Nationwide Removal of Confederate Statues

[TD_washingtonredskins]

9 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

You don't rock the boat. That's laughably pretentious on your part. As is your other allegation. 

 

You just embarrass yourself with most of your posts. And it has zero to do with "right" or "left."

 

It has to do with the large number of very. critical adjectives that can accurately be attributed to a majority of your comments.

 

And since you want to gratuitously insult the forum at large one more time, make sure you remember no one is forcing you. 😉

 

If you need to be cut off for your own peace of mind but can't stop yourself, let a mod know you need help. 👍

 

We like a wide range of intelligent debate, including dissention with any "majority view" here, in any discussion.

 

You routinely offer drivel-laden drive-bys followed with frequent whininess when you get absolutely appropriate feedback.

Appreciate the feedback. It's funny to me that what I provide is considered embarrassing, but it is what it is. I'd recommend you truly evaluate the statement of yours that I underlined, bolded, and italicized above. There is absolutely an echo chamber atmosphere, especially if anyone dares to introduce an opinion that isn't considered perfectly PC, mainstream, or status quo. It's perfectly fine, of course...you guys are free to create the place you want. But, don't try to convince yourself that it doesn't exist. 

[Jumbo]

37 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

But, don't try to convince yourself that it doesn't exist. 

 

The entire post is clueless. The line I left, is again, simplistically pretentious. 

 

You're not a good guide as to what's actually going on in here, though you note a very superficial take on the reality that the forum is predominantly one thing more than another, in terms of political leanings.

 

There are times when some matters go beyond being fully defined by liberal/left/democrat or conservative/right/republican.

 

They become more fully defined by their qualities of morality, decency, fairness, intellectual validity, truthfulness, factual accuracy, etc.

 

Today's sociopolitical landscape has developed more into that state of being than not. Just as things like blacks and women voting or people being able to own other people became more than conservatism or liberalism; than democratic or republican.

 

The majority of regs in here are aligned in the basic morally/intellectually  right v wrong of most (not all) of the major issues (like once again having to defend our democracy itself) more than just being "liberals." Many regs are ex gopers or lifelong indies. 

 

I would think society is better when there is an echo chamber for what's easily  argued as views that are  more factually, intellectually, morally, and ethically sound by any principled standard.

 

Some of these times have meant going to war, whether abroad or domestically.

 

I see the majority of this forum as an echo chamber for "good" and I don't see a problem there. But it doesn't mean people can't debate here. How effective they are and how they handle feedback, including appropriately harsh feedback on serious matters, is on them.

 

To make it as simple as possible, if someone posted a defense of any type of membership in, or association with, nambla or the KKK,  the feedback, and moderating, would likely be quite forceful.

 

Understanding that, one can work their way backward in level of severity and importance regarding the topic and understand how "echo chamber" and many other terms used in arguments can be applied in a shallow, vapid manner and often in defense of one's annoyed ego or "hurt feels."

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Very good...it's a nice post, @Jumbo and I agree that you are more in tune to the daily leanings. 

 

That said, I agree with you overall about there being common things that span all humans. I think defending slavery or Hitler or child grooming would be pretty easy to all agree on. I guess where I'm just off my rocker is that I don't think it's cut and dry that a group of people wanting to maintain some memory of people who represented their history/states/etc. rises to that level. Yes, I understand the Civil War and the key disagreement within it. But, the desire to not want to whitewash history is certainly more nuanced than "I like some Civil War names, therefore I loved the idea of slavery."

[Larry]

2 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

OK. I just don't think everything is always that cut and dry. I don't believe that you can always draw a direct line from "wanting to keep names of schools and streets" to "support every ideal held by the individual" 

 

I am fully willing to assert that we should honor George Washington, despite the fact that he owned slaves. To defend the position that the numerous things he did make him worthy of national honors despite what is now a flaw. 

 

Having said that?  Anybody wanting to honor Lee or Stonewall Jackson?  Is honoring them because they're glorifying the Confederacy.  Not despite it. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

16 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

But, the desire to not want to whitewash history is certainly more nuanced than "I like some Civil War names, therefore I loved the idea of slavery."

History was whitewashed when the statues were built. Removing them is simply correcting that whitewashing. 
 

 

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Larry said:

Having said that?  Anybody wanting to honor Lee or Stonewall Jackson?  Is honoring them because they're glorifying the Confederacy.  Not despite it. 

the issue with this way of analyzing things is you enter the territory of deciding what other peoples opinions are for them. 
 

You and I have argued this in the past, but I firmly believe the person speaking gets to decide what their opinions are and what they are trying to convey. Not the person listening. 
 

and we see this throughout. I know it’s hard for me to post things without someone responding by declaring what my motives and opinions are for me. I realize that sometimes that’s because I communicate poorly. Sometimes it’s because of unfortunate word selection that requires cleanup (happened the other week with the noem dog story where my choice of words implied something about all farmers, which wasn’t my intention.) but it absolutely also happens because people all too often think they get to decide what another persons motives or opinions are. 
 

I personally know people who like that we have certain statues or whatever, and it’s not because they think the confederacy was awesome, or wanted them to win, or are racist or hateful. 
 

But based on what you said - those people don’t exist, rather they are simply liars (or whatever)

 

I don’t think that’s helpful. Can’t really think of a time where someone deciding my opinions and motives are different than what I say they are, was a good or productive thing …

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Very well-said, @tshile

[Jumbo]

I give you credit and respect for not just retreating or defending via attack, and commiting to trying to bridge a gap instead.

 

I will say this reading the "nuance" in a situation I firmly argue doesn't merit it:

 

Just apply the simple bromide of "best being the enemy of better" when using your argument of "are we going to address naming streets etc after imperfect people?"

 

Simple face value proposition: statues celebrating military personnel that were by literal definition traitorous, and engaged in that conduct primarily to support the right to maintain the institution of kidnapping, enslaving of black people, and the routine killing, raping, and beating/torturing of them in many cases, is not morally or intellectually defensible. In addition, there's a particularly disturbed element about adorning UNITED STATES military installations with such.

 

Now addressing that matter should not be obstructed by the notion that we name streets (or some other military installation) after some "imperfect person" so why pick on the civil war racist traitors? 

 

It says it all in itself, I'd think. 

 

 

There are no perfect people. But there are degrees of what level of flaws a group of people are willing to accept in such cases. 

 

Each instance can be debated.

 

But the idea that we can't do it with "perfection" in every case doesn't mean we should accept such preposterous wrongness in this major case.

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Very well-said, @tshile

The problem with tying righteousness to your opinions, is the baked in implication that the only reason someone would disagree with you is that they have some sort of hatred motivating them. 
 

it’s not surprising that a person that’s built their opinion/argument on a foundation of absolute moral correctness, treats someone that disagrees the way they do. 
 

it’s why I stay away from abortion discussions. Because both sides operate 100% that way, all the time. doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room for discussion. It’s just people yelling at each other. 

[Jumbo]

People  "get to have their opinion" and in this country have a lot of freedom to express it, but that doesn't mean they get to have their way of course, or that there may not be just or merited consequences as well as unjust and unmerited ones.

[tshile]

That seems to totally miss the point I was making but ok. 

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

the issue with this way of analyzing things is you enter the territory of deciding what other peoples opinions are for them. 

 

I'm judging their motives. And their honesty.  

 

Yes, I'll happily concede that it's possible that some of "these people" have fallen for the false history that's been intentionally pushed for over a century. 

 

Yes, it's a broad brush. 

 

That's the only way to describe a large group of people. 

[PleaseBlitz]

I think on balance, the reduction of confederate monuments and places named after confederates in Virginia has been extremely successful, so two high schools in BFE reversing course is fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme. 
 

I do hope their rival high schools mock them relentlessly and refer to them as the Traitors regardless of what their real mascot is, and wave many American flags when they play against them in sports, and play the Battle Hymn of the Republic at every intermission. 

Edited May 10 by PleaseBlitz

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

I'm judging their motives. And their honesty.

I think there’s a line between judging someone for their opinions and motives, and deciding what they are for yourself. 
 

I’ve got no problem with judging people. At all. 
 

I have a huge problem with deciding what someone else’s opinion is, especially when they’re trying to explain what their opinion is and you simply refuse to consider that maybe they know more about what their opinions are and the motives that drive them than you do. 
 

And to be fair - I fall into it, just like everyone else. I’m not tying to act like I’m riding around on some high horse. But some people operate that way by default. Or just always. I don’t think it’s good, helpful, nor productive. 

[dfitzo53]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

I think there’s a line between judging someone for their opinions and motives, and deciding what they are for yourself. 
 

I’ve got no problem with judging people. At all. 
 

I have a huge problem with deciding what someone else’s opinion is, especially when they’re trying to explain what their opinion is and you simply refuse to consider that maybe they know more about what their opinions are and the motives that drive them than you do. 
 

And to be fair - I fall into it, just like everyone else. I’m not tying to act like I’m riding around on some high horse. But some people operate that way by default. Or just always. I don’t think it’s good, helpful, nor productive. 

I hear what you're saying, but also some people are full of **** and need to be called out as such. 

 

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not talking about anybody in here. 

Edited May 10 by dfitzo53

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

I hear what you're saying, but also some people are full of **** and need to be called out as such. 

 

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not talking about anybody in here. 

Absolutely. 
 

there are people that are against abortion because they are against women. 
 

there are people that are against the statue removal because they are racist trash. 
 

there are people that are republicans because they’re neo nazis, or leftists because they’re anarchists. 
 

and they use the same arguments as cover as they see fit for what motivates them. And sometimes it’s blatantly obvious. 
 

where we go wrong is when we decide those are the only reasons. And then treat people that disagree with us, that the only reason they could possibly disagree with us is that they’re evil/racist/etc

 

[Jumbo]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

That seems to totally miss the point I was making but ok. 

 

I didn't quote you for a reason.  My comment wasn't intended to address your post directly. I just played off it with a different destination in mind....but ok. 😄

  

 

Btw, if you don't attach any moral values you might have to the positions on the topics that I in particular focused on, that's your choice of course. I imagine there are some topics that you do.

 

Since I did consider that your "moral/righteousness" comments might be partially a passively delivered critique on some of my comments, I'll note that I included using rationality, facts, and intellect as part of the equation in forming my take.

 

But it is true I rarely post with much personal interest in "convincing" or swaying someone.

 

I tend to separate morals/emotional thinking, objective facts, and intellectual rational, argument, and identify which components are in play to what degree in matters where I think all are properly involved.

 

I imagine there are topics where you do involve your moral compass and find that an opposing view can be morally unacceptable along with however you'd characterize its factual or intellectual content.

 

 

 

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

Btw, if you don't attach any moral values you might have to the positions on the topics that I in particular focused on, that's your choice of course. I imagine there are some topics that you do.

 

Since I did consider that your "moral/righteousness" comments might be partially a passively delivered critique on some of my comments, I'll note that I included using rationality, facts, and intellect as part of the equation in forming my take.

I have morals and try to apply them consistently. Im aware I fall short of what I think is best. I’m happy to discuss them but only if I get to decide what my morals are…
 

The comment was directed at everyone. I even said I recognize I fall into the same trap. 

Edited May 10 by tshile

[Jumbo]

30 minutes ago, tshile said:

I have morals and try to apply them consistently. Im aware I fall short of what I think is best. I’m happy to discuss them but only if I get to decide what my morals are…
 

The comment was directed at everyone. I even said I recognize I fall into the same trap. 

 

Of course you have morals and try to apply them consistently, and of course everyone gets to decide what their morals are. 🙂

 

Honestly, not sure how that's a concern.

 

 

 

 

With good intentions:

 

Are you perhaps conflating your "having morals and getting to decide what they are" with your moral stance on a given matter being something others shouldn't criticize?

 

How is treating someone's morality or immorality different in discussion than any other component of a position or an opinion. 

 

Anyone's moral stance on a matter seems like it should be subject to comment, in positive or negative assessment.

 

Morality is a meaty subject of great classical argument. And yes, arguing as to (or from) a "weak" or "strong" moral position is pretty basic stuff in many a debate on social and political matters, subjectivity notwithstanding. 

 

I like to point out the many MORAL and RATIONAL and OBJECTIVE arguments used to defend many positions (from early or preteen marriage to sex with children to slavery, to the KKK,) that were eventually fiercely, vehemently, and often violently when necessary, rejected by a dominant majority of opposition at some point. 

 

(So yes, the numbers, or "mob", often matters in such human affairs, but that's a whole nother thing) 

 

 

 

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

Are you perhaps conflating your "having morals and getting to decide what they are" with your moral stance on a given matter being something others shouldn't criticize?

 

How is treating someone's morality or immorality different in discussion than any other component of a position or an opinion. 

If you’re asking this then there’s a huge communication break down. 
 

A recent example, using a different topic for the sake of detaching from this specific topic, would be the Israel-Palestine war. 
 

On one side you have people that are sympathetic to the Palestinian peoples and see a wrong there. The other side “debates” them by essentially saying that by virtue of being sympathetic, you hate Jews; you support terrorist. 
 

On the other side you have people that are sympathetic to the Israelis situation. The other side declares they hate Muslims. 
 

You have people deciding what a speakers intent is for them, and it’s roots are in being so emotionally wrapped up and righteous about their opinions and how they formed them, that it is unreasonable to them that maybe someone disagrees with you for good reason; or that it’s even ok to have a differing opinion at all. 
 

People are lazy and like labels, not details. They seem to prefer fewer labels to choose from and to apply them as quickly as possible. 
 

it’s way easier for me to decide your opinion is based on hatred and corruption, than it is to have to fully consider it and rethink what it may or may not mean for my opinion. 

 

i (like I imagine a lot of people) have changed my opinions and stances on things a lot over the last 20 years. I don’t see how you can be capable of growing as a person if you casually write off things you disagree with.  It requires considering new information. But that takes time and effort. And we’re a society that doesn’t seem to read past the headline or the tweet describing an article. We elected a guy in 2016 that speaks on a 3rd grade level cause that makes people feel comfortable. Conspiracy theories run rampant because at their core they explain why a problem is the fault of some nebulous entity, and absolve us from any responsibility for causing it or doing anything about it. 
 

We’re ****ed as a society 🤷‍♂️ 

[Jumbo]

[Corcaigh]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I do hope their rival high schools mock them relentlessly and refer to them as the Traitors regardless of what their real mascot is, and wave many American flags when they play against them in sports, and play the Battle Hymn of the Republic at every intermission. 

For game days opposing schools should rename themselves Philip Sheridan High School as a reminder of what happens to traitorous scum.

[Renegade7]

@PleaseBlitz is right, this may seem like a set-back, but gravity is clearly winning the slow removal of this memorializing of The Confederacy.

 

The irony is I'd say protecting history and heritage would be more making sure their history is taught, but that's the opposite of many supporters of these memorials are pushing for. 

 

That's how you can tell this has little to nothing to do with saving their history or heritage. 

 

Anyone can correct me, but I thought it was well out there that Robert E Lee felt we shouldn't make statues memorializing Confederate soldiers like himself.  So building one isnt about honoring him at all, either.

Edited May 10 by Renegade7

[maxiumone]

The county I went to high school in. Of course.I went to central high. Funny thing the 3 schools in that county are Strasburg , Central and stonewall Jackson.  Strasburg is in the north of the. County central well central is in the center. Stonewall is in the south go figure