All Statues and Monuments must come down

[CZroe]

I did not insult Dave. I pointed out that what needs to come down is the stuff that was put up by racists to intimidate the black community. His everything must come down message is ludicrous. Do you disagree with me on that?

Sure you did. Post #9:

Nope just the racists confederate stuff that was put in place by racists during the jim crow era. I take it you don't know american history?

Educate yourself, it's the least you can do for our country.

You called him uneducated simply because he wanted to have a broader conversation about what is happening to statues and monuments around the world.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Quoting the wrong post didn't change my response to you in any way what-so-ever so it's totally bizarre that you would imply I need to slow my roll. Quite the opposite (clearly).

Him (#09): [Ignoring OP's explicitly-stated scope] This is only about America

Me (#33): No it's not. [Real-world example]

You (#36): [Ignoring OP's explicitly-stated scope and the example I gave] Yes it is.

Me (#49): No. It. Is. No. [2nd real worl example]

You (#50): [Ignores ALL FOUR examples about reality and the scope the OP intends to insult me and double-down on your declarations]

Me (#51): LOLWUT?! OK. [TRUTH BOMB]

How does you quoting the wrong post change anything about our exchange? It doesn't. It's your usual attempt to baselessly dismiss something, inadvertently confirming what I already said about your insufferable "contradict with dismissal" style of communication when you don't want to acknowledge something. This is getting old.

Both you and him claimed that this was just about America. You claimed that AFTER my correction, directly to me. I brought up the Churchill statue in England as irrefutable proof that this wasn't just about confederate statues or racism in America ...and what do you do? Dismiss it as my "whattabout." Figures. That's your insufferable modus operandi at work, exactly like I said before.

Suck it up, buttercup. Dave's thread is not exclusively about outrage toward American monuments no matter how hard you squirm.

Haha, this is great. You're off the rails now. I love how you end it with "Suck it up, buttercup", lol..

This is standard conservative projection to a T.

You seem to think Dave's both a brainiac and desiring a bigly conversation, and is somehow deeply concerned about the pyramids, or racist epitaphs. Maybe he'll back back...maybe he won't. That's his modus operandi.

 

[CZroe]

Haha, this is great. You're off the rails now. I love how you end it with "Suck it up, buttercup", lol..

This is standard conservative projection to a T.

"Parry! Dodge! Dismiss!

See? Nothing sticks to me!"
*meanwhile, everyone can see you are covered in it*

 

[ch33zw1z]

"Parry! Dodge! Dismiss!

See? Nothing sticks to me!"
*meanwhile, everyone can see you are covered in it*

Haha, you're pretty animated. I remember when I was like you, then I grew up.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Sure you did. Post #9:

You called him uneducated simply because he wanted to have a broader conversation about what is happening to statues and monuments around the world.

That's funny, I dont see dave having a conversation. Is that a different thread?

 

[Svnla]

I will leave this here. Is it applicable to the thread?

https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/h7fg4l

 

[CZroe]

That's funny, I dont see dave having a conversation. Is that a different thread?

zzyzxroad quoted and responded to Dave. It's Dave's thread. Dave picked the topic for us and clarified his intent with a non-American example/joke before either of your posts... whether accurate about slaves in Egypt or not. The entire thread is supposed to be the conversation Dave wanted to have. I'd ask if you were daft but it's clear you're just digging for more baseless dismissals. Instead, I'll ask the logical question that comes next: Have you no shame?

 

[Homerboy]

I will leave this here. Is it applicable to the thread?

https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/h7fg4l

Saw that the other day. There's idiots on every side to an arguement.

 

[ch33zw1z]

zzyzxroad quoted and responded to Dave. It's Dave's thread. Dave picked the topic for us and clarified his intent with a non-American example/joke before either of your posts... whether accurate about slaves in Egypt or not. The entire thread is supposed to be the conversation Dave wanted to have. I'd ask if you were daft but it's clear you're just digging for more baseless dismissals. Have you no shame?

Shame is worthless. So stop asking. Go ahead and have dave's conversation for him, cuz he won't. Does this conversation start before or after you ranting is over?

I think it's great you have this super keen insight into dave's mental workings. I mean, hes only been trolling the forum for years, but all of a sudden he's got this deep philosophical question to make us ponder how racist monuments like recently erected statues with historical documentation is somehow the same as one of the seven wonders of the world that we dont know all that much about. Yea, you nailed it, lol.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Sure you did. Post #9:

You called him uneducated simply because he wanted to have a broader conversation about what is happening to statues and monuments around the world.

Nope not an insult just fact.

Plus everything he listed here is in the US. This site is a US site and with almost no exception, the views even if from someone outside the US are for American's perspective. With all that said it should be clear this post was in response to the current discussions around removing the confederate statues and monuments.

From Dave
"Statue of Liberty, Twin Tower holes in the ground, Martin Luther King Memorial, Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, everything has to come down."

 

[ch33zw1z]

Saw that the other day. There's idiots on every side to an arguement.

I would like to see video footage of who actually spray painted the monument, and add some context to the photo. As we know, the internet is filled with disinformation.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Nope not an insult just fact.

Plus everything he listed here is in the US. This site is a US site and with almost no exception, the views even if from someone outside the US are for American's perspective. With all that said it should be clear this post was in response to the current discussions around removing the confederate statues and monuments.

From Dave
"Statue of Liberty, Twin Tower holes in the ground, Martin Luther King Memorial, Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, everything has to come down."

But, pyramids bro. Your feeble mind just can't grasp dave's mental process like @CZroe can. See it there in the fine print? Right next to churchill

June 11, 2020

All Statues and Monuments must come down.

You can't just take down ones you don't like.

Statue of Liberty, Twin Tower holes in the ground, Martin Luther King Memorial, Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, everything has to come down.

 

[zzyzxroad]

But, pyramids bro. Your feeble mind just can't grasp dave's mental process like @CZroe can.

Ha, yeah the intent of why this thread came to be should be clear.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Oh, no, wait, it must be this troll post, you know....his last post in the thread that he wanted to have a deep meaningful conversation in

These have to come down too View attachment 22882

 

[woolfe9998]

I think the problem highlighted by Dave's attempt at (probably) drunken trolling is this tension between the idea of judging historical figures in the context of their times versus judging them by present day standards. Yet it isn't really an either/or. We can judge them in context, to a point. We can look at all the bad and good things they did and make a judgment as to whether they are worth honoring.

As was typical of wealthy white men of that age, Thomas Jefferson owned a small number of slaves. That is incontrovertibly a terrible thing. But he was a vocal opponent of the institution of slavery. He called slavery a "moral depravity" and a "hideous blot" in spite of owning slaves himself. He probably thought the fact he was gentle with his slaves excused him owning them. He was wrong.

Yet he also drafted the DoI, and gave us "all men are created equal," something which, I'm sure, all of us would rather have than not. And while he was in Paris when they drafted the US Constitution, it was largely based on the Virginia Constitution which he drafted. In my opinion, his accomplishments outweigh his personal failings of owning slaves during that era.

Compare and contrast with Robert E. Lee. Not only a slaveowner. A vocal proponent of slavery. Was a traitor to his country. Fought a war which cost over 600,000 American lives to protect the institution of slavery. His accomplishments? He was evidently a good tactician. Would have been better had he been inept, frankly, as that would have meant an earlier end to the war.

These historical figures need to be judged as worthy or not of honoring on a case by case basis. I don't think we can strictly apply present day moral standards to their behavior, but those standards can't be entirely ignored either.

Don't fall into the conservative trap of trying to hold us to our strictest modern day standards as expressed often times by our most extreme elements. Saying if we tear down the statues of Lee we have to tear down the statues of Jefferson is very parallel to saying we have to believe Tara Reid because some idiot said we have to believe all women. These reductio ad absurdum arguments are a tactic used to divide the left into circular firing squads. Don't fall for it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I think the problem highlighted by Dave's attempt at (probably) drunken trolling is this tension between the idea of judging historical figures in the context of their times versus judging them by present day standards. Yet it isn't really an either/or. We can judge them in context, to a point. We can look at all the bad and good things they did and make a judgment as to whether they are worth honoring.

As was typical of wealthy white men of that age, Thomas Jefferson owned a small number of slaves. That is incontrovertibly a terrible thing. But he was a vocal opponent of the institution of slavery. He called slavery a "moral depravity" and a "hideous blot" in spite of owning slaves himself. He probably thought the fact he was gentle with his slaves excused him owning them. He was wrong.

Yet he also drafted the DoI, and gave us "all men are created equal," something which, I'm sure, all of us would rather have than not. And while he was in Paris when they drafted the US Constitution, it was largely based on the Virginia Constitution which he drafted. In my opinion, his accomplishments outweigh his personal failings of owning slaves during that era.

Compare and contrast with Robert E. Lee. Not only a slaveowner. A vocal proponent of slavery. Was a traitor to his country. Fought a war which cost over 600,000 American lives to protect the institution of slavery. His accomplishments? He was evidently a good tactician. Would have been better had he been inept, frankly, as that would have meant an earlier end to the war.

These historical figures need to be judged as worthy or not of honoring on a case by case basis. I don't think we can strictly apply present day moral standards to their behavior, but those standards can't be entirely ignored either.

Don't fall into the conservative trap of trying to hold us to our strictest modern day standards as expressed often times by our most extreme elements. Saying if we tear down the statues of Lee we have to tear down the statues of Jefferson is very parallel to saying we have to believe Tara Reid because some idiot said we have to believe all women. These reductio ad absurdum arguments are a tactic used to divide the left into circular firing squads. Don't fall for it.

As usual, you lay it out nicely.

 

[CZroe]

Shame is worthless. So stop asking. Go ahead and have dave's conversation for him, cuz he won't. Does this conversation start before or after you ranting is over?

Figures you'd say that.

Shame is supposed to be what keeps you from making a fool of yourself. The conversation starts when you accept what the thread was meant for and stop fighting it or dismissing any attempt to discuss it.

I think it's great you have this super keen insight into dave's mental workings. I mean, hes only been trolling the forum for years, but all of a sudden he's got this deep philosophical question to make us ponder how racist monuments like recently erected statues with historical documentation is somehow the same as one of the seven wonders of the world. Yea, you nailed it, lol.

LOL! "Super keen?" He literally says "ALL" statues and monuments in the OP. Even if you thought he only meant American statues and monuments then his joke about tearing down the pyramids should have cleared that right up. You'd have to be awfully dense or obtuse to go on claiming otherwise. Take your pick.

They obviously aren't the same. That's the point of the joke. He's trying to mock people by applying their logic to something else exposing the ridiculousness of it.

Nope not an insult just fact.

Plus everything he listed here is in the US. This site is a US site and with almost no exception, the views even if from someone outside the US are for American's perspective. With all that said it should be clear this post was in response to the current discussions around removing the confederate statues and monuments.

From Dave
"Statue of Liberty, Twin Tower holes in the ground, Martin Luther King Memorial, Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, everything has to come down."

ORLY? Then why were the two headline-grabbing statue incidents outside of the US the first things that popped into my head after reading the thread title (before even clicking the thread)? They were defaced and taken down by protestors in response to the events taking place inside the USA and around the world. Are they not also part of the "current discussions?"

Even if he didn't clarify with another post showing non-American monuments before you posted, when did "all" and "everything" come to mean "only American?"

 

[CZroe]

I think the problem highlighted by Dave's attempt at (probably) drunken trolling is this tension between the idea of judging historical figures in the context of their times versus judging them by present day standards. Yet it isn't really an either/or. We can judge them in context, to a point. We can look at all the bad and good things they did and make a judgment as to whether they are worth honoring.

As was typical of wealthy white men of that age, Thomas Jefferson owned a small number of slaves. That is incontrovertibly a terrible thing. But he was a vocal opponent of the institution of slavery. He called slavery a "moral depravity" and a "hideous blot" in spite of owning slaves himself. He probably thought the fact he was gentle with his slaves excused him owning them. He was wrong.

Yet he also drafted the DoI, and gave us "all men are created equal," something which, I'm sure, all of us would rather have than not. And while he was in Paris when they drafted the US Constitution, it was largely based on the Virginia Constitution which he drafted. In my opinion, his accomplishments outweigh his personal failings of owning slaves during that era.

Compare and contrast with Robert E. Lee. Not only a slaveowner. A vocal proponent of slavery. Was a traitor to his country. Fought a war which cost over 600,000 American lives to protect the institution of slavery. His accomplishments? He was evidently a good tactician. Would have been better had he been inept, frankly, as that would have meant an earlier end to the war.

These historical figures need to be judged as worthy or not of honoring on a case by case basis. I don't think we can strictly apply present day moral standards to their behavior, but those standards can't be entirely ignored either.

Don't fall into the conservative trap of trying to hold us to our strictest modern day standards as expressed often times by our most extreme elements. Saying if we tear down the statues of Lee we have to tear down the statues of Jefferson is very parallel to saying we have to believe Tara Reid because some idiot said we have to believe all women. These reductio ad absurdum arguments are a tactic used to divide the left into circular firing squads. Don't fall for it.

Totally agree.

 

[pmv]

All statues of not-particularly-remarkable long-dead imperialist or race-supremacist murderers and thieves, who only got a statue in the first place because they bought themselves favour with the profits of their crimes, or because their fellow criminals wanted to celebrate their gang boss and gloat at their victims...should come down.

Statues coming down is a significant part of history. If you refuse to let statues come down you are trying to deny history.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Welcome home dmcowen, i agree with you 100%. Only statues/monuments/etc. that should be allowed are those built with private funds on private property.

Crazy Horse Memorial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pull the rest down.

 

[CZroe]

Welcome home dmcowen, i agree with you 100%. Only statues/monuments/etc. that should be allowed are those built with private funds on private property.

Crazy Horse Memorial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pull the rest down.

Ozymandias:

 

[ch33zw1z]

Figures you'd say that.

Shame is supposed to be what keeps you from making a fool of yourself. The conversation starts when you accept what the thread was meant for and stop fighting it or dismissing any attempt to discuss it.


LOL! "Super keen?" He literally says "ALL" statues and monuments in the OP. Even if you thought he only meant American statues and monuments then his joke about tearing down the pyramids should have cleared that right up. You'd have to be awfully dense or obtuse to go on claiming otherwise. Take your pick.

They obviously aren't the same. That's the point of the joke. He's trying to mock people by applying their logic to something else exposing the ridiculousness of it.


ORLY? Then why were the two headline-grabbing statue incidents outside of the US the first things that popped into my head after reading the thread title (before even clicking the thread)? They were defaced and taken down by protestors in response to the events taking place inside the USA and around the world. Are they not also part of the "current discussions?"

Even if he didn't clarify with another post showing non-American monuments before you posted, when did "all" and "everything" come to mean "only American?"

Tldr, Yawn worthy at besy, where's your shame then. Is ranting like an idiot considered endearing in you parts?

You interpreted his post one way, others didn't.

Here's the OP

June 11, 2020

All Statues and Monuments must come down.

You can't just take down ones you don't like.

Statue of Liberty, Twin Tower holes in the ground, Martin Luther King Memorial, Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, everything has to come down.

There's nothing in there that implies anything outside of the states. You assumed it. Assumption is your thang, as well as attempted shaming. Suck it up buttercup, LOL, dave won't be back to bail you out anytime soon

 

[pmv]

There's a

I think the problem highlighted by Dave's attempt at (probably) drunken trolling is this tension between the idea of judging historical figures in the context of their times versus judging them by present day standards. Yet it isn't really an either/or. We can judge them in context, to a point. We can look at all the bad and good things they did and make a judgment as to whether they are worth honoring.

As was typical of wealthy white men of that age, Thomas Jefferson owned a small number of slaves. That is incontrovertibly a terrible thing. But he was a vocal opponent of the institution of slavery. He called slavery a "moral depravity" and a "hideous blot" in spite of owning slaves himself. He probably thought the fact he was gentle with his slaves excused him owning them. He was wrong.

Yet he also drafted the DoI, and gave us "all men are created equal," something which, I'm sure, all of us would rather have than not. And while he was in Paris when they drafted the US Constitution, it was largely based on the Virginia Constitution which he drafted. In my opinion, his accomplishments outweigh his personal failings of owning slaves during that era.

Compare and contrast with Robert E. Lee. Not only a slaveowner. A vocal proponent of slavery. Was a traitor to his country. Fought a war which cost over 600,000 American lives to protect the institution of slavery. His accomplishments? He was evidently a good tactician. Would have been better had he been inept, frankly, as that would have meant an earlier end to the war.

These historical figures need to be judged as worthy or not of honoring on a case by case basis. I don't think we can strictly apply present day moral standards to their behavior, but those standards can't be entirely ignored either.

Don't fall into the conservative trap of trying to hold us to our strictest modern day standards as expressed often times by our most extreme elements. Saying if we tear down the statues of Lee we have to tear down the statues of Jefferson is very parallel to saying we have to believe Tara Reid because some idiot said we have to believe all women. These reductio ad absurdum arguments are a tactic used to divide the left into circular firing squads. Don't fall for it.

I don't agree. it's not about employing some sort of moral/cultural relativism ( the same sort of relativism that gets rejected out of hand by most conservatives if the difference is one of geography or ethnicity rather than time). The question is - why did the statue go up in the first place?

There's a difference between someone being celebrated for doing something great...who happens to have also had a dark side, and someone whose crimes are intrinsic to what got them commemorated as a statue in the first place.

In many cases the only reasons statues went up to begin with, is precisely _because_ the person being celebrated used the proceeds of their crime to fund civic philanthropy, or because their followers wanted to continue to celebrate their crimes into a later era.

 

[woolfe9998]

All statues of not-particularly-remarkable long-dead imperialist or race-supremacist murderers and thieves, who only got a statue in the first place because they bought themselves favour with the profits of their crimes, or because their fellow criminals wanted to celebrate their gang boss and gloat at their victims...should come down.

Statues coming down is a significant part of history. If you refuse to let statues come down you are trying to deny history.

Agreed, and what really gets me are the ones who didn't even accomplish the things they are credited with. Christopher Columbus, anyone? Did not "discover America." Did not even step foot in North America, but the Vikings did 600 years earlier. Did not discover that the earth wasn't flat. Did capture and enslave native populations in the Caribbean. Did start the process of genocide of those people, and called in the Spanish to finish the job. Wasn't even a good guy to his friends - tried to cheat his crewmen out of their bounties!

But we have a national holiday for him here because reasons...

 

[woolfe9998]

There's a



I don't agree. it's not about employing some sort of moral/cultural relativism ( the same sort of relativism that gets rejected out of hand by most conservatives if the difference is one of geography or ethnicity rather than time). The question is - why did the statue go up in the first place?

There's a difference between someone being celebrated for doing something great...who happens to have also had a dark side, and someone whose crimes are intrinsic to what got them commemorated as a statue in the first place.

In many cases the only reasons statues went up to begin with, is precisely _because_ the person being celebrated used the proceeds of their crime to fund civic philanthropy, or because their followers wanted to continue to celebrate their crimes into a later era.

I agree with the bolded portion. I do not agree that it's all about why the statue went up in the first place. It isn't irrelevant either. But it can't be the sole determining factor. The effect of the symbology on a modern audience has to be taken into consideration, and I do think accomplishments have to be weighed against bad acts.