Should confederate monuments be destroyed?

[Traitorfish]

I would say it was intended to signal to the entire nation (and Trump) that there is a lot of support for right-wing/nationalist ideals. And again, nobody is trying to force this community to do anything. They weren't saying "leave this statue up or we'll commit X act of violence" they were saying "hey look at all these people who would really rather you left these statues up."

With torchlit marches and armed paramilitaries. This was not a peaceful or sincere intervention into local politics.

Yep. Several of them. They show up at pretty much any right-wing event with the intent of shutting it down, it's extremely annoying. Why do you think so many of the Unite the Right attendees brought shields? They know the drill at this point. Fact is, there would have been no violence had Antifa not incited it.

So you actually do think there is an organisation called "Antifa"? Like an actual organisation, with internal structures and membership rolls and revenue streams?

Who is this "they"? Since when is guilt by association a valid thing? Do you also condemn all Muslims for Islamic terrorist attacks? Do you condemn all liberals for the Steve Scalise shooting? Do you condemn all Communists for Antifa's violence? Don't think so.

Then allow me to revise: these goons couldn't go twenty-four hours without one of them killing people. Does that make it sound any more like we're examining a group of civic-minded patriots?

 

[Ajidica]

So you actually do think there is an organisation called "Antifa"? Like an actual organisation, with internal structures and membership rolls and revenue streams?

You mean you haven't received your Judeo-Bolshevik Conspiracy Membership Card and Party Dues envelope yet?
I must remember to speak to Great Comrade Lenin about this at the next reading of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

 

[civver_764]

With torchlit marches and armed paramilitaries. This was not a peaceful or sincere intervention into local politics.

Actually, yes it was. Those things are protected by the first and second amendments, like it or not.

So you actually do think there is an organisation called "Antifa"? Like an actual organisation, with internal structures and membership rolls and revenue streams?

Don't really care tbh, they're a cancer whatever they are.

Then allow me to revise: these goons couldn't go twenty-four hours without one of them killing people. Does that make it sound any more like we're examining a group of civic-minded patriots?

You didn't revise it at all. There's no "these goons". There's one dude, with schizophrenia, who's car was being attacked by a mob, who may or may not have intentionally tried to kill people (it's not clear at this point). Nobody else had anything to do with it.

Overall, yes the right-wingers were much more civilized than the counter protesters. They complied with police, did not initiate violence, did not start rioting, and went through the trouble of getting a permit several months in advance. You can not say the same about the counter protesters.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually, yes it was. Those things are protected by the first and second amendments, like it or not.

They're protected by the letter of the law. But that doesn't transform intimidation into discourse, it doesn't turn aggression into civic patriotism. If you really believe in what these sad little Quislings were doing, you'd own it. Instead you're framing it like some twee little picnic. You can't built a movement on that sort of self-deception.

Don't really care tbh, they're a cancer whatever they are.

If you don't what it is, how do you that it's a cancer?

You didn't revise it at all. There's no "these goons". There's one dude, with schizophrenia, who's car was being attacked by a mob, who may or may not have intentionally tried to kill people (it's not clear at this point). Nobody else had anything to do with it.

Overall, yes the right-wingers were much more civilized than the counter protesters. They complied with police, did not initiate violence, did not start rioting, and went through the trouble of getting a permit several months in advance. You can not say the same about the counter protesters.

The organisers knowingly cultivated confrontation. They encouraged violent rhetoric. They invited armed paramilitaries. You cannot then turn around and say, oh, that one dude that actually took it all at face value, he was just crazy. At least, you can't convince anybody who doesn't actively want to be convinced.

You mean you haven't received your Judeo-Bolshevik Conspiracy Membership Card and Party Dues envelope yet?
I must remember to speak to Great Comrade Lenin about this at the next reading of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Nah, I got expelled for my anti-revisionist stance on full beards. Goatees are capitalist backsliding, you know.

 

[Evie]

Three things in reference to Mech's reply to me;

Number one, that the Greek had slaves and accomplished thing does not mean the one resulted from the other. That should go without saying - correlation doesn't imply causation is a pretty basic notion - but apparently not. The greeks had slaves. The greek developed democracy. That's as likely, perhaps more likely, to be a coincidence than to be a cause-effect process. Using the theory that it's cause-effect as a defense of honoring slavery is beyond pathetic. Likewise Jefferson and the Declaration ; or any other accomplishments by slaveholders.

(Or really, any accomplishment by someone who did both good and bad : we should never assume without very good evidence that the bad was necessary for the good to happen. An argument of necessary evils need a strong standard of evidence, not mere speculation).

Number two, even if that were true, and even if we admitted democracy wouldn't have risen in some other way without slavery, it wouldn't follow that we should honor slaveholding. A necessary evil, even if proven to be such, is still evil ; it may be tolerated, but should never be honored.

Number three, you don't honor victims ("the involuntary sacrifices of slaves") by building statues to those who victimized them (no, a statue of Torquemada does not honor the jewish victims of the Spanish Inquisition, and a statue of Andrew Jackson does precisely nothing to honor the victims of the Trail of Tears). This is elementary sense and logic, and bare minimum standards of human decency. If we want to honor slaves and their "involuntary accomplishments", we should have monuments emphasizing the *slaves* themselves, honoring their suffering and accomplishments. Not monuments of the people who made them slaves, or the people who fought to make sure they'd stay slaves.

 

[civver_764]

They're protected by the letter of the law. But that doesn't transform intimidation into discourse, it doesn't turn aggression into civic patriotism. If you really believe in what these sad little Quislings were doing, you'd own it. Instead you're framing it like some twee little picnic. You can't built a movement on that sort of self-deception.

While I find hilarious that you're giving advice on how to build an effective right-wing movement, that's just your opinion, man. And importantly, it means that you are not allowed to shut them down.

If you don't what it is, how do you that it's a cancer?

I don't know the specifics of their internal organization, but I can see their actions. They are nothing but armed thugs, useful idiots of the establishment.

The organisers knowingly cultivated confrontation. They encouraged violent rhetoric. They invited armed paramilitaries. You cannot then turn around and say, oh, that one dude that actually took it all at face value, he was just crazy. At least, you can't convince anybody who doesn't actively want to be convinced.

That's total BS and straight victim blaming. Which one of the rally organizers said to drive a car into people? None of them. In fact, I would say they went over-the-top in stressing the need to remain peaceful. Trust me, people in the far-right are well aware that any act of violence on their part will get blown way out of proportion by the media, it's the last thing they want.

 

[Traitorfish]

While I find hilarious that you're giving advice on how to build an effective right-wing movement, that's just your opinion, man. And importantly, it means that you are not allowed to shut them down.

Perhaps not. But is the City of Charlottesville obliged to host them? Again, for someone so concerned for national sovereignty, you're not very willing to apply these same principles of self-government at a municipal level.

I don't know the specifics of their internal organization, but I can see their actions. They are nothing but armed thugs, useful idiots of the establishment.

So you do think that they're an organisation?

That's total BS and straight victim blaming. Which one of the rally organizers said to drive a car into people? None of them. In fact, I would say they went over-the-top in stressing the need to remain peaceful. Trust me, people in the far-right are well aware that any act of violence on their part will get blown way out of proportion by the media, it's the last thing they want.

That you think of the victims of a domestic terrorist indictment are the friends and associates of the terrorist says more than any witty response I could manage.

 

[civver_764]

Perhaps not. But is the City of Charlottesville obliged to host them? Again, for someone so concerned for national sovereignty, you're not very willing to apply these same principles of self-government at a municipal level.

Yes, they took all the necessary steps to get a permit, and a federal court even affirmed that the City of Charlottesville had to let them have their rally.

The park was a public park, meaning it is available for anybody to use. Should the park have been privately owned, I would agree with you.

So you do think that they're an organisation?

They've clearly got some sort of organization going on, since they manage to show up at every single event.

That you think of the victims of a domestic terrorist indictment are the friends and associates of the terrorist says more than any witty response I could manage.

Uhh...what??

 

[Ajidica]

Nah, I got expelled for my anti-revisionist stance on full beards. Goatees are capitalist backsliding, you know.

Counter-revolutionary scum! Your deviations from Marx-Engles-Lenin-Maoist thought causes Great Chairman Mao to revolve in his grave with increasing velocity!

 

[Lexicus]

Counter-revolutionary scum! Your deviations from Marx-Engles-Lenin-Maoist thought causes Great Chairman Mao to revolve in his grave with increasing velocity!

[contempuously] Juche thought will win

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, they took all the necessary steps to get a permit, and a federal court even affirmed that the City of Charlottesville had to let them have their rally.

You didn't answer my question. They had a legal right to hold their chibi Nuremburg, but did they have a right to expect the residents of Charlottesville to play gracious hosts, or for the municipal government to enable them any more than they were legally obliged to?

They've clearly got some sort of organization going on, since they manage to show up at every single event.

I asked if you believe that "Antifa" is an organisation, that is, an institution with defined structures and membership. You're still unclear on that point, which is getting weird given that this is an empirical, right-or-wrong question.

Counter-revolutionary
scum! Your deviations from Marx-Engles-Lenin-Maoist thought causes Great Chairman Mao to revolve in his grave with increasing velocity!

Typical reformist! Don't you understand that only through the unity of the sideburns and chin can the oppressed faces of the world combat the forces of imperialism?

 

[civver_764]

You didn't answer my question. They had a legal right to hold their chibi Nuremburg, but did they have a right to expect the residents of Charlottesville to play gracious hosts, or for the municipal government to enable them any more than they were legally obliged to?

I'm not sure what you mean "enable them". All they were asking for was to not be shut down and to be protected from violent protesters, AKA what is ostensibly the job of the government, both of which they failed at.

I asked if you believe that "Antifa" is an organisation, that is, an institution with defined structures and membership. You're still unclear on that point, which is getting weird given that this is an empirical, right-or-wrong question.

I already answered, I don't know the specifics of their organisation. There are clearly organisations that call themselves "Antifa", are in communication with one another, employ similar aesthetics, espouse similar ideologies, and engage in similar violent tactics. That much is clear.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not sure what you mean "enable them". All they were asking for was to not be shut down and to be protected from violent protesters, AKA what is ostensibly the job of the government, both of which they failed at.

Is it the job of the government to ensure that a rally continues when that represents a greater menace to the public well-being than its cancellation? By asking the Charlottesville police to ensure that the rally continues against all obstacles- the rightfulness of the actions of the counter-protestors aside- what you're asking is for the Charlottesville police to act as an armed escort for the fascists, which is precisely what I mean by "enabling".

I already answered, I don't know the specifics of their organisation. There are clearly organisations that call themselves "Antifa", that are in communication with one another, employ similar aesthetics, espouse similar ideologies, and engage in similar violent tactics. That much is clear.

So you believe that there is an organisation or organisations called "Antifa"? Do you have any insight as to the nature or membership of these organisations, if not their "specifics"?

 

[Lexicus]

Typical reformist! Don't you understand that only through the unity of the sideburns and chin can the oppressed faces of the world combat the forces of imperialism?

You see, you fools don't comprehend the majesty of Juche. The only way to combat imperialism is to shave your pubes in an arrow.

 

[civver_764]

Is it the job of the government to ensure that a rally continues when that represents a greater menace to the public well-being than its cancellation? By asking the Charlottesville police to ensure that the rally continues against all obstacles- the rightfulness of the actions of the counter-protestors aside- what you're asking is for the Charlottesville police to act as an armed escort for the fascists, which is precisely what I mean by "enabling".

How is the rally a menace to public well-being? It's first amendment protected speech, and they got a permit, where is the problem? Had the counter protesters stayed home and not incited violence nobody would have been hurt. An armed escort for what...giving speeches? Yeah I'm pretty sure that's the job of the police.

So you believe that there is an organisation or organisations called "Antifa"? Do you have any insight as to the nature or membership of these organisations, if not their "specifics"?

I honestly have no idea where you're going with this.

 

[Kyriakos]

With torchlit marches and armed paramilitaries.

Not sure if they count as paramilitaries (due to arms, at least), given i think that in some US states everyone is allowed to openly carry (if they have a permit), because FREEDOM.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Three things in reference to Mech's reply to me;

Number one, that the Greek had slaves and accomplished thing does not mean the one resulted from the other. That should go without saying - correlation doesn't imply causation is a pretty basic notion - but apparently not.

We dont have a disagreement here. The ones who need to be educated on this point are the nuts dismantling the statues and comparing confederate flags to swastikas.

The greeks had slaves. The greek developed democracy. That's as likely, perhaps more likely, to be a coincidence than to be a cause-effect process. Using the theory that it's cause-effect as a defense of honoring slavery is beyond pathetic. Likewise Jefferson and the Declaration ; or any other accomplishments by slaveholders.

I dont mind you speculating on this point. What I mind is the intelectual dishonesty. If you want to be serious you need to ask yourself if the greek society which eventually discovered the democracy could have managed in competitive environment without slavery when it was a universal thing. And wasnt it the suffering/sacrifice of people and centuries of laborious progress within society which led to an invention of a political compromise: limited democracy?

To make it clear again I dont honor slavery in itself but I honor the sacrifice people were forced to make for invention of democracy of which slavery was but one of its form and an integral part.

(Or really, any accomplishment by someone who did both good and bad : we should never assume without very good evidence that the bad was necessary for the good to happen. An argument of necessary evils need a strong standard of evidence, not mere speculation).

Dont you see how all relative this is? Are you seriously suggesting that there can be good without bad? These two are in direct correlation evidently. Of course in theory you can separate the individual phenomena and view it as such for specific limited knowledge just dont expect much of a practical result.

Number two, even if that were true, and even if we admitted democracy wouldn't have risen in some other way without slavery, it wouldn't follow that we should honor slaveholding. A necessary evil, even if proven to be such, is still evil ; it may be tolerated, but should never be honored.

Yet this is almost completely accepted practise in case of farming animals. They are dealt with worse then slaves and honored for it.

Number three, you don't honor victims ("the involuntary sacrifices of slaves") by building statues to those who victimized them (no, a statue of Torquemada does not honor the jewish victims of the Spanish Inquisition, and a statue of Andrew Jackson does precisely nothing to honor the victims of the Trail of Tears). This is elementary sense and logic, and bare minimum standards of human decency. If we want to honor slaves and their "involuntary accomplishments", we should have monuments emphasizing the *slaves* themselves, honoring their suffering and accomplishments. Not monuments of the people who made them slaves, or the people who fought to make sure they'd stay slaves.

I dont honor a military genius/highly capable commander such as Lee for nothing less then honoring his duty under extremely difficult circumstances. Yes the man fought on the less progressive side and it should have been fairly evident even back then but life is very complex problem with many challenges besides intelectual debating.

As for the slaves and their sacrifices I foremost honor them through an inner recognition and understanding and undoubtedly I think making a monument in their honor and education of general populace in that regard makes much more sense then an impulsive destructive behaviour in the form of tearing down a monuments representing a challenging era and a mindless ideologic imposition without any understanding...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hey, it is not dumb to not be perfectly aware of white America's history, don't be so privileged (i am JOKING ).
That said, didn't the South make it clear it wanted to just be allowed to be its own country, and only took up arms because the North gave the ultimatum it means war? You seem to claim that the South didn't want to be independent as much as wanting to steal some land of the North, the North having allowed it to secede and the poor North being forced by the invading back-stabbing South to go to war as well. That can't be right, even i who am not learned on US history can tell you that I mean you even have presidents saying stuff to the tune of "The North was ready to go to war to keep the country as one, and the South so as to split it" etc (paraphrase)

You're right, I was really unfair to you. ACW threads trigger me.

 

[Kyriakos]

^NP brah ^^

 

[Perfection]

chibi Nuremburg

That was a good one.