Regarding The Flap Over Confederate Statues

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not at all.  I suggested that given the sensitivity of this issue, the people of Charlottesville SHOULD vote on it.

No, Benny, what you've been hammering on is that the folks who do not want these statues up need to get over their feelings. Would you like me to link you to your own posts to make that case?

So. . . you feel I'm not a true enough Scotsman after all.  Whatever.

"Whatever" -- the last refuge of the thoughtless. You can read what I've written or not as you wish. I already understand that I cannot change your mind. The fact that you simply sweep away the views of those who disagree with you rather points that up:

The hysterical rhetoric that so often follows these issues is, in my opinion, drummed up histrionics.  Overall, the statue's existence or lack of existence, its display or its lack of display, really shouldn't matter as much as people pretend.

You're certainly not thinking enough to step outside your own box. You clearly have no understanding that others may not see things the way you do, and just as clearly, when they don't see things the way you do, rather than address their views, you prefer to label them "hysterical" as a means of, perhaps, not having to ask yourself difficult questions.

It's all good. You keep on being Benny, and I'll keep on replying as I see fit. But don't think for a moment that you sweeping the pieces off the board means others must accept your views.

I would NEVER tell anyone to "shut the fuck up" about this so long as they are arguing a sincere opinion.

Of course not. But what is your dismissiveness if not a STFU gussied up in fancy language?

3)  remove some statues on specific principles-- an understandable choice, but potentially divisive as can easily be seen right now

Nice to see that you acknowledge that there are other views. Of course it can be divisive. Democracy is messy.

In the third case, measures should be taken to assure that the citizens of the city to whom the park was bequeathed actually approve of the special principle involved: in this case, that the presence of a Confederate monument on public lands in a US city is sufficiently inflammatory and hurtful that it should be removed, or placed in a museum which can establish a better historical "context."

I've got no problem with this, although I'd add that when such disagreement compels one side to drive a car into a crowd we've probably confirmed that it is "sufficiently inflammatory".

Is there another standard, above murder, which you need?

It's my perception that many in the Southern states admire Lee and consider him worth memorializing.  If so, then there's an additional question: "Are some values so important to the US that they must be adhered to despite popular opinion?"  In other words, should the statue be removed EVEN IF the numerical majority of Charlottesville citizens don't want it to be?

And that, to be sure, is where the backlash lies-- that Southerners view Washington-of-the-North as overstepping its bounds in determining on their behalf what views should / shouldn't be considered acceptable to the US as a whole.

The fact is that the Supreme Court, for instance, levies unpopular opinions often enough as well. And if they lay one here against my own feelings, I will accept it for what it is -- a government mandate.

Many Southerners love Bobby Lee, and many others understand his nuanced biography, and yet more don't give a shit about him but are rather more concerned about statuary dedicated to him causing rifts. If the South doesn't like "Washington-of-the-North", tough shit. That war was fought and lost, popular opinion notwithstanding.

There you go. . . appeal to hypocrisy.

Maybe you should pay more mind to your own fallacious thinking, then.

Look, there are plenty of valid arguments in support of removing the General Lee statue.  But you've made a lot of points which are invalid, because they are obvious logical fallacies.  If those arguments are directed at me and I notice them, I'll call them out 100% of the time, and you are free to do the same.  It is only by getting past rhetorical bullshit and using logic that we can try to understand what this case is really about, and formulate decent ideas about what should be done.

I have certainly engaged in fallacious thinking here and elsewhere. But that doesn't give you a pass for doing the same, so if you don't want it pointed out, don't do it yourself.

Many of my points are very valid, and you'd rather harp on logical fallacies rather than address those, such as social cohesion and so forth. Don't think for a minute I don't see how you're skating away. You're not nearly so clever as you think.

---

But go ahead, tell me exactly how our accurate view of history will be enriched by removing the statue of a historical figure from public lands.  So far, you haven't made this argument in a particularly compelling way.

Yes, because people go to parks to learn history, says the guy who's tossing frisbees that they have to dodge.

You can't have it both ways, Benny.

[bennyboy]

No, Benny, what you've been hammering on is that the folks who do not want these statues up need to get over their feelings.

I never said that. I said that the hysterical rhetoric is drummed up histrionics. I respect people's right to feel however they want about things.

But we aren't currently talking about rhetoric or feelings-- we're talking about voting and the process of determining which special rules should be applied in determining whether to move this statue, or the next one.

So. . . you feel I'm not a true enough Scotsman after all.  Whatever.

"Whatever" -- the last refuge of the thoughtless. You can read what I've written or not as you wish. I already understand that I cannot change your mind. The fact that you simply sweep away the views of those who disagree with you rather points that up:

The "whatever" was clearly about your attempt to discredit my opinion due to an obvious no-true-Scotsman fallacy. I don't need to be thoughtful about that-- it's a fallacy, it always was and will be a fallacy, and I pointed that out to you.

You're certainly not thinking enough to step outside your own box. You clearly have no understanding that others may not see things the way you do, and just as clearly, when they don't see things the way you do, rather than address their views, you prefer to label them "hysterical" as a means of, perhaps, not having to ask yourself difficult questions.

By "hysterical," I mean a tendency to form ideas around feelings rather than rational argumentation, and to assume that if someone seems hurt enough, all rational debate should be abandoned.

It's all good. You keep on being Benny, and I'll keep on replying as I see fit. But don't think for a moment that you sweeping the pieces off the board means others must accept your views.

I never asked you to accept my views. I respect what you've said in the past about free speech, and I know that my position with regard to the statues is not the popular one, at least here.

3)  remove some statues on specific principles-- an understandable choice, but potentially divisive as can easily be seen right now

Nice to see that you acknowledge that there are other views. Of course it can be divisive. Democracy is messy.

Okay, I guess we have a sliver of agreement then. I've stated my main reason for not choosing option 3 is that it's almost impossibly arbitrary. Who gets to decide, and on what basis should they be expected to decide, about how a city, state or nation expresses the ideas of its people? That's the discussion worth having, here, I think.

I've got no problem with this, although I'd add that when such disagreement compels one side to drive a car into a crowd we've probably confirmed that it is "sufficiently inflammatory".

One side didn't drive a car into a crowd. A crazy wingnut did. I think it's a legitimate concern that Republican/white supremacist/wingnut groups, especially online, will lead to similar events or much worse in the future. But each person has to be given the presumption of innocence, the freedom from guilt by association, and so on that are guaranteed under the constitution, or there's really not much left worth fighting for.

The fact is that the Supreme Court, for instance, levies unpopular opinions often enough as well. And if they lay one here against my own feelings, I will accept it for what it is -- a government mandate.

Fair enough, though I'm not really a big fan of the Supreme Court with its 5:4 party line votes. But yes, legal application and philosophical or social opinion are very different things.

I have certainly engaged in fallacious thinking here and elsewhere. But that doesn't give you a pass for doing the same, so if you don't want it pointed out, don't do it yourself.

We each are appealing to hypocrisy, here, and that is the name of the fallacy. I have zero problems with you pointing out logical fallacies if you find them; I have to learn either to approach things differently, or at least cover my tracks better.

---

Yes, because people go to parks to learn history, says the guy who's tossing frisbees that they have to dodge.

You can't have it both ways, Benny.

I can totally have it both ways. I can go to a park, learn some interesting history, admire General Lee's cool get-up, wonder what percent of Southern Americans were already getting sick of the moral problems with slavery. . . and then I can throw my frisbee.

Not having been there yet, I'm a little worried that my dog might not have the liberty to enter the park and catch it for me. But if he could I think he'd have your support, because the chances of him peeing on the General Lee memorial rapidly approach 100% with time spent in the park.

[The Grand Nudger]

You aren't learning any interesting history about Lee from those statues.  How can this be made more plain to you?

[Amarok]

See we have this things called books Benny.....

[bennyboy]

See we have this things called books Benny.....

Books don't stand in public places stimulating attention and / or resentment worth learning about and discussing, for the most part.

[Minimalist]

So he signed the resolution.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/trump-si...oth-sides/

Trump signs resolution condemning white supremacists after reviving claim of bad on ‘both sides’

His fascist pals will be very upset with him.  OTOH, he probably had a big piece of chocolate cake to celebrate getting to sign his name.

[Amarok]

Books are in public places and everywhere else and can tell you more the a paragraph long plaque ever could . If one actually cared about history one would take the time to look it up and  not need shoved in their face . As for discussion we live in an age were nothing is not talked about . So the statue is redundant and as Thump has pointed out causes more trouble then it's worth . But you never be bothered to do the former and your apathy towards the later has been made woefully obvious .

[The Grand Nudger]

See we have this things called books Benny.....

Books don't stand in public places stimulating attention and / or resentment worth learning about and discussing, for the most part.

A milketoast way of suggesting that we should leave the statue version of whites only signs up...for the sake of controversy itself.  No thanks.

[Amarok]

Books don't stand in public places stimulating attention and / or resentment worth learning about and discussing, for the most part.

A milketoast way of suggesting that we should leave the statue version of whites only signs up...for the sake of controversy itself.  No thanks.

That too . Leaving it up to anger people will just lead to more problems.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who cares if it angers people?  It's a clear breach of the spirit of our laws designed explicitly to circumvent those laws by the letter in service of nothing more or less than blatant and plain racism.

There's a reason that we took down all the white supremacist yard art our country had seen fit to ensconce publicly. Because it suggests that the fucking government has taken the side of white supremacy...which, ofc, at the time that those statues were erected and by the people who put them up...it had. That these statues escaped both the physical purge and the conceptual realization that they were just elaborate whites only signs, doesn;t suggest anything good about whether or not our government..or our people, are -still- on the side of white supremacy.

Apparently, supporting their positions with their talking points is something that can happen by accident, and it certainly doesn't happen because they try very hard to whitewash an issue, just like they tried to whitewash "history" with those statues..or by any dedicated effort of normalization by racists. It's not racist unless somebodies wearing a hood, anyway.