I am Antifa but what they did in Durham was wrong

[UglyCasanova]

I don't find that slippery-slope argument convincing. There might always be 'something else', but at some point it won't be a something that a sufficient number of people care about with sufficient intensity for anything to actually happen. At which point it will stop, because people have other things to spend time and energy on.

This wasn't something anyone cared about with sufficient intensity until it turned politically useful. It's faux outrage because it's convenient. I do understand the points of those protesting against it, although the outrage is manufactured. Our country is extremely polarized and no matter the issue there always has to be a side - something to be against (left and right). There's always a spin on things, discussion and common ground isn't allowed to exist.

 

[Vic]

I kind of disagree, if the elected leadership does not follow the will of the people then not only should the statue be forcibly taken down, the leadership should be forcibly ousted too.

The law that "fuck the people, we decide" isn't a liberal idea and not compatible with democracy either.

That leadership was democratically elected. Therefore, they were doing the will of the people when the law was passed. There was a legal process that could have been used to reverse it. And with enough public pressure, that process could have been expedited. There was nothing about the statue that warranted drastic illegal action.

Liberals in the US need to refocus on who their enemies are and what those enemies want. The alt-right isn't against freedom and civil rights per se, it's just that they are only for their own freedom and civil rights, and theirs only. When the alt-right says that they want free speech, they really mean it, but just only for themselves. Liberals and radical Muslims won't have free speech rights in the alt-right utopia. Theirs is purely fear-based mentality. Anyone who is not like them is a threat to them. Strict conformity is only way that the fearful find safety. Lawlessness and violence only fan the flames of their fear.
This is a moral battle for America's soul, which is the proposition that all persons are created equal. The alt-right wants an America where they - but not everyone else - are free to do as they please. Liberals cannot afford to emulate that behavior.

 

[pmv]

This wasn't something anyone cared about with sufficient intensity until it turned politically useful. It's faux outrage because it's convenient. I do understand the points of those protesting against it, although the outrage is manufactured. Our country is extremely polarized and no matter the issue there always has to be a side - something to be against (left and right). There's always a spin on things, discussion and common ground isn't allowed to exist.

I think the evidence suggests people have always cared about it. That SPLC graph (post #93) showing when these monuments went up seems quite revealing - they went up at particular times in response to particular political situations at those times. That suggests those putting them up always cared about it, as a political statement in an ongoing dispute. The other side might not have had a sufficiently audible political voice to express what they thought of it (or had more than enough other problems to deal with at the time), but one side doesn't make statements to the other if they don't think the other side care.

 

[Sunburn74]

I don't agree with illegal destruction of confederate monuments. However, I see it as civil disobedience and at best requiring a slap on the wrist and a review of government policy on these monuments. Sometimes people do illegal things with reasonable causes at heart. Gandhi and others went to the sea to make salt. They went to jail. Jailing them was wrong. Period.

 

[Vic]

I don't agree with illegal destruction of confederate monuments. However, I see it as civil disobedience and at best requiring a slap on the wrist and a review of government policy on these monuments. Sometimes people do illegal things with reasonable causes at heart. Gandhi and others went to the sea to make salt. They went to jail. Jailing them was wrong. Period.

That law was unjust. However, the only reason Gandhi won that battle was because when the British soldiers came at them with clubs, Gandhi and his people sat down and took a beating. True civil disobedience. The left would be wise to follow Gandhi's example and not ANTIFA's.
Stand up, speak up, resist, refuse to comply... but do not fight back.

 

[ivwshane]

That leadership was democratically elected. Therefore, they were doing the will of the people when the law was passed. There was a legal process that could have been used to reverse it. And with enough public pressure, that process could have been expedited. There was nothing about the statue that warranted drastic illegal action.

Liberals in the US need to refocus on who their enemies are and what those enemies want. The alt-right isn't against freedom and civil rights per se, it's just that they are only for their own freedom and civil rights, and theirs only. When the alt-right says that they want free speech, they really mean it, but just only for themselves. Liberals and radical Muslims won't have free speech rights in the alt-right utopia. Theirs is purely fear-based mentality. Anyone who is not like them is a threat to them. Strict conformity is only way that the fearful find safety. Lawlessness and violence only fan the flames of their fear.
This is a moral battle for America's soul, which is the proposition that all persons are created equal. The alt-right wants an America where they - but not everyone else - are free to do as they please. Liberals cannot afford to emulate that behavior.

The law was passed at the state level to specially block locally elected officials from taking down the monuments. Don't you think a local issue should be handled locally? The same thing was done with regards to bathroom laws, state legislatures overrode local politicians democratically elected.

Do you know what an enabler is?

 

[Vic]

The law was passed at the state level to specially block locally elected officials from taking down the monuments. Don't you think a local issue should be handled locally? The same thing was done with regards to bathroom laws, state legislatures overrode local politicians democratically elected.

Do you know what an enabler is?

Don't call me a DINO. That there is such a thing as RINO is just about everything that's wrong with the GOP. No longer any room for independent thought.

"When they go low, we go high."

How much lower do they need to go before you can see which side you stand on?

 

[Puffnstuff]

It's just a statue that represents an idea. You'd think to these people the idea is more important than the brick and mortar.

Everyone acts like the arbitrary removal of some symbols, in this case statues, will magically make things better and it won't. In my experience many of the very people who are raising the most sand over things like the statues are some of the most racist people around. Those statues are reminders of events that litter our past and cannot be changed.

Many of the people who protest them are fixated on forcing whatever change they deem to be appropriate upon us irrespective of their own biases or hatred which are manifested through their actions with the hope of influencing the masses into seeing things their way. I judge people by the content of their character so if you act like an ass I view you as such. BLM will get in your face if you try to remind them that all lives are equal in value which is just as deplorable as what neo-Nazi's do. Arbitrarily assaulting other ethnic groups over how you feel is the very same racist behavior and anyone who can't see it for what it is needs to strip the blinders off.

 

[OutHouse]

if the elected leadership does not follow the will of the people then not only should the statue be forcibly taken down

so mob rules. gotcha.

did the people of Durham want the statue down or a anarchist mob?

 

[pmv]

That law was unjust. However, the only reason Gandhi won that battle was because when the British soldiers came at them with clubs, Gandhi and his people sat down and took a beating. True civil disobedience. The left would be wise to follow Gandhi's example and not ANTIFA's.
Stand up, speak up, resist, refuse to comply... but do not fight back.

I think it's _highly_ debatable that that's what 'won the battle'. Gandhi's non-violence is not universally acknowledged as what defeated the British empire, certainly not in India or among those who were there at the time.

More to the point, while those Gandhian tactics were ultimately successful in the civil rights fight (insofar as that battle was won - victories are never complete), they didn't seem to work for MLK when he tried them in the North. And they damn well would not have worked in Germany in the 1930s.

 

[theeedude]

NC legislature decided to stop cities from being able to take these down through the democratic process. They doomed these statues to destruction by the mobs.

 

[werepossum]

Nice. Please show me the Youtube channel where I can see a Harvard PhD explain the racial animosity in this country as clearly and provocatively as Dr. Fleming here.

Virtually every video on YouTube explains America's racial animosity as well as did Dr. Fleming. By simply stating that literally everything in America's history is racist, her position defaults to "Do everything I demand or be racist." Do yourself a favor and enjoy some videos of accidental nut shots or funny cats or kids playing guitar. You'll lose fewer brain cells and possibly lose a bit of rage to boot.

 

[werepossum]

NC legislature decided to stop cities from being able to take these down through the democratic process. They doomed these statues to destruction by the mobs.

That was kind of my point. Denying the public's wishes legally inevitably leads to those wishes being pursued illegally if the desire is strong enough. Not saying it's right, but I understand.

I agree with prosecuting these individuals, but if I am on the jury and have control of sentencing, they get fined a dollar. And if the judge controls the sentence, then I must acquit.

 

[werepossum]

That's fair and I agree pretty much. Placing them on battlefields etc seems like a reasonable compromise. My concern is the mob mentality on both sides (gasp, I said both sides). These statues are simply tools to further the divide in America, everything is polorized and middle ground isn't allowed to exist. The push is already starting to get rid of Washington and Jefferson as well. When these are all removed there will always be something else, always. There should be a happy medium like a battlefield or museum but I don't think compromise is in either sides playbook.

Probably not at this point. However, that shouldn't prevent us from judging each issue on its on merits. I'm perfectly fine saying that removing Confederate monuments to battlefields is correct but removing monuments to Washington and Jefferson is stupid. Regardless of whether they agree with me on these two issues, anyone with a soul and a functioning brain should be open to crossing lines - although I agree that is getting more rare. But anyone who thinks one side is correct on everything isn't thinking.

 

[Sunburn74]

Everyone acts like the arbitrary removal of some symbols, in this case statues, will magically make things better and it won't. In my experience many of the very people who are raising the most sand over things like the statues are some of the most racist people around. Those statues are reminders of events that litter our past and cannot be changed.

Many of the people who protest them are fixated on forcing whatever change they deem to be appropriate upon us irrespective of their own biases or hatred which are manifested through their actions with the hope of influencing the masses into seeing things their way. I judge people by the content of their character so if you act like an ass I view you as such. BLM will get in your face if you try to remind them that all lives are equal in value which is just as deplorable as what neo-Nazi's do. Arbitrarily assaulting other ethnic groups over how you feel is the very same racist behavior and anyone who can't see it for what it is needs to strip the blinders off.

I agree with you that it won't fix everything. However its clearly a step in the right direction. I liken it to say the public apology the US government gave in the mid 1990s for participating in the Tuskegee experiments. It wasn't something they had to do and it certainly didn't repair black/white relations in the US, but it was a major step in the right direction and and the right thing to do. In fact, to this day, the US government still hasn't publically apologized for participating in slavery and when a sitting US president finally does make the symbolic gesture it also will be the right thing to do and a major advance in healing racial relations in this country.

That being said, I do agree that it is wrong for one group to impose its will by force on another, even in the form of the removal of a statue. But in this case, I truly see the parallels being closer to civil disobedience in india and South africa and even here in the US when you look at the summary of the facts.

Finally, when people say in response to black lives matter "well all lives matter" its deceptively yet robustly insulting to the movement and its meaning. Yes we know all lives matter; BLM people understand that too. However the movement is about highlighting that a particular group of people in the US are especially vulnerable to uncorrected social injustices and this group in today's day and age needs to be highlighted. Imagine if you were working an underpaid job and about to lose your house and have your kids move into your car, and you asked your boss for a temporary raise because your kids are really important to you. Imagine if his response was "well everyone would like a raise because everyone's kids are important to them" and then he turned his back to you doing nothing, maybe even announcing to the company that you asked for a raise and he doesn't think your kids are any more special than anyone else. How insulting is that? How frustrating would that be? Insinuating that 1) you are unaware of the suffering of your friends and colleagues and their children who also are probably underpaid in some fashion or another and 2) that your particular newfound social vulnerability is not really a vulnerability at all.

 

[werepossum]

so mob rules. gotcha.

did the people of Durham want the statue down or a anarchist mob?

Granted, the mob took away the public's choice. But the Republican legislature did the same thing. By trying to keep these statues prominently displayed, they ended up losing the statues completely.

 

[pmv]

Finally, when people say in response to black lives matter "well all lives matter" its deceptively yet robustly insulting to the movement and its meaning. Yes we know all lives matter; BLM people understand that too. However the movement is about highlighting that a particular group of people in the US are especially vulnerable to uncorrected social injustices and this group in today's day and age needs to be highlighted. Imagine if you were working an underpaid job and about to lose your house and have your kids move into your car, and you asked your boss for a temporary raise because your kids are really important to you. Imagine if his response was "well everyone would like a raise because everyone's kids are important to them" and then he turned his back to you doing nothing, maybe even announcing to the company that you asked for a raise and he doesn't think your kids are any more special than anyone else. How insulting is that? How frustrating would that be? Insinuating that 1) you are unaware of the suffering of your friends and colleagues and their children who also are probably underpaid in some fashion or another and 2) that your particular newfound social vulnerability is not really a vulnerability at all.

The insult (mixed with slightly embarrassing self-pity) behind the 'all lives matter' response seemed obvious to me the first time I heard someone say it. It's not like it's one of those things that has to be explained to in terms of abstract PC theory, it ought to be intuitively clear to anyone capable of empathy (so not Trump, probably).

 

[werepossum]

I agree with you that it won't fix everything. However its clearly a step in the right direction. I liken it to say the public apology the US government gave in the mid 1990s for participating in the Tuskegee experiments. It wasn't something they had to do and it certainly didn't repair black/white relations in the US, but it was a major step in the right direction and and the right thing to do. In fact, to this day, the US government still hasn't publically apologized for participating in slavery and when a sitting US president finally does make the symbolic gesture it also will be the right thing to do and a major advance in healing racial relations in this country.

That being said, I do agree that it is wrong for one group to impose its will by force on another, even in the form of the removal of a statue. But in this case, I truly see the parallels being closer to civil disobedience in india and South africa and even here in the US when you look at the summary of the facts.

Finally, when people say in response to black lives matter "well all lives matter" its deceptively yet robustly insulting to the movement and its meaning. Yes we know all lives matter; BLM people understand that too. However the movement is about highlighting that a particular group of people in the US are especially vulnerable to uncorrected social injustices and this group in today's day and age needs to be highlighted. Imagine if you were working an underpaid job and about to lose your house and have your kids move into your car, and you asked your boss for a temporary raise because your kids are really important to you. Imagine if his response was "well everyone would like a raise because everyone's kids are important to them" and then he turned his back to you doing nothing, maybe even announcing to the company that you asked for a raise and he doesn't think your kids are any more special than anyone else. How insulting is that? How frustrating would that be? Insinuating that 1) you are unaware of the suffering of your friends and colleagues and their children who also are probably underpaid in some fashion or another and 2) that your particular newfound social vulnerability is not really a vulnerability at all.

Look at the flip side of that. You are essentially saying that ONLY black lives matter (or at the least, matter more.) Or in your example, assuming that your kids and your situation have more importance than do others.

 

[pmv]

Look at the flip side of that. You are essentially saying that ONLY black lives matter (or at the least, matter more.) Or in your example, assuming that your kids and your situation have more importance than do others.

I don't get why you don't get it.

 

[Commodus]

Granted, the mob took away the public's choice. But the Republican legislature did the same thing. By trying to keep these statues prominently displayed, they ended up losing the statues completely.

Pretty sure that if OutHouse had been alive in 1776, he'd have been describing the American rebels as an "anarchist mob" and calling for crackdowns against them. He seems to love absolute submission to established authority as long as it supports conservative views.

And yeah, this is pretty much it. I wouldn't have specifically called for people to pull down the statue, but when the Republicans have been bending over backward to prevent the public from having a say... well, don't be surprised if some people decide to have their say regardless.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Yes we know all lives matter; BLM people understand that too.

Not from what I've witnessed they don't which I find truly disheartening. Everybody should be treated equally period. We don't see Asian Americans showing out over their ancestors being locked up in internment camps during WW2 which violated the constitution's 4th Amendment.

This foolishness is being driven by instigators and it needs to be stopped. Our past has many sad moments in it but no one group should be given preference over another. FWIW I'm multiracial and have experienced racism first hand and those retarded statues are merely reminders of times past..

 

[werepossum]

Not from what I've witnessed they don't which I find truly disheartening. Everybody should be treated equally period. We don't see Asian Americans showing out over their ancestors being locked up in internment camps during WW2 which violated the constitution's 4th Amendment.

This foolishness is being driven by instigators and it needs to be stopped. Our past has many sad moments in it but no one group should be given preference over another. FWIW I'm multiracial and have experienced racism first hand and those retarded statues are merely reminders of times past..

Well said. I only disagree in one small point: in aggregate, the evil suffered by blacks and Native Americans was by far the most and as a consequence, they are farthest behind economically. Just as blacks need to understand that many of their problems are self-inflicted and not solvable by government, non-blacks need to understand that we are going to have to suffer a little discrimination to provide to blacks the same opportunities that whites and Asians have on average. I do absolutely agree in principle that no one group should be given preference, but practically speaking, trying to solve the lingering effects of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and well-meaning government policies which devastated the black family without some government discrimination would mean glacial progress. I think Native Americans' problems are a bit different and are more easily addressed by government, plus they face less (though not zero) discrimination from individuals.

 

[Sunburn74]

Look at the flip side of that. You are essentially saying that ONLY black lives matter (or at the least, matter more.) Or in your example, assuming that your kids and your situation have more importance than do others.

So this is a great divide in american politics: the question of the role of special interests. Should minority special interests matter? That is the basic fundamental question at play here.

Should gay rights matter?
Should people who have extremely rare diseases get congressional support to get their extremely rare diseases researched and cured?
Should the fraction of people who can't afford a lawyer be given one in criminal proceedings?
Should we as a society pay for a 8 year olds 2nd lung transplant? Should we pay for 50 year olds 2nd heart transplant?
Do black lives matter?
Do transgender lives matter?

It's a very basic fundamental question here. Some people believe that special interests have no serious place in government, particularly in a democracy. Others believe in tyranny of the majority and understand that for many of these special interests it is only by luck and genetics one avoids falling into those groups.

I'm someone definitely gives a reasonable ear to special interests simply because often what these interests are asking is just that: very reasonable, asking for equal treatment, not SPECIAL treatment. Just my 2 cents. The black lives matter isn't arguing that black lives matter more than anyone else. In fact, they are arguing the opposite: that in society (and this is almost indisputable I would say) black lives matter less and should matter at least equally as everyone else!

 

[werepossum]

So this is a great divide in american politics: the question of the role of special interests. Should minority special interests matter? That is the basic fundamental question at play here.

Should gay rights matter?
Should people who have extremely rare diseases get congressional support to get their extremely rare diseases researched and cured?
Should the fraction of people who can't afford a lawyer be given one in criminal proceedings?
Should we as a society pay for a 8 year olds 2nd lung transplant? Should we pay for 50 year olds 2nd heart transplant?
Do black lives matter?
Do transgender lives matter?

It's a very basic fundamental question here. Some people believe that special interests have no serious place in government, particularly in a democracy. Others believe in tyranny of the majority and understand that for many of these special interests it is only by luck and genetics one avoids falling into those groups.

I'm someone definitely gives a reasonable ear to special interests simply because often what these interests are asking is just that: very reasonable, asking for equal treatment, not SPECIAL treatment. Just my 2 cents. The black lives matter isn't arguing that black lives matter more than anyone else. In fact, they are arguing the opposite: that in society (and this is almost indisputable I would say) black lives matter less and should matter at least equally as everyone else!

The problem lies with BLM supporters insisting that "all lives matter" is an insult and must not be heard. Arguing that they agree that all lives matter is difficult to take seriously while they are attacking anyone saying that.

 

[J.Wilkins]

The problem lies with BLM supporters insisting that "all lives matter" is an insult and must not be heard. Arguing that they agree that all lives matter is difficult to take seriously while they are attacking anyone saying that.

I think the idea here is that BLM notes that there is a discrepancy in the treatment based on race while the "all lives matter" group wants to play pretend that there isn't.