RE: White supremacists and counter protesters clash in Charlottesville
August 14, 2017 at 9:25 am
(This post was last modified: August 14, 2017 at 9:39 am by Brian37.)
(August 14, 2017 at 9:09 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:(August 14, 2017 at 8:58 am)Brian37 Wrote: ^^^^^ Is like saying, "Why cant Islamic countries throw gays off rooftops and deny women equal rights?"
This is about the pure fact that government property is the property of everyone, not one group, not one political party and should not be used to promote or glorify cruelty to other humans. Those who conducted the war in the south were not heros, they were the enemy.
You would not say that say, if Iran had a civil war, and out of the ashes a western democracy rose but some still kept the statues of those who clung to the past.
If you defend the town/city in that fashion then you have no value for the bloodshed and struggle of those who supported the likes of MLK and what he did and died for to end segregation. To leave up statues of those who apposed the progress he died for is vile.
The only context those statues should be kept around like I said, is in a museum of what not to do to your fellow human being.
You are not defending free speech by arguing like this. You are defending a vile history that nobody should want to glorify.
No Brian, it's not like saying "Why cant Islamic countries throw gays off rooftops and deny women equal rights?" . It's a question of a statue in a town and whether or not a town should be able to display it. I maintain if the statue is what the people of the town want and it doesn't violate any ones rights or laws then they should be able to have it.
BULLSHIT, as much as you would like to claim "It is just a statue" that statue still is a representation of cruelty to other humans.
Leaving those statues up on public property would be the same as using public property to display the Nazi flag. And if you were not paying attention to Charlottesville the murderer was a white nationalist who valued Hitler.
Yep, according to you then lets also let cities and towns decide which race uses which water fountain and bathroom and where they sit on the bus.
How about no!
(August 14, 2017 at 9:24 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: If a town wants to be seen as honoring a racist, I say let 'em. Tells me a lot about the place.
No, I know what you are trying to say, "If they do that it is out in the open that way we know whom to avoid."
Nice idea but if it worked like that we would not see the rise of 45.
The other thing is that it also misses the point that there are liberals in even red states and in rural America that we would be abandoning by taking this "let em all rot" attitude. I know my Redneck friend in Oklahoma would love to see his state go blue and I would never abandon him as an individual despite the majority in his state voting red.
The town he lives in Norman Ok, is actually a liberal oasis in that state. He has described his co workers as being very diverse, gays and lesbians and even Arabs and Asians. If we want that kind of pluralism to go nation wide we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Same can be said for Austin, it is extremely liberal compared to rural Texas. Atlanta too.
Even out hear in the sticks of NC on the coast, I have been here 12 years and the jobs I have had were full of diversity.
The more I listen to my friend John, the more I know we cannot abandon the middle of the country because of the right wing. It to me is the same as telling someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Malala, well, look where you lived, while we appreciate you challenging your majorities, you are still on your own.
John represents the good in our species and I will not hold his rural upbringing against him because others are dicks.
A human is a human is a human to me, and ultimately we still should treat individuals as such and not assume their geography makes them automatically deserving of condemnation. Hate and bigotry sure, but not geography.
