NYC is considering removing statues of Washington and Columbus

[Cellblock2429]

No is suggesting "all problems are solved" by removing statues to slavers. That's a silly strawman.

/——-/ Then why waste time on statues instead of the real problem, run away crime? Why is the NY DA going after Trump while shoplifters run amok in high end department stores?

 

[Curried Goats]

The definition of veneration is irrelevant. What is relevant is the context. In this case, the context is the removal of statues and the motive of those who oppose their removal.

Those who oppose their removal desire for us, as a society, to continue the veneration of slavers which makes it relevant to my argument.

You say they want to keep the statues in place because they venerate slavers and that this is fact. Problem is, you don't know this. You got it wrong when you said I venerate slavers.

I did not get anything wrong. Statues are, objectively, signs of respect and honor for those immortalized by them. You simply don't like the word veneration which is merely a synonym for respect and honor.

I don't venerate anybody, I just think the whole thing is pointless for various reasons. The main reason being that I think it will ultimately accomplish nothing.

It won't accomplish nothing. It will accomplish the end to our public policies of venerating slavers. That's something. It's just not something you value which is an argument I could understand if you were neutral to the matter of slaver veneration. Neutrality is the position of people who truly don't care one way or the other. But they wouldn't be for or opposed. You oppose the removal of statues which implies you do care about maintaining our veneration of slavers for whatever reason.

Again, we're talking about their removal. I never said anything about what statues are for.

I'm telling you what they're for since you seem to be ignorant to their purpose.

What you care or don't care about is irrelevant. The statues were not put up to venerate slavers.

If statues of Washington weren't meant to respect and honor Washington then what were they put up for?

A very small percentage of people in the slave states actually owned slaves. Most of the rest of the population simply supported it, even if they did not profit from it.

I don't know what you characterize as a small percentage. According to the census in 1860 some 40% of people owned slaves in some southern States. Of course it varied. I think the state with the lowest percentage of slave ownership had ownership around 20%. Regardless they were a society that indulged in and profited off of the slavery of men, women and children.

Moral posturing is strategically useful?

Yep.

Didn't say you were. It was a question.

That's not what you said: You said: "I am confident I can eventually get a majority to agree that slavery is morally reprehensible."

Christ, you can't even keep your own arguments straight.

Then it was a mistype. It should of read, "I'm confident I can convince a majority that slaver veneration is deplorable as are the people who venerate them."

You're the one who said the government is liable. Is the government not 50% Democrat?

Is that how you understand liability to work? To me we might squabble and disagree but in the end when our government acts it acts as the United States government, not the Democratic government or the Republican government. That makes the United States 100% responsible for its actions and by extension, "we the people". That's why it doesn't really matter to me that not all Founders were slavers. They decided to work with and cooperate with slavers which makes them just as tainted.

You swap back and forth between arguing individuals and groups or entities as it suits your purpose. You also employ a double standard in that one group (the Democrat party) is not liable for its past but another group (the government) is.

I'm giving context to various levels of responsibility and not to suit my purposes but to suit logic and rationality. No one in the Democratic party today is morally responsible for the actions of Democrats in the 1800s. We are all responsible, financially, as citizens, for the debts incurred by our government in the form of taxes. Where's the double standard?

I implied nothing. I didn't say that reparations for the Japanese wasn't right, I said that having paid the reparations doesn't mean it was right to do so.

In what way was having to pay (happy you pedantic pussy? ) not right? Do you mean emotionally? It was right legally.

I didn't. You're the one saying the government is responsible, not me. Therefore, based on your own argument, the Democrat party is 50% responsible.

That's not my argument. I never said anything about anyone being 50% responsible for anything. That's your stupid argument. I said citizens are responsible for the debts of their government through taxes, because we are, objectively.

This goes back to my comments above about the way you hold one group responsible but not the other.

It all goes back to you being a stupid Bingo who can't follow simple logic.

The problem here is that when I speak from a position of logic and principle, you conflate my remarks to mean something I did not say.

That's ironic. You just accused me of arguing the Democratic party was 50% responsible for something when that's been your line, not mine.

The remarks about Japanese reparations is a clear and recent example. I did not say it wasn't right to pay them reparations, I said that having paid them doesn't mean, in principle, that it was necessarily right to do so.

Which means what other than you're a pussy who's afraid to take a clear position?

You're arguing from a position of emotion and you assume I am too. That's why I've had to tell you numerous times that I did not say what you think I said and why I have to keep telling you your remarks are irrelevant.

You’re not making any arguments as far as I can tell, just noise. You're unable to explain to me what statues are for if not for showing certain people respect and you can't necessarily say whether paying reparations to Japanese Americans was right or wrong. Can you actually take a clear position on anything?

Nope. You're changing the context. Your original remarks in that vein were not about convincing people that the statues should come down, they were about convincing people they were venerating slavers or that they were racists.

They're about convincing decent people that statues to slavers should come down because venerating slavers is deplorable.

Having said that, the statues are not being taken down because hearts and minds are being changed, they're being taken down because politicians are afraid of losing black voters.

Shame, ridicule, fear.... these are acceptable forms of coercion in this case.

In a sense, yes. Hate never works against hate. Never. Hate doesn't inspire you to vanquish ideas you disagree with, it only inspires you to vanquish people you disagree with.

You can't vanquish ideas. That's not a thing we can do. We can vanquish people with bad ideas and do so in such a way that discourages others with similar ideas. That still doesn't make someone who hates Hitler just like Hitler. And to be clear it's not hate that separates Hitler from other people, we all hate, it's a human emotion. It's who he hated and how he decided to deal with that hate that separates Hitler from others. I don't want to violently exterminate people who disagree with me. I want to beat democratically. Any comparisons of me to Hitler are silly and nonsensical in the extreme.

It's you and I in this discussion but you and I are by far not the only ones having it. That means there are people out there who share your views on the statues while also having conflicted morality.

Also? What also? Again, your imaginary people do not reveal any conflict or cognitive dissonance on my part.

I dismissed your views a long time ago precisely because of your fallacy of appeal to emotion, among other things.

And I pointed out wanting to continue the veneration of slavers is also an emotional position. The choice to continue to respect and honor slavers isn't a choice made dispassionately.

I am not compelled to put my morality under a microscope on something like this when I know the morality of those who would call me racist or idolater of slavers is no better than mine.

If you weren't self conscious about any inconsistencies in your morality you wouldn't be so afraid to express and defend it, likewise if you truly understood morality to be subjective. I don't care at all how people judge my morality and I'm willing to put my moral values up for debate against anyone's.

You don't think this issue revolves around just you and me and what we say here, do you? If I see hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance or various other fallacies from others on this issue, it will influence what I have to say to you. You're not the only one in this fight.

Are you in a fight? Pray tell what are you in a fight for?

What do you think you have here? I never said some don't venerate these people, I said you don't know that all of them do. And you still don't

When I argue against venerating slavers I'm arguing against we as a society using public money and resources to maintain the veneration of monsters. I'm debating public policy. I don't care much if you personally have love for slavers in your heart of hearts.

 

[Curried Goats]

/——-/ Then why waste time on statues instead of the real problem, run away crime? Why is the NY DA going after Trump while shoplifters run amok in high end department stores?

1. The government can do more than one thing at a time.

2. I would love to address the socio-economic and political circumstances that result in higher crime but that's unlikely given the Republican opposition to gun control and the elitist opposition from both parties to address economic inequality.

3. Crime and poverty and higher in Red States than Blue States.

 

[Cellblock2429]

1. The government can do more than one thing at a time.

2. I would love to address the socio-economic and political circumstances that result in higher crime but that's unlikely given the Republican opposition to gun control and the elitist opposition from both parties to address economic inequality.

3. Crime and poverty and higher in Red States than Blue States.

/——/ I lived and worked in NY since 1971. The only bad times were when democRATs ran the City. I doubt you ever set foot in NYC.

 

[Curried Goats]

/——/ I lived and worked in NY since 1971. The only bad times were when democRATs ran the City. I doubt you ever set foot in NYC.

Your personal assurances don't trump objective facts you moron. Red State violence is worse than Blue State violence.

Most Dangerous States [Updated August 2023]

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Those who oppose their removal desire for us, as a society, to continue the veneration of slavers which makes it relevant to my argument.

It's only relevant if you know for a fact that their motivation is continued veneration of slavers. You don't.

I did not get anything wrong.

Yes, you did. You got it wrong when you said I venerate slavers.

Statues are, objectively, signs of respect and honor for those immortalized by them. You simply don't like the word veneration which is merely a synonym for respect and honor.

The word itself is fine. The problem is, again, you don't know this.

It won't accomplish nothing. It will accomplish the end to our public policies of venerating slavers.

Other than taking the statues down, it will accomplish nothing.

That's something. It's just not something you value which is an argument I could understand if you were neutral to the matter of slaver veneration. Neutrality is the position of people who truly don't care one way or the other. But they wouldn't be for or opposed. You oppose the removal of statues which implies you do care about maintaining our veneration of slavers for whatever reason.

I never said I oppose their removal, I said I didn't see any point to it.

I'm telling you what they're for since you seem to be ignorant to their purpose.

Their purpose is irrelevant. The issue is your opinion as to why some oppose their removal.

If statues of Washington weren't meant to respect and honor Washington then what were they put up for?

It was put up to honor the man who was instrumental in the fight for our independence.

I don't know what you characterize as a small percentage. According to the census in 1860 some 40% of people owned slaves in some southern States. Of course it varied. I think the state with the lowest percentage of slave ownership had ownership around 20%. Regardless they were a society that indulged in and profited off of the slavery of men, women and children.

Even if this is true, the fact remains that non-slavers supported the practice.

Yep.

Are you admitting that you yourself engage in moral posturing?

Then it was a mistype. It should of read, "I'm confident I can convince a majority that slaver veneration is deplorable as are the people who venerate them."

I don't believe that for one minute.

Is that how you understand liability to work? To me we might squabble and disagree but in the end when our government acts it acts as the United States government, not the Democratic government or the Republican government. That makes the United States 100% responsible for its actions and by extension, "we the people". That's why it doesn't really matter to me that not all Founders were slavers. They decided to work with and cooperate with slavers which makes them just as tainted.

You're the one who's always saying that morality is subjective to people. Yet you expect this government and this population - composed of people - to pay for the sins of others from the past who are no longer alive.

I'm giving context to various levels of responsibility and not to suit my purposes but to suit logic and rationality. No one in the Democratic party today is morally responsible for the actions of Democrats in the 1800s. We are all responsible, financially, as citizens, for the debts incurred by our government in the form of taxes. Where's the double standard?

I am not financially responsible for the actions of a government in which I was not complicit, had no say in, and were committed before I was even born.

That's not to say that if reparations comes to pass I won't have to pay my share. But I will never agree with it or see as right or just.

In what way was having to pay (happy you pedantic pussy? ) not right? Do you mean emotionally? It was right legally.

I didn't say having to pay, I said having paid, past tense. In other words (you thick-headed idiot), just paying the money did not make it right.

That's not my argument. I never said anything about anyone being 50% responsible for anything. That's your stupid argument. I said citizens are responsible for the debts of their government through taxes, because we are, objectively.

Right: Democrat and Republican citizens.

It all goes back to you being a stupid Bingo who can't follow simple logic.

It's not logic, it's rationalization.

That's ironic. You just accused me of arguing the Democratic party was 50% responsible for something when that's been your line, not mine.

I didn't say you said it, I said that if the government is responsible as you say, it means each of the parties is morally responsible for half.

Which means what other than you're a pussy who's afraid to take a clear position?

I thought I made that clear. It means that having paid them doesn't mean, in principle, that it was necessarily right to do so.

Put another way: Paying them doesn't mean it was right to pay them.

You’re not making any arguments as far as I can tell, just noise. You're unable to explain to me what statues are for if not for showing certain people respect

You never asked me to explain what statues are for. You have been telling me what they're for.

and you can't necessarily say whether paying reparations to Japanese Americans was right or wrong.

That's because I don't know if it was right or wrong.

Can you actually take a clear position on anything?

I have a clear position on everything we've discussed. You just can't wrap your head around most of it because, as I said, you are two dimensional. You see everything in terms of black and white and right and wrong and it's just not always that simple.

As we've already discussed, morality is a concept and therefore subjective. Thus, being a concept, it has evolved over thousands of years in response to an unlimited number of factors and has been rendered hopelessly complex and often ungainly. It is precisely why these types of discussions are so contentious and rarely end with any kind of mutual resolution.

Besides, you'd just continue to call me racist anyway so why does it matter?

They're about convincing decent people that statues to slavers should come down because venerating slavers is deplorable.

That's not what you've been telling me. You've been telling me that I am a deplorable idolater of slavers.

Shame, ridicule, fear.... these are acceptable forms of coercion in this case.

That's what the Inquisitors, witch hunters and Hitler said.

You can't vanquish ideas.

Then explain to me how the Democrat Party is not the same today if not through the vanquishing of the ideas of slavery and racism.

That's not a thing we can do. We can vanquish people with bad ideas and do so in such a way that discourages others with similar ideas.

By doing what, putting them in concentration camps? You just said that shame, ridicule and fear were acceptable forms of coercion after all.

That still doesn't make someone who hates Hitler just like Hitler.

It does if you feel you need to shame, ridicule or intimidate just like Hitler.

And to be clear it's not hate that separates Hitler from other people, we all hate, it's a human emotion. It's who he hated and how he decided to deal with that hate that separates Hitler from others. I don't want to violently exterminate people who disagree with me. I want to beat democratically. Any comparisons of me to Hitler are silly and nonsensical in the extreme.

Who the fuck compared you to Hitler? You brought up Hitler, not me.

Also? What also? Again, your imaginary people do not reveal any conflict or cognitive dissonance on my part.

Didn't say it did. Hypocrisy, dishonesty and cognitive dissonance that I perceive in others on this issue have nothing to do with you. But it does have something to do with the topic.

And I pointed out wanting to continue the veneration of slavers is also an emotional position. The choice to continue to respect and honor slavers isn't a choice made dispassionately.

And? Appeal to emotion is a fallacy in debate. Whether or not these people are emotionally invested in keeping the statues is irrelevant here.

If you weren't self conscious about any inconsistencies in your morality you wouldn't be so afraid to express and defend it,

What inconsistencies?

likewise if you truly understood morality to be subjective. I don't care at all how people judge my morality and I'm willing to put my moral values up for debate against anyone's.

You already have. You've been pitting your morality against mine from the start and this (ironically in your case) is how I know yours is no better than mine.

I'm not the one who's been consistently making moral judgments here, you are. People like you who scream the loudest from from their soapboxes are usually the biggest hypocrites.

Are you in a fight? Pray tell what are you in a fight for?

This is your fight, not mine. If ultimately all the statues are taken down, I won't shed a tear. I'm just wary of any moral crusade because history has shown us that they have a way of taking on a life of their own and eventually, the sinners and angels alike end up getting crushed under the implacable wheels of righteousness.

This issue on the statues stems from the disease of cancel culture that arose like a putrid cancer over recent years and that culture has ruined lives, careers and reputations of those who did not deserve it.

When I argue against venerating slavers I'm arguing against we as a society using public money and resources to maintain the veneration of monsters. I'm debating public policy. I don't care much if you personally have love for slavers in your heart of hearts.

Irrelevant. You still don't know the motives or reasoning behind every person who opposes their removal.

 

[Curried Goats]

It's only relevant if you know for a fact that their motivation is continued veneration of slavers. You don't.

If you support maintaining statues to slavers then objectively you support the continued veneration of slavers because statues are themselves a form of veneration.

Their purpose is irrelevant. The issue is your opinion as to why some oppose their removal.

The purpose is relevant and I don't care why. If the purpose of statues themselves is venerating then objectively your support for statues is support for veneration.

It was put up to honor the man who was instrumental in the fight for our independence.

Who was also a slaver. Therefore it venerates a slaver. None of this is this difficult to understand you Bingo.

You're the one who's always saying that morality is subjective to people. Yet you expect this government and this population - composed of people - to pay for the sins of others from the past who are no longer alive.

Morality is subjective to people. Citizens are subjected to taxes. The two aren't the same thing. One is your tax liability the other is your moral culpability.

I am not financially responsible for the actions of a government in which I was not complicit, had no say in, and were committed before I was even born.

You are, objectively.

That's not to say that if reparations comes to pass I won't have to pay my share. But I will never agree with it or see as right or just.

I don't care if you don't agree emotionally. It'll be legally just.

You never asked me to explain what statues are for. You have been telling me what they're for.

Because you seemed like a clueless Bingo in that regard until you finally admitted up top that statues to Washington were erected to honor and venerate him.

Then explain to me how the Democrat Party is not the same today if not through the vanquishing of the ideas of slavery and racism.

The southern white population that supported slavery also opposed the end to segregation in the 1960s. They were defeated politically. Much of that same southern white population is still deplorably racist and continuing to try and attack black voting rights to this day. They just vote Republican now while southern black voters now make up the back bone of support for the Democratic party in the south.

By doing what, putting them in concentration camps? You just said that shame, ridicule and fear were acceptable forms of coercion after all.

Did I ever say concentration camps were?

It does if you feel you need to shame, ridicule or intimidate just like Hitler.

Yep. Shaming and ridiculing people for being deplorable racists is just like being Hitler....

Who the fuck compared you to Hitler? You brought up Hitler, not me.

You just did right above this you clown. Have some self awareness.

This is your fight, not mine. If ultimately all the statues are taken down, I won't shed a tear. I'm just wary of any moral crusade because history has shown us that they have a way of taking on a life of their own and eventually, the sinners and angels alike end up getting crushed under the implacable wheels of righteousness.

Sure. I'm only talking about removing statues to slavers, I don't have any clue what the fuck you're talking about. It's a discussion about changing the drapes.

This issue on the statues stems from the disease of cancel culture that arose like a putrid cancer over recent years and that culture has ruined lives, careers and reputations of those who did not deserve it.

Oh you're one of those.....

What's wrong with cancel culture? People don't have a right to try and disassociate themselves from people they think are shitty human beings?

 

[irosie91]

If you support maintaining statues to slavers then objectively you support the continued veneration of slavers because statues are themselves a form of veneration.

The purpose is relevant and I don't care why. If the purpose of statues themselves is venerating then objectively your support for statues is support for veneration.

Who was also a slaver. Therefore it venerates a slaver. None of this is this difficult to understand you Bingo.

Morality is subjective to people. Citizens are subjected to taxes. The two aren't the same thing. One is your tax liability the other is your moral culpability.

You are, objectively.

I don't care if you don't agree emotionally. It'll be legally just.

Because you seemed like a clueless Bingo in that regard until you finally admitted up top that statues to Washington were erected to honor and venerate him.

The southern white population that supported slavery also opposed the end to segregation in the 1960s. They were defeated politically. Much of that same southern white population is still deplorably racist and continuing to try and attack black voting rights to this day. They just vote Republican now while southern black voters now make up the back bone of support for the Democratic party in the south.

Did I ever say concentration camps were?

Yep. Shaming and ridiculing people for being deplorable racists is just like being Hitler....

You just did right above this you clown. Have some self awareness.

Sure. I'm only talking about removing statues to slavers, I don't have any clue what the fuck you're talking about. It's a discussion about changing the drapes.

Oh you're one of those.....

What's wrong with cancel culture? People don't have a right to try and disassociate themselves from people they think are shitty human beings?

It is well known that Martin Luther King was an adulterer----HIS FILTHY PIG IMAGE MUST BE OBLITERATED

 

[Curried Goats]

It is well known that Martin Luther King was an adulterer----HIS FILTHY PIG IMAGE MUST BE OBLITERATED

And? That's between him and his wife. But hey if that's your opinion of the man, share it with whoever you like and see if you can get a majority to agree with you.

 

[irosie91]

And? That's between him and his wife. But hey if that's your opinion of the man, share it with whoever you like and see if you can get a majority to agree with you.

why would I do that? I don't need the opinion of shit like you

 

[Curried Goats]

why would I do that? I don't need the opinion of shit like you

OK then. Good chat.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If you support maintaining statues to slavers then objectively you support the continued veneration of slavers because statues are themselves a form of veneration.

Irrelevant. You still don't know a person's reasons for opposing their removal.

The purpose is relevant and I don't care why. If the purpose of statues themselves is venerating then objectively your support for statues is support for veneration.

For their achievements.

Who was also a slaver.

And?

Therefore it venerates a slaver. None of this is this difficult to understand you Bingo.

Who also fought for our independence.

Morality is subjective to people. Citizens are subjected to taxes. The two aren't the same thing. One is your tax liability the other is your moral culpability.

They ARE the same thing if I'm being taxed for a moral wrong.

My tax liability extends only to the things and services the government provides for all citizens. It does not extend to wrongs committed by that same government.

You are, objectively.

Legally, maybe. Morally? No.

I don't care if you don't agree emotionally. It'll be legally just.

It'll be legal due solely to the government's power and authority to enforce it. That doesn't make it just.

Remember, slavery was legal at one time yet you say it wasn't just.

You can't have it both ways.

Because you seemed like a clueless Bingo in that regard until you finally admitted up top that statues to Washington were erected to honor and venerate him.

Irrelevant. You've been telling me what statues are for from the beginning and I still never asked you.

The southern white population that supported slavery also opposed the end to segregation in the 1960s. They were defeated politically. Much of that same southern white population is still deplorably racist and continuing to try and attack black voting rights to this day. They just vote Republican now while southern black voters now make up the back bone of support for the Democratic party in the south.

So then, can we say that for them, neither the people nor the ideas were vanquished?

Seems to me your strategy of shame, ridicule and intimidation didn't work very well, did it?

Did I ever say concentration camps were?

It was a question.

Yep. Shaming and ridiculing people for being deplorable racists is just like being Hitler....

Don't forget fear.

You just did right above this you clown. Have some self awareness.

Wrong. I did not compare you to Hitler. I said Hitler, among others, used the same tactics.

Sure. I'm only talking about removing statues to slavers, I don't have any clue what the fuck you're talking about. It's a discussion about changing the drapes.

No. You just said something in a previous post about vanquishing people.

Oh you're one of those.....

What's wrong with cancel culture?

What's wrong with falsely accusing someone of racism?

People don't have a right to try and disassociate themselves from people they think are shitty human beings?

Disassociation and cancel culture are two different things. Disassociation is pulling oneself away from an idea, group or belief. Cancel culture is directly attacking the idea, group or belief in an attempt to vanquish it.

 

[Curried Goats]

Irrelevant. You still don't know a person's reasons for opposing their removal.

For their achievements.

And?

Why they oppose the removal of statues that venerate slavers is what's irrelevant to my point. What is relevant are a few objective facts.

1. That statues to Washington serve to honor and venerate Washington.

2. That Washington was a slaver.

3. That people who oppose the removal of statues of Washington desire to continue venerating a slaver, objectively, by their support to continue the public policy of his veneration.

Its doesn't matter that they want to venerate him for his other accomplishments. That doesn't stop him from being a slaver and them wanting to continue venerating him.

Who also fought for our independence.

You are objectively incorrect when you say Washington fought for our independence. Neither you or I were alive back then. Maybe you mean it as a metaphor? Even then it's not a great one, Washington didn't fight for the freedom of people like me, so at best its a metaphor, at worse its purposefully racist propaganda.

They ARE the same thing if I'm being taxed for a moral wrong.

They are not. Taxes and your feelings are objectively two different things.

My tax liability extends only to the things and services the government provides for all citizens. It does not extend to wrongs committed by that same government.

It legally does, objectively speaking. Maybe you're making an emotional argument?

Legally, maybe. Morally? No.

Ok.... well thanks for sharing your feelings with me I guess...

It'll be legal due solely to the government's power and authority to enforce it. That doesn't make it just.

It does. I guess justice is just another one of those words who's definition you're unfamiliar with.

Definition of JUSTICE

Remember, slavery was legal at one time yet you say it wasn't just.

You can't have it both ways.

I say it was immoral. One of the definitions of justice is simply the administration of the law. If the law legalized slavery then protecting it is just under that deplorable set of laws.

Unlike you I'm not afraid of what words really mean or the concepts I'm trying to convey.

You on the other hand are so confused you call slavery unjust and Washington a fighter for independence all in the same post.

So then, can we say that for them, neither the people nor the ideas were vanquished?

Southern white segregationists were vanquished politically and they're culture is in the process of going extinct. No one even wants to claim them anymore. The southern white Republicans who used to stand up for Confederates and segregationists now think there are some political points to be scored by smearing them as no good, but no good Democrats. Which is fine as long as we all agree Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis and their people and culture were trash.

Seems to me your strategy of shame, ridicule and intimidation didn't work very well, did it?

Seems to me it has. Confederate culture has a permanent stink on it that isn't going away.

What's wrong with falsely accusing someone of racism?

What's false about it? It's someone's opinion of you. If you don't like that the majority of people seem to be of the opinion that you're a racist maybe modify your behavior or learn not to care.

Disassociation and cancel culture are two different things. Disassociation is pulling oneself away from an idea, group or belief. Cancel culture is directly attacking the idea, group or belief in an attempt to vanquish it.

That's called freedom of speech you dumb ass. I can attack your culture and your values all I like.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Arguing over statues in New York is like arguing over what color the curtains should be in a house that has already burned down.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Why they oppose the removal of statues that venerate slavers is what's irrelevant to my point. What is relevant are a few objective facts.

1. That statues to Washington serve to honor and venerate Washington.

2. That Washington was a slaver.

3. That people who oppose the removal of statues of Washington desire to continue venerating a slaver, objectively, by their support to continue the public policy of his veneration.

But not for his owning slaves.

Its doesn't matter that they want to venerate him for his other accomplishments. That doesn't stop him from being a slaver and them wanting to continue venerating him.

No, it doesn't. Doesn't that just piss you off? The gall of some people to exercise their subjective morality subjectively...

You are objectively incorrect when you say Washington fought for our independence. Neither you or I were alive back then.

Exactly. So why am I being held financially responsible for his owning slaves?

I can't say he fought for our independence because I wasn't there but I have to pay for his sins even though I wasn't there?

Maybe you mean it as a metaphor? Even then it's not a great one, Washington didn't fight for the freedom of people like me, so at best its a metaphor, at worse its purposefully racist propaganda.

He fought for the independence of the American Colonies. You've been told this already.

They are not. Taxes and your feelings are objectively two different things.

Irrelevant and not what I said.

It legally does, objectively speaking.

Legally, yes. Objectively, no. There is no objective truth or moral code that says I must pay for the sins of the fathers.

Again, slavery was legal once.

Maybe you're making an emotional argument?

And maybe not.

Ok.... well thanks for sharing your feelings with me I guess...

Way to counter the argument.

It does. I guess justice is just another one of those words who's definition you're unfamiliar with.

Don't pretend this is about the definition of justice you moron. Making me pay for someone else's injustice is not just.

Definition of JUSTICE

I say it was immoral. One of the definitions of justice is simply the administration of the law.

And what is the purpose of law other than to assign penalty to immoral or unethical acts?

That is the entire purpose of law: enforce ethical, fair, just and moral ideals.

If the law legalized slavery then protecting it is just under that deplorable set of laws.

Right. Which means that citing the law in this case is moot.

Unlike you I'm not afraid of what words really mean or the concepts I'm trying to convey.

One of the definitions of "just" is: "acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good." So what is your point?

You on the other hand are so confused you call slavery unjust and Washington a fighter for independence all in the same post.

That's not confusion, that is fact. Washington fought for the independence of the colonies from British rule due to unfair taxes and no representation in Parliament. He also owned slaves which was unjust.

See? There's no confusion here. The confusion is yours. You're the one who's confused because you can't figure out how I can reconcile the two.

If you're confused about my morality, don't blame it on me and tell me I'm confused about my morality.

Southern white segregationists were vanquished politically and they're culture is in the process of going extinct. No one even wants to claim them anymore. The southern white Republicans who used to stand up for Confederates and segregationists now think there are some political points to be scored by smearing them as no good, but no good Democrats.

Right. For black votes.

Let me tell you about the Democrat Party: they're hypocrites.

White Democrat politicians and liberals have no real respect for the black community. Their respect ends at the voting booth. This is evidenced by things like fighting voter ID. If you ask some of them about why they fight it, they'll give you some kind of nonsense like blacks can't afford it or they don't have birth certificates or it would just otherwise be some kind of imposition, in spite of the fact that most black adults have driver's licenses.

Many white liberals view blacks as something like helpless children and if I were black, I'd be insulted.

Seems to me it has. Confederate culture has a permanent stink on it that isn't going away.

If that's true then, again, the strategy of shame, ridicule and fear didn't work, did it?

What's false about it?

Answer the question: What's wrong with falsely accusing someone of racism?

It's someone's opinion of you.

Doesn't make it any less false.

If you don't like that the majority of people seem to be of the opinion that you're a racist maybe modify your behavior or learn not to care.

What majority?

That's called freedom of speech you dumb ass. I can attack your culture and your values all I like.

Irrelevant. Disassociation and cancel culture are entirely two different things.

 

[Cellblock2429]

But not for his owning slaves.


No, it doesn't. Doesn't that just piss you off? The gall of some people to exercise their subjective morality subjectively...


Exactly. So why am I being held financially responsible for his owning slaves?

I can't say he fought for our independence because I wasn't there but I have to pay for his sins even though I wasn't there?


He fought for the independence of the American Colonies. You've been told this already.


Irrelevant and not what I said.


Legally, yes. Objectively, no. There is no objective truth or moral code that says I must pay for the sins of the fathers.

Again, slavery was legal once.


And maybe not.

Way to counter the argument.


Don't pretend this is about the definition of justice you moron. Making me pay for someone else's injustice is not just.


And what is the purpose of law other than to assign penalty to immoral or unethical acts?

That is the entire purpose of law: enforce ethical, fair, just and moral ideals.



Right. Which means that citing the law in this case is moot.


One of the definitions of "just" is: "acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good." So what is your point?

That's not confusion, that is fact. Washington fought for the independence of the colonies from British rule due to unfair taxes and no representation in Parliament. He also owned slaves which was unjust.

See? There's no confusion here. The confusion is yours. You're the one who's confused because you can't figure out how I can reconcile the two.

If you're confused about my morality, don't blame it on me and tell me I'm confused about my morality.


Right. For black votes.

Let me tell you about the Democrat Party: they're hypocrites.

White Democrat politicians and liberals have no real respect for the black community. Their respect ends at the voting booth. This is evidenced by things like fighting voter ID. If you ask some of them about why they fight it, they'll give you some kind of nonsense like blacks can't afford it or they don't have birth certificates or it would just otherwise be some kind of imposition, in spite of the fact that most black adults have driver's licenses.

Many white liberals view blacks as something like helpless children and if I were black, I'd be insulted.

If that's true then, again, the strategy of shame, ridicule and fear didn't work, did it?


Answer the question: What's wrong with falsely accusing someone of racism?


Doesn't make it any less false.


What majority?

Irrelevant. Disassociation and cancel culture are entirely two different things.

/——-/ Although I agree with you, these multiple quotes and replies in one post are a bit too much to read.

 

[Curried Goats]

But not for his owning slaves.

No, it doesn't.

I keep using the Hitler analogy because I retain hope that your Bingo brain can eventually process my very simple point.

It doesn't matter if you want to venerate Hitler for his art work. Objectively that still makes you a Hitler venerator.

Likewise, wanting to venerate a slaver like Washington, for whatever reason, still makes you a slaver venerator.

I don't care what your excuses are. It's irrelevant to me. Your veneration of slavers is what's useful to me politically and socially.

Doesn't that just piss you off? The gall of some people to exercise their subjective morality subjectively...

Not at all. Public support of monsters is how we cancel pieces of human trash and push them to the fringes of society.

Exactly. So why am I being held financially responsible for his owning slaves?

Well you aren't yet but you could be, one day.

I can't say he fought for our independence because I wasn't there but I have to pay for his sins even though I wasn't there?

If we agree democratically to take responsibility for the mistreatment of Black Americans then yes. That's how democracy works.

He fought for the independence of the American Colonies. You've been told this already.

Slaver colonies. That's the kind of shit you venerate huh?

Legally, yes. Objectively, no. There is no objective truth or moral code that says I must pay for the sins of the fathers.

I was speaking legally. Whether something is legal or not has an objective answer, no?

Don't pretend this is about the definition of justice you moron. Making me pay for someone else's injustice is not just.

Maybe not according to the definition of justice that is a reference to your feelings but to the one that's a reference to the functioning of law, maybe. I don't really care how you feel about it, I care more about the debt being paid.

And what is the purpose of law other than to assign penalty to immoral or unethical acts?

It doesn't mean those laws are based on what you find to be moral or unethical. Not unless you're the sole arbiter of the law. Are you?

That is the entire purpose of law: enforce ethical, fair, just and moral ideals.

Who's? Yours or mine?

To answer this we have the democratic process.

That's not confusion, that is fact. Washington fought for the independence of the colonies from British rule due to unfair taxes and no representation in Parliament. He also owned slaves which was unjust.

See? There's no confusion here. The confusion is yours. You're the one who's confused because you can't figure out how I can reconcile the two.

My confusion comes from your claiming to be morally opposed to slavery yet you seem to celebrate slaver colonies gaining their independence. Do you also root for the Taliban or Boko Haram?

If you're confused about my morality, don't blame it on me and tell me I'm confused about my morality.

What do you think I have been doing? It's hard getting through that cognitive dissonance. You have a romanticized view of slaver society.

Right. For black votes.

Let me tell you about the Democrat Party: they're hypocrites.

White Democrat politicians and liberals have no real respect for the black community. Their respect ends at the voting booth. This is evidenced by things like fighting voter ID. If you ask some of them about why they fight it, they'll give you some kind of nonsense like blacks can't afford it or they don't have birth certificates or it would just otherwise be some kind of imposition, in spite of the fact that most black adults have driver's licenses.

I don't defend white moderates who make promises to the Black community that go unfulfilled, like their promise to pass the John Lewis voting rights act when the Democrats controlled the House. That's a far cry from Republicans however who actively target black voters to disenfranchise us. Take voter ID laws. The people who fight those things are black communities led by black advocates like Stacy Abrams who understand how these laws impact her community better than you do. For instance it doesn't affect a lot of voters but some older black voters don't have birth certificates. That's because they were born in the midst of segregation where many black families in the south were denied access to hospitals and were forced to give birth at home via midwives and didn't get proper documentation. Now that isn't a large number of people but if affects some though what's more damning are the instances where Republican legislators have "targeted black voters with surgical precision." That was an actual ruling by a court against North Carolina Republicans that was upheld by the Supreme Court. In that case Republican legislators looked up county records to find out what IDs black voters disportionately used verse white voters (which turned out to be county employee IDs) and tried to ban those. So in that case Black voters had IDs and Republicans wanted to disqualify them specifically to harm black voters. Then there are the instances of Republican legislators in places like Alabama who fought tooth and nail to deny adding a second black district to a state that is over 25% black.

I don't claim that white Democrats are heroes of the black community. I just think Republicans and conservatives are obviously worse. So obvious in fact they struggle to get more than 10% of the Black vote. That's a pretty definitive statement in and of itself. My solution to this however isn't to continue to rely on white liberals but to keep making the Democratic party and America itself blacker and browner.

Many white liberals view blacks as something like helpless children and if I were black, I'd be insulted.

How should I feel about you trying to explain to me how I should feel about white liberals?

If that's true then, again, the strategy of shame, ridicule and fear didn't work, did it?

It doesn't? If it doesn't why are you so afraid of cancel culture?

Answer the question: What's wrong with falsely accusing someone of racism?

The same thing that's wrong with lying in general?

Tell me how do you know people are lying and don't genuinely find these people to be racist?

Doesn't make it any less false.

If its their honest opinion it can't be false. Opinions aren't true or false.

What majority?

The majority that makes you worried about cancel culture.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

/——-/ Although I agree with you, these multiple quotes and replies in one post are a bit too much to read.

Just a trait of mine. I have a tendency to respond to individual statements in a paragraph if I feel the statement is in error, a conflation, false or irrelevant.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Just a trait of mine. I have a tendency to respond to individual statements in a paragraph if I feel the statement is in error, a conflation, false or irrelevant.

/——/ “Brevity is the soul of wit.” - Some English guy a long time ago.

 

[Curried Goats]

/——/ “Brevity is the soul of wit.” - Some English guy a long time ago.

We get it. You're more of a picture book kind of guy....