicious, callous plantation tyrants. 

It may sound odd, but I'd be fine with representative from the local black community deciding what they want to come down. Ask them to be fair, and then do as they decide. If they say Washington goes, then down he comes even though I revere the man. A united country is more important to me and likely to George Washington as well. He was a truly great man.

White people running around tearing up things independent of black input may have strange impetus. Guilt, shame, virtue signalling, ingnorance? Who knows? Just support BLM and let them stay in the lead. They're good at it.

Ulysses S. Grant Launched an Illegal War Against the Plains Indians, Then Lied About It

The president promised peace with Indians — and covertly hatched the plot that provoked one of the bloodiest conflicts in the West
 

By Peter Cozzens 
SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE 
NOVEMBER 2016
 

Spoiler

 

In July 1874, Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer led a thousand-man expedition into the Black Hills, in present-day South Dakota. He was under orders to scout a suitable site for a military post, a mission personally approved by President Ulysses S. Grant, but he also brought along two prospectors, outfitted at his expense. Although largely unexplored by whites, the Black Hills were long rumored to be rich in gold, and Custer’s prospectors discovered what he reported as “paying quantities” of the precious metal. A correspondent for the Chicago Inter Ocean who accompanied the expedition was less restrained in his dispatch: “From the grass roots down it was ‘pay dirt.’” Taking him at his word, the nation’s press whipped up a frenzy over a “new El Dorado” in the American West.

The United States was going into the second year of a crippling economic depression, and the nation desperately needed a financial lift. Within a year of Custer’s discovery, more than a thousand miners had streamed into the Black Hills. Soon Western newspapers and Western congressmen were demanding that Grant annex the land.

 In July 1874, Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer led a thousand-man expedition into the Black Hills, in present-day South Dakota. He was under orders to scout a suitable site for a military post, a mission personally approved by President Ulysses S. Grant, but he also brought along two prospectors, outfitted at his expense. Although largely unexplored by whites, the Black Hills were long rumored to be rich in gold, and Custer’s prospectors discovered what he reported as “paying quantities” of the precious metal. A correspondent for the Chicago Inter Ocean who accompanied the expedition was less restrained in his dispatch: “From the grass roots down it was ‘pay dirt.’” Taking him at his word, the nation’s press whipped up a frenzy over a “new El Dorado” in the American West.

The United States was going into the second year of a crippling economic depression, and the nation desperately needed a financial lift. Within a year of Custer’s discovery, more than a thousand miners had streamed into the Black Hills. Soon Western newspapers and Western congressmen were demanding that Grant annex the land.

There was one problem: The Black Hills belonged to the Lakota Indians, the most potent Indian power on the Great Plains. They had taken the territory from the Kiowas and the Crows, and they had signed a treaty with the United States guaranteeing their rights to the region. The Lakotas most esteemed the Paha Sapa (literally, “hills that are black”) not for their mystic aura, as is commonly assumed, but for their material bounty. The hills were their meat locker, a game reserve to be tapped in times of hunger.

The outcry for annexation brought Grant to a crossroads. He had taken office in 1869 on a pledge to keep the West free of war. “Our dealings with the Indians properly lay us open to charges of cruelty and swindling,” he had said, and he had staked his administration to a Peace Policy intended to assimilate Plains nations into white civilization. Now, Grant was forced to choose between the electorate and the Indians.

He had no legal reason for seizing the Black Hills, so he invented one, convening a secret White House cabal to plan a war against the Lakotas. Four documents, held at the Library of Congress and the United States Military Academy Library, leave no doubt: The Grant administration launched an illegal war and then lied to Congress and the American people about it. The episode hasn’t been examined outside the specialty literature on the Plains wars.

 

When it comes to Grant, you might want to expand the committee to include at least one Lakota there, chief. (No racist.)

[Michael Knight 13188]

When the revolution comes and the proletariat line up the bourgeoisie to be shot bad_teammate is going to be caught up in the exuberance of the crowd and no one will care because it's 1000 miles away

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

Further to my previous post, we tend to see American history as binary; either Blacks vs Whites, or Righteous North vs Treasonous, Racist South.

It's not that simple. Union generals are lionized for putting down the rebellion, even when they resorted to total war on the civilian population, but then we just don't hear about some of those same generals got up to out west in the 1870s -- incessant total war on a civilian population in a blatant ethnic cleansing-fueled land grab -- because it doesn't fit the good guys vs bad guys narrative we seem to require. 

Five years ago I was opposed to pulling down Confederate monuments not because of what they stood for but because logic demanded that once you took them down, everything else was fair game. At the time, America reasoned that the Confederate statues were coming down primarily because those men had been traitors, sort of ducking the underlying questions of slavery and racism. It just doesn't work like that. Do you think the descendants of slaves ever thought that it mattered more that Lee and Davis and Jackson et al detached from one racist gov't in an attempt to form an even more racist gov't?

Or that the descendants of the Lakota, Comanche, Apache, Cherokee, Choctaw, Iroquois or Navajo wouldn't mind too much if our entire civilization, the one we imposed on them minus their invitation, crumbled into dust?

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

This applies to America, not just Rohingya in Burma or Muslims in Bosnia.

I just really fucking hate hypocrisy. Always have.

[Saint Austin 776]

7 hours ago, Xian said:

The grant statute legit pisses me off 

 

[Brisketexan 106642]

Who are the ones who care the most about men who fought a war 150 years ago?  The ones who form a mob to pull a statue of him down, or the ones who talk about it on the internet?   
 
You know nothing about what I care about.  Arguing a statue of Grant should not be pulled down does not imply one doesn’t care about other abuses and oppression.  The two are obviously not mutually exclusive and anyone attempting to frame it that way is engaging in dishonest rhetoric.  

Oh, it’s not your argument about the Grant statue that implies that you don’t care about other abuses or oppression. It’s the fact that you and many like you actually express your concern, in measurable and quantifiable ways, more significantly for issues like a Grant statue than you do for actual, real abuses and oppression occurring in real time.

Conservative white males in this country spend 1000x more energy worrying about statues than they do about real people and real violations of rights happening today. It’s actually pretty sickening. I’d gladly melt down every damned statue in the country if, In exchange, we got an actual just and fair society for all. I’d fire up the smelter myself, because people matter more than goddamned chunks of metal.

[workswithseed 2201]

28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, it’s not your argument about the Grant statue that implies that you don’t care about other abuses or oppression. It’s the fact that you and many like you actually express your concern, in measurable and quantifiable ways, more significantly for issues like a Grant statue than you do for actual, real abuses and oppression occurring in real time.

Conservative white males in this country spend 1000x more energy worrying about statues than they do about real people and real violations of rights happening today. It’s actually pretty sickening. I’d gladly melt down every damned statue in the country if, In exchange, we got an actual just and fair society for all. I’d fire up the smelter myself, because people matter more than goddamned chunks of metal.

C'mon, you'd melt every statue for Hitler, and people like him. He's people, so why not?

Also you are so deep into the thought that no one cares about the low and down trodden, but you do. You feel so much more than every conservative non white. You might as well kill them since they care so little, fucking throw them in the god-damned fire of Hades. They are worthless and should fucking die.

[Gatorubet 30637]

2 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You only know about my expression of concern by a few selected posts on this site.  Maybe in real life and elsewhere I invest time and energy into things I believe in but don't feel the need to broadcast here in personal blog style for upvotes.  I know that might seem foreign to you, but many people invest energy into things for their own sake and leave it at that.  

Maybe?  Bold talk right there.   Maybe I date super models while inventing cancer cures and subbing for close work money shot scenes in pornos?  Maybe. 

 

[bad_teammate 13481]

2 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You either are in the category or agreement or not agreement.  This is by law of excluded middle.  Non agreement does not necessarily  mean against.   Based on your answer, I presume you are in the category of non agreement.  

Watching an idiot set a logic trap is equally tedious and adorable.

Here was your question: "Do you agree with the decision to pull down the statue of Grant, or do you not agree?"

Here is my answer: Neither.

Ask a better question if you want a different answer. You can take your idiotic misapplication of the law of the excluded middle (it applies to true/false statements, you dumb bitch, and what you asked me isn't that).

DB: "Do you want sardines or ortolan?"
- "Neither"
DB: "Uh, well actually by the law of the excluded middle you have to want one..."

Quote

More to the point, this is a spineless attempt at a non answer and obvious shift in focus.   If you ever happen to find yourself in the company of non imbeciles, you should not give responses like this or they will immediately see through it and dismiss you as a simple dishonest proselytizer. 

As long as I'm talking to you, dumb bitch, this is an impossibility.

2 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

When the revolution comes and the proletariat line up the bourgeoisie to be shot bad_teammate is going to be caught up in the exuberance of the crowd and no one will care because it's 1000 miles away

This is very true.

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Conservative white males in this country spend 1000x more energy worrying about statues than they do about real people and real violations of rights happening today.

Nah dude he cares a lot. Caring about actual abused humans is his Canadian girlfriend. You wouldn't know her.

[Brisketexan 106642]

You only know about my expression of concern by a few selected posts on this site.  Maybe in real life and elsewhere I invest time and energy into things I believe in but don't feel the need to broadcast here in personal blog style for upvotes.  I know that might seem foreign to you, but many people invest energy into things for their own sake and leave it at that.  

Cool, cool. Yet you care enough about the statues to post about them and issues like them more than you do about people actually suffering. I’ll take you at face value. It seems pretty accurate.

And works with seed, nice histrionics...touched a nerve, I think.

I’d just rather live in a country where folks like you care about their fellow citizens as much as they care about statues of dead guys. I’m good with that preference.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[workswithseed 2201]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool, cool. Yet you care enough about the statues to post about them and issues like them more than you do about people actually suffering. I’ll take you at face value. It seems pretty accurate.

And works with seed, nice histrionics...touched a nerve, I think.

I’d just rather live in a country where folks like you care about their fellow citizens as much as they care about statues of dead guys. I’m good with that preference.

I've just had 4 shots of tequila, and have been drinking beer and cider 2 hours before that.

I'm kinda happy how well written that came out 

[Brisketexan 106642]

I'd rather live in a country where people don't cash in their good deeds on internet forums in effort to gain moral high ground to win internet debate games.  

Yeah...I just know that I’ve lived I a country where the dominant class has poured in huge amounts of efforts to “preserve history” compared to even ALLOWING shat upon communities to have a voice. And from all of the concern they continue to voice, that hasn’t changed.

Caring more about fucking statues than people. We see you. That’s the fucking point. You’ve done it for too fucking long, so fuck your opinion about statues. You’ve lost any credibility or authority.

I do t care if you think I’m a good and moral person or not. I’m just going to call you on your shiftiness, and I’ll keep doing it. Statues matter....more than actually remedying broken, racist systems. That’s exactly why we have been and remain fucked.

[bad_teammate 13481]

16 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I think it is ridiculous for us all to talk about how much we care about the downtrodden and those on the margins of society. Do what you can with your own time and capital and let's just assume that we all care.  I don't get the point of us all repeating it on a message board incessantly as if it means anything.  Yes, we all want to help the less fortunate.

We do not, in fact, all want to help the less fortunate.

Quote

How does this justify pulling down the statue of Grant?

Is it an act that requires justification?

Quote

You think you are above the law of excluded middle and have found the elusive tertium quid.  Very impressive stuff.  

The law of the excluded middle applies to true/false statements. The question you asked was not based on a true/false statement and did not elicit a true/false statement as a response. Your question was essentially one of preference; law of excluded middle doesn't apply to that.

There is a type of stupid person who has gotten an education and thinks that has made him smart instead of simply giving him a broader vocabulary with which to be stupid.

 

 

[Brisketexan 106642]

I've cared so much that I have never participated in any group or activity whose goal is to put up or pull down a statue.  I've only given a few posts about them on a message board.  I care so much about the statues.  Or maybe when statues that are symbols against slavery are being pulled down and people claim to not like this practice, a garbage rhetorical tactic is to mindlessly repeat "why do you care more about statues than people!?!?" 
You think I am being shifty, so let's see if we can find some common ground.  Do you think symbols of Grant should be pulled down/removed?

I don’t think it matters. And I think the folks who DO think it matters have zero authority on the matter, because they’ve spent decades defending fucking statues over people. That includes folks like you.

[bad_teammate 13481]

51 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Here is an equivalent statement for you in which it may be more obvious that LEM applies; feel free to answer:

(p)  bad teammate agrees with the decision to pull down Grant statue.

It's not "more obvious" that it applies, it simply does apply where your previous attempts did not.

I cannot answer because I don't know what "agrees with" means in this context because no one has given me the statue-puller's argument to agree or disagree with. There is no specific proposition with which to agree or disagree. Give me something I can actually agree or disagree with without having to read your mind.

I have the exact same feeling about the statue being down as the statue being up: Complete indifference.

My supposition is that they were going after slaveowners, and Grant was, albeit temporarily, a slaveowner.

[bad_teammate 13481]

Also, if you can't understand why someone would care about the lives of human beings who live far away but not care about statues you're either lying or you're an actual sociopath.

[bad_teammate 13481]

2 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I have no idea why you think that me asking if you agree with some decision or not is somehow semantically different than asking if the statement of you agreeing with the decision is true or not

Because you brought in a logical fallacy argument like a fucking dork and didn't even do it right, so I had to teach you about the stupid pedantic shit you thought you were smart for bringing up. You could've just asked a better question from the beginning to get a clear answer.

Again, I'm watching an imbecile try to set a logic trap.

Quote

 What I’m trying to get at is if you condone the action or not.

I have no power to "condone" the behavior because I have no authority in the situation. Yet another bad question because you don't know what words mean.

I'm fine with it.
- I don't care about statues in general.
- I like direct action when the purpose/intentions are good.

If it comes out that the people who pulled it down did so because they literally want all white people murdered, then I am against it because of their intentions/motivations.

Imagine the stupidity of this question: "Hey, do you agree with John and Sally getting divorced?" when you don't know John or Sally or why they got divorced.

Quote

 If you don’t have enough information to agree or simply don’t care enough to agree, then you are in the category of not agree.

I don't have enough information to disagree and don't care enough to disagree, so I'm in the category of agree.

Could you please get to whatever fucking point you think you're making? Can we get to the punchline?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Sawbonz 28087]

11 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, it’s not your argument about the Grant statue that implies that you don’t care about other abuses or oppression. It’s the fact that you and many like you actually express your concern, in measurable and quantifiable ways, more significantly for issues like a Grant statue than you do for actual, real abuses and oppression occurring in real time.

Conservative white males in this country spend 1000x more energy worrying about statues than they do about real people and real violations of rights happening today. It’s actually pretty sickening. I’d gladly melt down every damned statue in the country if, In exchange, we got an actual just and fair society for all. I’d fire up the smelter myself, because people matter more than goddamned chunks of metal.

 

10 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah...I just know that I’ve lived I a country where the dominant class has poured in huge amounts of efforts to “preserve history” compared to even ALLOWING shat upon communities to have a voice. And from all of the concern they continue to voice, that hasn’t changed.

Caring more about fucking statues than people. We see you. That’s the fucking point. You’ve done it for too fucking long, so fuck your opinion about statues. You’ve lost any credibility or authority.

I do t care if you think I’m a good and moral person or not. I’m just going to call you on your shiftiness, and I’ll keep doing it. Statues matter....more than actually remedying broken, racist systems. That’s exactly why we have been and remain fucked.

Peak Brisket folks

[Trey3216 15450]

8 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I would like to help the less fortunate.  I will extend the benefit of the doubt and assume you and other participants on this forum would like to do so as well.  Assuming otherwise and applying this to anyone who disagrees does not make it so and does not give any debate advantage

I framed the question in terms of whether you agree or not.  LEM applies.  Since you probably looked up LEM on a quick reference site and read that it pertains to truth, you should know that every question can be framed in terms of truth.  LEM applies generally to any category; in other words, everything is in some category S or it is not (or for any x, it has property S or is does not, or predicate S is either the case for every object x or it is not, and so on).  LEM is often discussed without explicit reference to truth, and can be written in logic syntax and can also be phrased in natural language without explicit reference to truth, e.g. p is either the case or it is not the case. Here is an equivalent statement for you in which it may be more obvious that LEM applies; feel free to answer:  

(p)  bad teammate agrees with the decision to pull down Grant statue.

According to LEM it is either p ∨ ¬p.  So is p the case or is p not the case?  If you prefer it in terms of truth, then is p true or is it not true?  

 

Lumping individuals into large groups based on stereotypes is a bad thing to do.  This is the case even when it clashes with some other dogma you hold.  You believe I am in some group because I don't like statues of Grant being pulled down (which is a very stupid generalization even by reactive stereotype standards) and apparently think I have been in this camp for decades.  I did not even know this was an issue to take a stand against until this week.  This is an absurd accusation for many reasons.  

 

Yep, the quest for cosmic justice eventually leads down a road of moral fascism 

[DDD Dad 14572]

What you are seeing is the fool’s errand of attempting to immortalize a flawed human by creating an idol to him or her. (All humans are flawed, btw)

[Nivek 17340]

22 hours ago, elfenix said:

On 6/20/2020 at 9:10 AM, Lobo said:

StassneyHorn-I'm willing to cut you in for 30% of my new video game series, but you gotta find a programmer/designer as well. 
CALL OF DUTY:  CONFEDERATE STATUE EDITION.  
You basically get geared up in your camo and tac gear, get your semi-automatics and your arsenal, take two weeks unpaid vacation from the plant, and you travel from southern town to southern town in a ridiculously oversized F-250 protecting statues from antifa and BLM.  Sometimes you even go undercover and infiltrate their ranks so you can save statues beforehand.  Other times, you gotta fistfight, small arms, large-scale platoon size battles, etc.  Some towns have cops that'll help you, some have cops that'll try to stop you.  In some towns, you're vilified, in others you're a hero.  So there's a heavy mental element to it besides all the shooting.  And you dial in your friends and they are rival mercenaries also trying to get contracts to safeguard statues in other southern towns and y'all have to build up a resume and compete for contracts, and sometimes even have to fight each other if you end up at the same site.  And the final mission is to of course to save the Final Trinity, the three officer statues in each of the 3 Confederate capitals-Danville, Montgomery, and Richmond. 
I promise we would sell 250,000 copies in the first year to gamers in the Deep South and Ohio.  However, it would destroy the rest of their brand, so they'll probably not allow to use the name and platform.  Shit.  Anybody got any workarounds?  I don't know how the splits work on video games, but is at least a $10mm idea.  

Read more  

Just so long as there's an accurate driving sim between each town and the F-250 is out of alignment

Must also include stops at the drive thru and sometimes with a panic inducing delay.

[HenryJames 67126]

23 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Yep, the quest for cosmic justice eventually leads down a road of moral fascism 

It helps to read his posts in the voice of Wallace Shawn.

[mdmost 43853]

 

[Stringer 1487]

Get rid of all statues.  They're fucking stupid and pointless.

[StassneyHorn 6755]

Dallas Morning News with a piece on getting rid of Confederate Heroes Day in Texas. It sometimes falls on MLK day as well.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2020/06/18/its-time-to-get-rid-of-confederate-heroes-day-as-an-official-state-holiday/

[Sawbonz 28087]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

It helps to read his posts in the voice of Wallace Shawn.

You talking about BT or BT

[HenryJames 67126]

 

[Guest Lobo]

Well that's a fuckton more impactful than just spray painting the Lee statue.  

I'd leave 'em up and simply erect signs with their name and Confederate Rank that says, "

"Robert E. Lee, General

War Between the States-Participant"

The statues, like the people who support their standing up in the first place, no longer have any place in our society.  

It's not wiping away who/what the statues represent, and erasing history that bothers Trump's southern base.  It's that removing them from public spaces is also a stark reminder to those people, that this nation likely no longer has a need for them either.  And that's why they voted for him in 2016, they feared it was coming.  Now, they know it's here. They're definitely turning out for him this November.  And if they don't get what they like, some of them are doing to take to violence.  

[Enchubben 5598]

Mt. Vernon is next. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Full view of the Teddy Roosevelt statue -

[HenryJames 67126]

[GRHorn 105]

show me the lie, all you people who imbed David Frum tweets? Let’s go all the way. 

[HenryJames 67126]

Ok. Next.

[mdmost 43853]

1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

Mt. Vernon is next. 

No, not really. They don't hide from George Washington owning slaves at Mt. Vernon. There are slave quarters still intact and they openly discuss what happened. 

[mdmost 43853]

9 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

show me the lie, all you people who imbed David Frum tweets? Let’s go all the way. 

So if libs tear demand The Atlantic fire every bigot who helped kill brown people in the Middle East, not that he cares about that, will he be fine with tearing down statues to complicated men who lived centuries ago and own other human beings?

[HenryJames 67126]

We should also shun uncomplicated people who promote conspiracies like underground child sex rings are being run by Hillary Clinton out of a DC pizza parlor. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

I put this in the Right Wing Violence thread but I figured I’d put it here too.

Being the only (?) current black driver in NASCAR and being vocal about them banning the confederate flag and wearing BLM gear at the track earned him this.