On Removing Confederate Statues

[Mike]

15 hours ago, askandanswer said:

If there's uncertainty about the legality, perhaps we need a statute about statues in each State so that the status of their removal will be standardised.

Not sure I follow precisely what you mean. If you mean a federal statute to standardize all 50 states it's a little bit ironic given the context of the Confederacy in the first place.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Wow.  My favorite Denver AM talk radio host was interviewing an older Chinese lady this morning as I drove into work.  She grew up in Mao's Red Army.  

She talked about how the cultural revolution had it's roots in social justice.  

Then it morphed into removing bits of history.  They would dig up remains of old Chinese cultural heroes, put the remains on display, and denounce them.  

Witch hunts of the wrong-thinking people started out looking like what we are seeing here today.  But it got worse.  Eventually, people walking around in public places needed to give some sort of visible or audible affirmation to Mao or the government, whenever in view of the military.  If you didn't look positive and optimistic, you could get called out.  Which meant anything from being harassed, to having your family investigated and murdered, and your children's children would bear the mark of disloyalty.

Ok folks, it's important to rev up on our "slippery slope fallacies" vs "History repeats itself" arguments.  

[Mike]

25 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Wow.  My favorite Denver AM talk radio host was interviewing an older Chinese lady this morning as I drove into work.  She grew up in Mao's Red Army.  

She talked about how the cultural revolution had it's roots in social justice.  

Then it morphed into removing bits of history.  They would dig up remains of old Chinese cultural heroes, put the remains on display, and denounce them.  

Witch hunts of the wrong-thinking people started out looking like what we are seeing here today.  But it got worse.  Eventually, people walking around in public places needed to give some sort of visible or audible affirmation to Mao or the government, whenever in view of the military.  If you didn't look positive and optimistic, you could get called out.  Which meant anything from being harassed, to having your family investigated and murdered, and your children's children would bear the mark of disloyalty.

Ok folks, it's important to rev up on our "slippery slope fallacies" vs "History repeats itself" arguments.  

Was the AM talk radio host seeking to draw parallels with the City Council decision in Charlottesville to remove the R Robert E. Lee Statue? I'm not seeing the issue  as a "history repeats itself". 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Wow.  My favorite Denver AM talk radio host...

off topic: Did you shed any tears when Caplis and Silverman ended their show?

[NeuroTypical]

7 minutes ago, Mike said:

Was the AM talk radio host seeking to draw parallels with the City Council decision in Charlottesville to remove the R Robert E. Lee Statue? I'm not seeing the issue  as a "history repeats itself". 

The host is talking about the cultural swings he is seeing happening in the US.  From mobs demanding statues getting pulled down, to Asian-american Robert Lee getting pulled from his radio announcer gig by ESPN, to the Google memo writer being fired, to the Christian baker being sued, to calls by talking heads on network news to 'revisit freedom of speech'. 

[NeuroTypical]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

off topic: Did you shed any tears when Caplis and Silverman ended their show?

Heh - I love it that Silverman basically started out that show as the guy on the left, and these days he sounds more right wing than Caplis sometimes.   I shed a few tears when Peter Boyles got fired for threatening to punch is producer, and was relieved when he popped back up at KNUS.  Boyles was the guy interviewing the Chinese lady this morning.  

By the way, her name is Lilly Tang Williams, and it was such a fascinating hour of radio, I'll probably download the segment.  You can find it here:

https://peterboyles.podbean.com/ - it's Aug 23, 2017 - Hr 3

 

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

Just to put a spin on the topic:

Because of Benedict Arnold's attempted betrayal of West Point, he's been touted as the quintessential traitor.  Only Judas and Brutus are held in such esteem.

So evil and hated was he that years later by act of Congress, his name may not appear in stone or metal.  Thus his name is omitted on a monument to "The Hero of Saratoga".

What is the philosophical difference between this act and the desire to take down statues?

[NeuroTypical]

Or for that matter, what's so bad about ISIS destroying the cultural heritage/libraries/landmarks of lands it conquers, as it goes about instilling Shari'a?

Edited August 23, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

The host is talking about the cultural swings he is seeing happening in the US.  From mobs demanding statues getting pulled down, to Asian-american Robert Lee getting pulled from his radio announcer gig by ESPN, to the Google memo writer being fired, to the Christian baker being sued, to calls by talking heads on network news to 'revisit freedom of speech'. 

Cultural swings have happened for better and for worse, and there's every reason to anticipate them everywhere and always. I'm reminded (but not drawing parallels) of the history of the City of Münster, Germany in the mid-1500s involving Catholics, Lutherans, and Anabaptists--all of them acting in the "name" of God. 

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Or for that matter, what's so bad about ISIS destroying the cultural heritage/libraries/landmarks of lands it conquers, as it goes about instilling Shari'a?

In my mind that is light-years difference from the OP.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Or for that matter, what's so bad about ISIS destroying the cultural heritage/libraries/landmarks of lands it conquers, as it goes about instilling Shari'a?

You know... I think you hit the nail on the head.

Destroying such things are the mark of the conqueror.  Others have done so only by virtue of military conquest or political revolution.

What we have here is no political revolution (on the order of a coup) and no external conqueror coming to subjugate the people with military might.  We have a social revolution backed not by military or political power, but by social weapons such as the media, academia, entertainers/celebrities, and mobs.

Make no bones about it.  It is a very real revolution.  And it does not bode well.

Has this ever happened before?

Edited August 23, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Or for that matter, what's so bad about ISIS destroying the cultural heritage/libraries/landmarks of lands it conquers, as it goes about instilling Shari'a?

Just now, Carborendum said:

You know... I think you hit the nail on the head.

1 minute ago, Mike said:

In my mind that is light-years difference from the OP.

Wow.  It appears we're not on the same page.

[Mike]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Wow.  It appears we're not on the same page.

Appears that way.

[Jojo Bags]

On 8/18/2017 at 6:03 PM, MormonGator said:

We should get rid of statues of Washington and Jefferson. They were slaveholders, after all. 

Actually, we should just burn the Constitution since it was written by slaveholders and white imperialists.  I mean, the Constitution is being "interpreted," butchered and twisted so far beyond its original intent as to be unrecognizable to the Founders.

[Mike]

Imagine that South Korea were to conquer the communists to the North and reunite the two countries. Many years after the death of Kim Jung Un some small group of citizens in some relatively small city in the North erects of statue of one of Kim Jung Un's top generals on or near the site of displaced people who endured the prior regime. Approximately 90 years later some of the people in the city manage to obtain a legal decision to remove the statue. But as with any issue there are many who resent the statue's removal--some of them cling to what they see as ideals of the former regime, others hate the idea of sanitizing Korea's history. I suppose it could easily be called by some as a sign of cultural revolution, or destruction of history, etc. Opponents of the City Council's decision in Charlottesville likely disagree with my analogy, but even though it's contrived I think it's more apt than some of the arguments I've heard.

[NeuroTypical]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Destroying such things are the mark of the conqueror.  Others have done so only by virtue of military conquest or political revolution.

What we have here is no political revolution (on the order of a coup) and no external conqueror coming to subjugate the people with military might.  We have a social revolution backed not by military or political power, but by social weapons such as the media, academia, entertainers/celebrities, and mobs.

Indeed.  A massive nationwide shift has been brewing, then happened, and is still happening and shifting.  Here's one way to see it:

[Guest MormonGator]

28 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Indeed.  A massive nationwide shift has been brewing, then happened, and is still happening and shifting.  Here's one way to see it:

I think this signifies a generational shift. The blunt, harsh reality is that many people who are against gay marriage are older and logically, are dying off. In ten years, the numbers against it will be even smaller. 

[askandanswer]

28 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Indeed.  A massive nationwide shift has been brewing, then happened, and is still happening and shifting.  Here's one way to see it:

Here in Australia, today is the last day on which people can register to be included in the same sex postal plebiscite on same sex marriage that will commence in a few weeks time, the results of which will heavily influence how our politicians will vote on the question of whether same sex marriage will be legislated for. The government wanted to ask the question via a national plebiscite, similar to an election, but the Labor Opposition, with help from the Greens and some Independents  was able to block that move in the Senate and the national postal vote is seen as the next best option.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think this signifies a generational shift. The blunt, harsh reality is that many people who are against gay marriage are older and logically, are dying off. In ten years, the numbers against it will be even smaller. 

If that is so, then the number to look for is 85%.  When it hits that number we will be legally persecuted (and possibly prosecuted) for believing that homosexual activity is a sin.  The Church (as well as any other Christian faiths who share the same belief) will be treated like we were over the polygamy issue.

Ironic.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think this signifies a generational shift. The blunt, harsh reality is that many people who are against gay marriage are older and logically, are dying off. In ten years, the numbers against it will be even smaller. 

The two (cultural and generational) are not mutually exclusive. And, frankly, commonly coincide.

That being said, I think you're flat out wrong here. There are, almost certainly, a whole host of individuals who, if asked, 10 years ago opposed it and now support it. People are changing their views on the matter. Death alone, in no way, can explain the huge jump in support in the last 10 years or so. Not even close.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If that is so, then the number to look for is 85%.  When it hits that number we will be legally persecuted (and possibly prosecuted) for believing that homosexual activity is a sin.  The Church (as well as any other Christian faiths who share the same belief) will be treated like we were over the polygamy issue.

Ironic.

 There is a bright spot. Demographically Islamic and Christian couples  have way more kids-so demographics are on the side of those who are generally anti-gay marriage. So it could be a raw numbers game. You never know. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 There is a bright spot. Demographically Islamic and Christian couples  have way more kids-so demographics are on the side of those who are generally anti-gay marriage. So it could be a raw numbers game. You never know. 

Well, the other side still gets strength from our attrition.  And I also believe that Islam of the future will become much more militant.  i.e. what we hear about the jihadi Muslims, will eventually become the common Muslim.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Well, the other side still gets strength from our attrition.  And I also believe that Islam of the future will become much more militant.  i.e. what we hear about the jihadi Muslims, will eventually become the common Muslim.

Islam is the future of Europe, that's for sure. A simple look at the demographics can tell you that. What will happen in America? Probably the same, but not for another several generations. Believe me-an old dude like you will be long, long dead by the time persecution of Christians becomes an issue. 

I get that people like being pessimistic and everyone has a touch of the martyr complex-but I just don't see it happening anytime soon. 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Islam is the future of Europe, that's for sure. A simple look at the demographics can tell you that. What will happen in America? Probably the same, but not for another several generations. Believe me-an old dude like you will be long, long dead by the time persecution of Christians becomes an issue. 

I get that people like being pessimistic and everyone has a touch of the martyr complex-but I just don't see it happening anytime soon. 

I'm not being pessimistic.  I gave no date.  I didn't say it would happen in my lifetime.  I said it would have to reach around 85% for it to become sufficient political force.

The 85% number is a statistically significant number.  It wasn't pessimism.  It was a mathematical observation.

In that same vein, if we accept the graph that NT provided to be accurate, then the 85% line will happen in about 30 to 40 years.  Why, I'll only be 140 by then.  I should still be around at that point. 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 I should still be around at that point. 

Not if you don't quit that three pack a day Marlboro habit. How is that going for you, by the way?