Won't getting rid of the so call statue made the problem worse?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,040
136
Given how close the result was, I would have thought that racism probably made the crucial difference. (largely in relation to the refugee crisis, which, unlike existing immigration from, say, South Asia, was directly entangled with the EU issue, as most refugees had to come through Europe)

But I think racism is still primarily directed at black and asian people rather than white European migrants. I don't accept it compares in intensity or even in motivation. A complication that makes comparisons difficult is that white EU migrants went to parts of the country that had not seen much inward migration of any kind before. Those areas didn't react well to it.

The regions that had long had higher levels of immigration and (non white) ethnic minority populations (most of the big cities) were precisely the ones that voted strongly for 'remain'. You can't really say how the more insular, previously unaffected areas of the country would have reacted to significant numbers of non-European immigrants because they have never had any. I believe it would have been worse.

I'm still not a fan of the EU (its economic policies have for some time now been aimed at benefiting the wealthier groups in the northern member states at the expense of everyone else, and God, is it a baroque and inefficient and in practice undemocratic organisation), but for me the number one reason to vote remain (and to stay and try and fix things from within) was fear of those who would feel hugely encouraged by a leave victory. A fear that seems to be being bourne out. Farage is as repellent and extreme as Trump but a little bit better at hiding it.

The only bright spot is that the leave voters were very disproportionately elderly. If only the vote had come a decade later I suspect the result would have been different, as quite a few of them would have died off (hurrah for Millennials, I say). Cameron was an unmitigated idiot in holding an unnecessary referendum - solely to serve the short-term interests of his party - without even considering the possibility of losing it. The British ruling class seems to regularly produce these inept dilettantes for whom its all a jolly game (at least Thatcher, significantly, the last of the 'striver class', was competent). British history is full of upper-class nitwits and the fiascos they bought about (I think there are a few statues of some of them still around).

Things are not going to go well from here on, I reckon.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Good suggestions. Columbus, at least, seems like a prime candidate. Washington? Well from my point-of-view he was certainly a traitor (he was a British military officer who took an oath to the King, and then broke it, after all) but I kind of think that ship has sailed, really. Sadly, it's a bit late to arrest the lot of you now.

Well, if your ancestors' spines were as stiff as their upper lips you might not have the shame of your defeat and suffering our superior influence over the world hanging over your head......and your leaders sucking up to our.....sucky leader.

pmv said:
But it seems you now stage a weasel's retreat to saying you were merely 'discussing equivalent tactics' - what does that even mean? I saw no 'discussion' in your post. Did you forget to include it?

Allow me to quote my original post:

If blowing up statues was good enough for the Taliban, it is certainly good enough for the lefties. Can't let the alt-right corner the market on mimicking ISIS.

So, you tell me, what was contained in that post other than mocking derision toward the behavior and tactics that seems all the....errrr....rage? Oh, hey, it seems you missed that all important 2nd sentence in that 2 sentence post. You might find a nugget of comprehension that obviously went over your head. Likely you missed it because the first sentence just sent you into a blind rage, as it seems to have done with the other lefty legionnaires in this thread. I didn't retreat into anything. If my post confused you, that is your failing, not mine. Seems pretty plain to me exactly what was said and meant.

pmv said:
But hey, I guess the protestors also wore clothes, just as the Taliban did! So the damning similarities mount up.

You bring up a good point! Maybe you're not worthless after all!

austin_antifa_guns.jpg


antifa-thugs-armed.png


km2rl8ffysyx.jpg


pmv said:
Hint - you need to pick similarities that are in some way related to the morality and meaning of the actions, not just random things that they also share with any number of other people (e.g. crowds of Iraqis). Otherwise your posts have no point.

ProTip: Morality is subjective and your morality isn't the only one that matters. Those in power will enforce their "morality" over those within their control. Your country's history is a perfect example of this behavior, and the USA learned by your example.

I'm sure that every Taliban fighter feels morally justified in destroying artifacts and murdering non-believers. We (even yourself included) are generally better than that because we have the rule of law and established human rights. There are some differences though, we value free speech over here. You don't, and to the point, there appears to be plenty over here that don't either. Glad we've got a constitution spelling out our rights. That's my moral compass right there. Unlike most of the extremists on one side or the other, I'm rather fond of all of the rights guaranteed in our constitution and amendments.

Destruction of property, whether by sledge hammer or bomb, because of a disagreement with whatever subjective moral reason a perp may have is an immoral act. I've got no problem if the owners of these depictions of people, places, or ideas move them, hide them, or destroy them. That's their decision to make.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,040
136
Amazing amount of incoherent gibberish cut
Sorry, did you actually have anything to say makes any sense whatsoever?

What the hell was that all supposed to be about? Oh, and little hint if you don't want to sound completely clueless - the Taliban and ISIS are not the same thing and the Taliban weren't 'mimicking ISIS' in destroying those statues.

But you didn't, in all that nonsensical verbiage and random pictures, actually address the point - the complete lack of any meaningful similarity between toppling those confederate statues and the ones in Afghanistan. You failed to provide an argument for there being any similarity, so what the point of all that drivel was supposed to be I have no idea.

Are all US right-wingers as random as you? Are any of you capable of constructing an argument with a point?
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
How about you just focus on my last paragraph....thats the meat. The rest, just dressing.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,243
86
Well, if your ancestors' spines were as stiff as their upper lips you might not have the shame of your defeat and suffering our superior influence over the world hanging over your head......and your leaders sucking up to our.....sucky leader.



Allow me to quote my original post:



So, you tell me, what was contained in that post other than mocking derision toward the behavior and tactics that seems all the....errrr....rage? Oh, hey, it seems you missed that all important 2nd sentence in that 2 sentence post. You might find a nugget of comprehension that obviously went over your head. Likely you missed it because the first sentence just sent you into a blind rage, as it seems to have done with the other lefty legionnaires in this thread. I didn't retreat into anything. If my post confused you, that is your failing, not mine. Seems pretty plain to me exactly what was said and meant.



You bring up a good point! Maybe you're not worthless after all!

austin_antifa_guns.jpg


antifa-thugs-armed.png


km2rl8ffysyx.jpg




ProTip: Morality is subjective and your morality isn't the only one that matters. Those in power will enforce their "morality" over those within their control. Your country's history is a perfect example of this behavior, and the USA learned by your example.

I'm sure that every Taliban fighter feels morally justified in destroying artifacts and murdering non-believers. We (even yourself included) are generally better than that because we have the rule of law and established human rights. There are some differences though, we value free speech over here. You don't, and to the point, there appears to be plenty over here that don't either. Glad we've got a constitution spelling out our rights. That's my moral compass right there. Unlike most of the extremists on one side or the other, I'm rather fond of all of the rights guaranteed in our constitution and amendments.

Destruction of property, whether by sledge hammer or bomb, because of a disagreement with whatever subjective moral reason a perp may have is an immoral act. I've got no problem if the owners of these depictions of people, places, or ideas move them, hide them, or destroy them. That's their decision to make.

Corn types are only defending these statues to the bitter end because they're jim crow monuments. Racist degenerates certainly didn't raise nearly as much of a fuss with the buddhist statues or whatever.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Corn types are only defending these statues to the bitter end because they're jim crow monuments. Racist degenerates certainly didn't raise nearly as much of a fuss with the buddhist statues or whatever.

I never defended these statues, but then again you knew that already, because that would require some level of self awareness. As usual, you're just buggy programming stuck on a subroutine you can't break.
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
So what? Muslims are responsible for 94% of the terror attacks in the world, should we blame them as a group?
Nope. We should blame Islam, and its apologists; people like you, who only care about themselves and about virtue signalling. If you cared about muslims you would care about their suffering, but instead you focus on how likely it is that they'd inconvenience or kill you. For shame.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,040
136
How about you just focus on my last paragraph....thats the meat. The rest, just dressing.

But your last paragraph is a completely different argument to the one you started with. You still haven't made any case for a valid comparison between the Taliban Buddha-destruction and the confederate statue case. Unless you are saying the problem with the Taliban was their not following the US constitution and something to do with the 'rule of law' (even though the Taliban were controlling the country and hence the law there).
So I'm assuming you've finally acknowledged your initial post made no sense.

PS what's with all the pictures of Americans striking poses with guns? The internet is awash with pictures of Americans posing with guns, it seems to be kind of your 'thing' and as American as apple pie. I see no reason to comment on it, as its a cultural difference and not my business.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,040
136
Nope. We should blame Islam, and its apologists; people like you, who only care about themselves and about virtue signalling. If you cared about muslims you would care about their suffering, but instead you focus on how likely it is that they'd inconvenience or kill you. For shame.

I always find it funny how often people use accusations of 'virtue signalling' as part of their virtue signalling. It's such a circular, self-defeating concept in how its usually employed that there ought to be a kind of Godwin's law about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,937
55,294
136
But your last paragraph is a completely different argument to the one you started with. You still haven't made any case for a valid comparison between the Taliban Buddha-destruction and the confederate statue case. Unless you are saying the problem with the Taliban was their not following the US constitution and something to do with the 'rule of law' (even though the Taliban were controlling the country and hence the law there).
So I'm assuming you've finally acknowledged your initial post made no sense.

PS what's with all the pictures of Americans striking poses with guns? The internet is awash with pictures of Americans posing with guns, it seems to be kind of your 'thing' and as American as apple pie. I see no reason to comment on it, as its a cultural difference and not my business.

A small subset of the US population has a bizarre fixation with guns. Only about a third of US households have anyone with a gun in them and something like 5% of people in the US own 50% of the guns.

The US is much less of a gun culture than most people think, we just have a very vocal pro-gun minority.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,937
55,294
136
That being said, the argument that getting rid of statues meant to commemorate people who fought explicitly for slavery means getting rid of every statue of someone who owned a slave is stupid.

Statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are meant to celebrate their role in our country's independence. They aren't meant to celebrate their slaveowning any more than they are meant to celebrate Jefferson's infidelity or if they cheated on their taxes or anything else. Robert E. Lee is famous for exactly one thing: his fight to keep people enslaved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,198
17,890
126
A small subset of the US population has a bizarre fixation with guns. Only about a third of US households have anyone with a gun in them and something like 5% of people in the US own 50% of the guns.

The US is much less of a gun culture than most people think, we just have a very vocal pro-gun minority.


When you have more guns than people, you have a gun culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,040
136
That being said, the argument that getting rid of statues meant to commemorate people who fought explicitly for slavery means getting rid of every statue of someone who owned a slave is stupid.

Statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are meant to celebrate their role in our country's independence. They aren't meant to celebrate their slaveowning any more than they are meant to celebrate Jefferson's infidelity or if they cheated on their taxes or anything else. Robert E. Lee is famous for exactly one thing: his fight to keep people enslaved.

Yes, that seems the crucial point. I feel the same about many statues here in the UK - there's a difference between statues of people who happened to be racist and those of people where their racism is completely intertwined with what they are being commemorated for.

e.g. I can come up with a long list of reasons I don't myself like Winston Churchill, but ultimately his reknown and his statues are because he was consistently right about Hitler (at a crucial time when an awful lot of people got it wrong) and was a victorious and capable war leader. They aren't celebrating his failure to accept the inevitability of the end of British rule in India, or his role in Gallipoli, or his treatment of the Welsh miners, or his (arguable) culpability for the Bengal famine, etc.

But I think there are quite a few statues of historical figures around where one would struggle to find a justification for their fame other than the very things that are problematic about them.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,040
136
A small subset of the US population has a bizarre fixation with guns. Only about a third of US households have anyone with a gun in them and something like 5% of people in the US own 50% of the guns.

The US is much less of a gun culture than most people think, we just have a very vocal pro-gun minority.

By the way, may be a naive question (can't be bothered with an image search and further investigation) but is that second picture genuine and not photo-shopped? Didn't realise RPGs and bipod-mounted machine guns were legal in the US. I also struggle to think of how such items would actually be used in a meaningful political way in the US as it currently is, as opposed to striking radical-chic poses as if making publicity shots for an anarcho punk rock band.

The awful thing is, despite myself, the thought comes up with regard to the first and last pictures that 'they do look kind of cool...first rate radical posture-striking there'. I'm not proud of this. It's the effect of socialisation in a miltaristic and pro-violence culture, honest. But all the same, I don't, and never will, see hammer-and-sickles on a par with swastikas.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,937
55,294
136
By the way, may be a naive question (can't be bothered with an image search and further investigation) but is that second picture genuine and not photo-shopped? Didn't realise RPGs and bipod-mounted machine guns were legal in the US. I also struggle to think of how such items would actually be used in a meaningful political way in the US as it currently is, as opposed to striking radical-chic poses as if making publicity shots for an anarcho punk rock band.

The awful thing is, despite myself, the thought comes up with regard to the first and last pictures that 'they do look kind of cool...first rate radical posture-striking there'. I'm not proud of this. It's the effect of socialisation in a miltaristic and pro-violence culture, honest. But all the same, I don't, and never will, see hammer-and-sickles on a par with swastikas.

Looks pretty photoshopped to me (not that I know much of anything about photoshop). RPGs and machine guns are technically legal in the US but the permitting process is huge from my understanding and varies a lot by state. It's unlikely that someone in the US was sporting a real RPG.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Looks pretty photoshopped to me (not that I know much of anything about photoshop). RPGs and machine guns are technically legal in the US but the permitting process is huge from my understanding and varies a lot by state. It's unlikely that someone in the US was sporting a real RPG.

Antifa is international in a very loosely organized fashion so that pic could have come from anywhere.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,314
32,823
136
I see all the people who are calling for removal and destruction of the so call statue. I personally think it is stupid and idiotic thing to ask for. Statues are just... statues. Art if you will. They are part of the United States histories; removing the statues will not erase the hate. In fact, the forced removal will give give the so call white supremacist even more ammo.

Keep in mind the whole thing happen because of the initial removal of the statues. Hate cannot be and will not be erased just because of the statues removal.
Read the Cornerstone Speech given by the founder of the Confederacy. Read it and then tell me as a black man I should feel comfortable with these representations in the public square?
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech