What is the Good in keeping Confederate Statues and such?

[Hypoxia]

Bruce Lee had no connexion with Robert E Lee.

Just saying.

 

[Ramone45]

I don't understand why now. As we move further and further away from this awful chapter in American History, why are these old statues becoming more of a problem. The simple effect of the passing of time changes their context. The Civil War was over 150years ago. People of good will are trying to move this country in the right direction for at least 2 generations despite recalcitrance from the culture we're trying to help. Simply stated, the controversy over these statues is a mere distraction from the real and tangible problems on which we should be focused. It simply plays into the hands of idiots and it has undoubtedly been a setback. Foolish. Like little children who didn't learn their lesson.

 

[phrodeau]

I don't understand why now. As we move further and further away from this awful chapter in American History, why are these old statues becoming more of a problem. The simple effect of the passing of time changes their context. The Civil War was over 150years ago. People of good will are trying to move this country in the right direction for at least 2 generations despite recalcitrance from the culture we're trying to help. Simply stated, the controversy over these statues is a mere distraction from the real and tangible problems on which we should be focused. It simply plays into the hands of idiots and it has undoubtedly been a setback. Foolish. Like little children who didn't learn their lesson.

The statues are not becoming more of a problem. They have always been a problem for people, but not as much of a problem as Jim Crow laws, miscegenation laws, voter suppression, incarceration bias, housing discrimination, job discrimination, schooling discrimination, law enforcement bias and wage inequality, to name a few.

The statues should never have been erected in the first place, since all they did was appease and embolden the losers. Take them down as soon as possible. If it isn't possible for a few more years because of the loss of loser's pride, so be it.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The statues are not becoming more of a problem. They have always been a problem for people, but not as much of a problem as Jim Crow laws, miscegenation laws, voter suppression, incarceration bias, housing discrimination, job discrimination, schooling discrimination, law enforcement bias and wage inequality, to name a few.

The statues should never have been erected in the first place, since all they did was appease and embolden the losers. Take them down as soon as possible. If it isn't possible for a few more years because of the loss of loser's pride, so be it.

Whether as artistic expression, commemoration or even celebration of the most repugnant idea or philosophy imaginable, pray tell on what LEGAL basis should any statue, sign, text or utterance be prohibited "in the first place"?

In what "place" in THIS country, under the guarantee of the FIRST Amendment is such abuse legally sanctioned?

#Despicable

 

[RobDownSouth]

I don't understand why now. As we move further and further away from this awful chapter in American History, why are these old statues becoming more of a problem. The simple effect of the passing of time changes their context. The Civil War was over 150years ago. People of good will are trying to move this country in the right direction for at least 2 generations despite recalcitrance from the culture we're trying to help. Simply stated, the controversy over these statues is a mere distraction from the real and tangible problems on which we should be focused. It simply plays into the hands of idiots and it has undoubtedly been a setback. Foolish. Like little children who didn't learn their lesson.

"Slavery ended 200 years ago" falls under the "denial" portion of the Racism Spectrum

 

[Colonel Hogan]

"Slavery ended 200 years ago" falls under the "denial" portion of the Racism Spectrum

Hey, professor. Plug this in somewhere:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[richard_daily]

Hey, professor. Plug this in somewhere:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's cool if you want to put a monument to racism on your lawn... not so cool if you want to use public funds to put in on public land.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Hey, professor. Plug this in somewhere:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Free Speech and racist commentary are not mutually exclusive. I don't see any abridgement here.

 

[phrodeau]

Whether as artistic expression, commemoration or even celebration of the most repugnant idea or philosophy imaginable, pray tell on what LEGAL basis should any statue, sign, text or utterance be prohibited "in the first place"?

In what "place" in THIS country, under the guarantee of the FIRST Amendment is such abuse legally sanctioned?

#Despicable

Prohibited, wow. Where did that come from?

I was referring to the actions of sensible people, to whom it would never occur to erect those statues.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Prohibited, wow. Where did that come from?

I was referring to the actions of sensible people, to whom it would never occur to erect those statues.

Sorry for the misquote. I stand corrected.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That's cool if you want to put a monument to racism on your lawn... not so cool if you want to use public funds to put in on public land.

The lawful use of public funds by democratically elected public officials is, by extension, a lawful corporate exercise of the First Amendment by the body politic.

 

[Hypoxia]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress and lesser jurisdictions make many laws "abridging the freedom of speech". Libel, slander, inciting riot, shouting FIRE, false advertising claims, classified leaks, all come to mind. FoS isn't absolute. Some speech is protected and some ain't.

Jurisdictions can and do regulate and 'abridge' speech. The question is, how much and why? If public safety is the justification, then "hate speech" can be equated with inciting riot, shouting FIRE, or other unprotected 'dangerous' speech. SCOTUS currently sets a high bar there -- the danger must be 'imminent' -- but court rulings can change. Some horrible event may trigger an attitudinal change.

Can a society protect itself from destructively hateful speech that threatens to destroy the society? Should societies allow themselves to be destroyed? That's the slippery-slope "hate speech" issue -- social suicide.

Nazis and Confeds / KKK are enemies of USA. We've fucking fought wars against them. Tolerating them shits on our ancestors who fought them. Their violent speech and actions aim to destroy the nation. Should USA commit suicide on their behalf?

 

[coachdb18]

Nazis and Confeds / KKK are enemies of USA. We've fucking fought wars against them. Tolerating them shits on our ancestors who fought them. Their violent speech and actions aim to destroy the nation. Should USA commit suicide on their behalf?

We've also fought wars against commies and socialist zealots (think Korea, as well as DDR.. that's East Germany, Cuba, Russia and China, and a little skirmish known as Vietnam... and have had internal strife due to extreme leftism (think the 1968 Democratic convention), and every inner city that has been set on fire in the last fifty years. Make sure you always give credit where credit is due, please.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Congress and lesser jurisdictions make many laws "abridging the freedom of speech". Libel, slander, inciting riot, shouting FIRE, false advertising claims, classified leaks, all come to mind. FoS isn't absolute. Some speech is protected and some ain't.

Jurisdictions can and do regulate and 'abridge' speech. The question is, how much and why? If public safety is the justification, then "hate speech" can be equated with inciting riot, shouting FIRE, or other unprotected 'dangerous' speech. SCOTUS currently sets a high bar there -- the danger must be 'imminent' -- but court rulings can change. Some horrible event may trigger an attitudinal change.

Can a society protect itself from destructively hateful speech that threatens to destroy the society? Should societies allow themselves to be destroyed? That's the slippery-slope "hate speech" issue -- social suicide.

Nazis and Confeds / KKK are enemies of USA. We've fucking fought wars against them. Tolerating them shits on our ancestors who fought them. Their violent speech and actions aim to destroy the nation. Should USA commit suicide on their behalf?

The only quibbling I would make with your observations is with the notion that the current SCOTUS bar is "high." If we can agree that no society is obligated to commit suicide by enduring a truly destructive threat, then it seems to me that we want to make certain that threat is real and not illusory. Thus, "imminent danger" seems right to me.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The only quibbling I would make with your observations is with the notion that the current SCOTUS bar is "high." If we can agree that no society is obligated to commit suicide by enduring a truly destructive threat, then it seems to me that we want to make certain that threat is real and not illusory. Thus, "imminent danger" seems right to me.

I don't disagree with with your idea, but I'd point out that the Gipper (We got to Grenada JUST IN TIME!) and Dubya ("mushroom clouds! MUSHROOM CLOUDS!") have forever munged-up the concept of "clear and present danger".

 

[richard_daily]

The lawful use of public funds by democratically elected public officials is, by extension, a lawful corporate exercise of the First Amendment by the body politic.

Sure, if you agree with the flawed SCOTUS decision that money = speech. When these statues where erected, Citizen's United wasn't even a twinkle in Daddy's eye.

 

[Ramone45]

This will turn out to be a very bad mistake because the left wing did not consider the unintended consequences. BTW, they draped the Lee statue in preparation for its removal. Is it gone yet? The removal of these things obviously changed nothing in people's hearts. It made things worse in fact, turning moderates against the left. Now we have to apply the same standards to all monuments. Specifically, the rabidly homophobic MLK. He stood for hatred and intolerance for all of your various queers,and therefore, monuments honoring him must be destroyed. There's really no other way. The standards must be the same. hate is hate. Whether it be racial or based on sexual persuasion. Hatred against one is hatred against all.

 

[richard_daily]

This will turn out to be a very bad mistake because the left wing did not consider the unintended consequences. BTW, they draped the Lee statue in preparation for its removal. Is it gone yet? The removal of these things obviously changed nothing in people's hearts. It made things worse in fact, turning moderates against the left. Now we have to apply the same standards to all monuments. Specifically, the rabidly homophobic MLK. He stood for hatred and intolerance for all of your various queers,and therefore, monuments honoring him must be destroyed. There's really no other way. The standards must be the same. hate is hate. Whether it be racial or based on sexual persuasion. Hatred against one is hatred against all.

What are the unintended consequences?

 

[RobDownSouth]

This will turn out to be a very bad mistake because the left wing did not consider the unintended consequences. BTW, they draped the Lee statue in preparation for its removal. Is it gone yet? The removal of these things obviously changed nothing in people's hearts. It made things worse in fact, turning moderates against the left. Now we have to apply the same standards to all monuments. Specifically, the rabidly homophobic MLK. He stood for hatred and intolerance for all of your various queers,and therefore, monuments honoring him must be destroyed. There's really no other way. The standards must be the same. hate is hate. Whether it be racial or based on sexual persuasion. Hatred against one is hatred against all.

There you go again, Ramona.

Martin Luther King is not remembered primarily for his homophobia, just as Hitler is not remembered primarily for his love of dogs.

Robert E. Lee is, however, known for the treason he committed against the United States of America. He should have been hung, and removing statues that commemorate his treason is the right thing to do.

Fuck all of you "Lost Cause" snowflakes.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This will turn out to be a very bad mistake because the left wing did not consider the unintended consequences. BTW, they draped the Lee statue in preparation for its removal. Is it gone yet? The removal of these things obviously changed nothing in people's hearts. It made things worse in fact, turning moderates against the left. Now we have to apply the same standards to all monuments. Specifically, the rabidly homophobic MLK. He stood for hatred and intolerance for all of your various queers,and therefore, monuments honoring him must be destroyed. There's really no other way. The standards must be the same. hate is hate. Whether it be racial or based on sexual persuasion. Hatred against one is hatred against all.

*chuckle*

I hope they keep this shit up. Our state will replace a Democrat in the Senate with a Republican.

 

[sr71plt]

Now we have to apply the same standards to all monuments. Specifically, the rabidly homophobic MLK. He stood for hatred and intolerance for all of your various queers,and therefore, monuments honoring him must be destroyed. There's really no other way. The standards must be the same. hate is hate. Whether it be racial or based on sexual persuasion. Hatred against one is hatred against all.

I guess we know there will never be a monument erected for you then, right?

(And, no, the Charlottesville statues aren't gone yet. As of the moment moving them is against state law.)

 

[Ramone45]

There you go again, Ramona.

Martin Luther King is not remembered primarily for his homophobia, just as Hitler is not remembered primarily for his love of dogs.

Robert E. Lee is, however, known for the treason he committed against the United States of America. He should have been hung, and removing statues that commemorate his treason is the right thing to do.

Fuck all of you "Lost Cause" snowflakes.

Relax. I'm not triggered. You can keep your MLK what not. It is kind of funny that anything named after him is usually in the most dangerous part of the city. as Chris Rock pointed out.
Can you agree with me that this is a "slippery slope", though? Is it worth the anomosity that it stirred up? Does it change anything at all?

 

[phrodeau]

Relax. I'm not triggered. You can keep your MLK what not. It is kind of funny that anything named after him is usually in the most dangerous part of the city. as Chris Rock pointed out.
Can you agree with me that this is a "slippery slope", though? Is it worth the anomosity that it stirred up? Does it change anything at all?

So if people stop trying to remove the statues, the white supremacists will stop killing people?

 

[richard_daily]

So if people stop trying to remove the statues, the white supremacists will stop killing people?

Sounds like what he's saying. He's advocating that we kowtow to racist murderers, and their demands.

 

[adrina]

Sounds like what he's saying. He's advocating that we kowtow to racist murderers, and their demands.

That's been the only reason given at this point: keep the statues or the racists will get upset.