Lee Statue goes down in Charolttesvile

[Belz...]

I've already stated my position on the topic at hand. I do not support illegal removal and/or vandalization of these monuments.

I fully support their removal via legal process, as was done in this case, and others.

That is about as clear as I can make it.

I said: it depends on the situation, doesn't it? in response to a much broader statement BY YOU.

 

[Warp12]

You said we should continue to venerate those who took the law into their own hands because they felt not owning black people was a violation of their freedoms until we can get politicians to allow them to be taken down, but that politicians taking them down is mob rule and also not something you can support.

Completely incorrect.

 

[kookbreaker]

There is mob rule. Hard to endorse that....unless it's your personal cause, I guess.

Most, if not all of these events were approved by the local city councils, etc. State interference by neo-Confederate dominated laws demanding they keep them in place so they can continue their ancestor worship is the true mob rule here.

 

[wareyin]

Completely incorrect.

How so? You want the statues which venerate people who went to war with their own country over the right to own black people to remain until some legal avenue to remove them occurs. When a politician listened to his constituents and legally removed the statues, you complained that this was mob rule.

Which part is wrong?

 

[Warp12]

Most, if not all of these events were approved by the local city councils, etc. State interference by neo-Confederate dominated laws demanding they keep them in place so they can continue their ancestor worship is the true mob rule here.

I accept your opinions; I just don't happen to agree with them.

 

[Warp12]

How so? You want the statues which venerate people who went to war with their own country over the right to own black people to remain until some legal avenue to remove them occurs. When a politician listened to his constituents and legally removed the statues, you complained that this was mob rule.

Which part is wrong?

When politicians are making decisions primarily because of the threat of unrest and violence, I call that "mob rule". And, of course, this mob does not represent the total constituency, they are just the most threatening portion. I am sure you can see where that is not a preferred way to make governing decisions.

I am totally fine with the statues being removed, just not the method through which it was achieved. But hey, it was legal. And, it was also due to "mob rule".

 

[kookbreaker]

When politicians are making decisions primarily because of the threat of unrest and violence, I call that "mob rule". And, of course, this mob does not represent the total constituency, they are just the most threatening portion. I am sure you can see where that is not a preferred way to make governing decisions.

So, you are describing what the right-wing tried to do at Charlottesville.

 

[kookbreaker]

I accept your opinions; I just don't happen to agree with them.

Because States have right to tell cities what they can and cannot do with their property in your book. Gotcha.

 

[wareyin]

When politicians are making decisions primarily because of the threat of unrest and violence, I call that "mob rule". And, of course, this mob does not represent the total constituency, they are just the most threatening portion. I am sure you can see where that is not a preferred way to make governing decisions.

I am totally fine with the statues being removed, just not the method through which it was achieved. But hey, it was legal. And, it was also due to "mob rule".

The majority of local constituents were for removal of the statues. They were over-ruled by those who did not live there.

If you are totally fine with the statues being removed legally and due to the will of the local populace, continuing to cast aspersions on the legal and popular removal of said statues goes at odds with what you claim to want.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Hang on, so removing statues by illegal means is bad, but removing statues by legal means is good. Unless those legal means were sought by a majority of the population protesting against the statues, in which case it's mob rule and bad.

So when exactly is it ok to remove the statues?

 

[Warp12]

So, you are describing what the right-wing tried to do at Charlottesville.

Possibly? I don't know that much about what happened in Charlottesville as related to local governing. If they attempted to utilize the threat of violence and unrest in order to pressure the government to institute policy change, I would certainly condemn that.

But, I think that is pretty far off-topic, either way.

 

[crescent]

The majority of local constituents were for removal of the statues. They were over-ruled by those who did not live there.

This part needs to be quoted over and over and over again.

The gerrymandered state government prevented local population from removing statues even when strong majorities of the local populations favored such removal.

As best as I can tell, a great many conservatives don't know that part.

 

[wareyin]

Hang on, so removing statues by illegal means is bad, but removing statues by legal means is good. Unless those legal means were sought by a majority of the population protesting against the statues, in which case it's mob rule and bad.

So when exactly is it ok to remove the statues?

Whenever the people who want to remind black people how very cool the government was with the idea of them being property decide it's ok to stop reminding them.

So...basically never, but thinly disguised.

 

[kookbreaker]

Possibly? I don't know that much about what happened in Charlottesville as related to local governing. If they attempted to utilize the threat of violence and unrest in order to pressure the government to institute policy change, I would certainly condemn that..

They attempted that, and tried to intimidate locals into keeping a statue I’d wager most of them had never seen before or heard of.

 

[kookbreaker]

Whenever the people who want to remind black people how very cool the government was with the idea of them being property decide it's ok to stop reminding them.

So...basically never, but thinly disguised.

It’s also amusing how much hand-wringing is done over “mob rule” when several of these statues celebrate mob rule. New Orleans in particular but there are plenty of other examples.

And of course, when some statues were put up their sponsors couldn’t help but brag about how they beat up a black person just a few days ago. But hey, letter of the law, but only when it is the State’s laws, amiright?

 

[Darat]

It’s also amusing how much hand-wringing is done over “mob rule” when several of these statues celebrate mob rule. New Orleans in particular but there are plenty of other examples.

And of course, when some statues were put up their sponsors couldn’t help but brag about how they beat up a black person just a few days ago. But hey, letter of the law, but only when it is the State’s laws, amiright?

Especially given the founding of the USA as a nation!

 

[autumn1971]

I don't think purpose is very relevant. Statues are meant to celebrate people and events. Considering which people and events we're talking about, I think removing them is a good idea, full stop. They can read history in books if they're interested.

I would repurpose memorials to confederates to have them hanging from the neck.
It’s what should have happened to every one of those treasonous bastards as soon as the war ended.

 

[Warp12]

I would repurpose memorials to confederates to have them hanging from the neck.
It’s what should have happened to every one of those treasonous bastards as soon as the war ended.

I'm pretty sure most would be singing a different song if the south had won.

 

[autumn1971]

I'm pretty sure most would be singing a different song if the south had won.

I live in the south; most white people here should absolutely be constantly reminded that their side did not win, and that the country as a whole abhors their traitor ancestors

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Which was never going to happen. The American Civil War was a case of when not if the South lost and how much of a beating it took before it gave in.