New Orleans removing confederate icons

[Cubo de Sangre]

It wasn't directed at you. Don't take it personally.

Cool. Seemed like it was. But if you do catch me contradicting myself please point it out.

 

[kenetics]

Good news.

 

[panamaican]

Nope. Just perceptive enough to notice the difference between ignoring/living with what you don't like and making an effort to/advocating the silence it. Especially when it's complainers on the internet whose lives will never be affected by whatever it is in whatever article that got them saddling up their high horses that particular day.

But as for hypocrisy...couldn't people equally and easily ignore the group that's advocating to remove the statues.

Let the people who care complain about it while you, me and everyone who isn't directly impacted simply ignore them while they work it out with their local government?

I guess there might be some contradiction in talking about free speech while saying that people who don't like something shouldn't speak up about not liking it. That would be like saying that free speech is great but don't you go using it.

But I wasn't really following your conversation with Dochter so I don't know what you've said so far.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

But as for hypocrisy...couldn't people equally and easily ignore the group that's advocating to remove the statues.

Let the people who care complain about it while you, me and everyone who isn't directly impacted simply ignore them while they work it out with their local government?

I guess there might be some contradiction in talking about free speech while saying that people who don't like something shouldn't speak up about not liking it. That would be like saying that free speech is great but don't you go using it.

But I wasn't really following your conversation with Dochter so I don't know what you've said so far.

Yes, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease so then what?

Sounds good to me.

People saying they don't like something is fine. People trying to impose outside censorship isn't so fine. If I'm a member of the community displaying these statues I'd consider that far different than some dude in the North West taking offense and advocating/demanding they be taken down or some guy from NY crying that it's disrespectful to this, that, or the other. It's a fine line for sure, but the idea of opposing speech vs. censorship shouldn't be hard to grasp in general.

There wasn't a conversation so you didn't miss anything.

 

[Denter]

Sorry, maybe I should reread the reporting about this story; I was pretty sure that the locals were the ones taking down these monuments. Didn't realize it was Obama.

Well the obvious difference is there is very little negative media attention about Pancho Villa, because he's really not important.

And as far as this story, you are correct that its the locals in this situation. With the previous Confederate iconoclasm it was national media and politicians, not local people who demanded it be removed.

 

[Denter]

And herein lies the contradictory point. The locals have decided to take down the General Lee statue. So when it was up, it's defensible as part of their culture and when they decide to take it down...that's not them expressing a change in their culture?

I didn't drive down there and cast a vote, did you?

No. I don't particularly care. We have Confederate Heroes Day in Texas and plenty of statues of confederates, no one has made a fuss so far.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Nope. Just perceptive enough to notice the difference between ignoring/living with what you don't like and making an effort to/advocating the silence it. Especially when it's complainers on the internet whose lives will never be affected by whatever it is in whatever article that got them saddling up their high horses that particular day.

Certain view points should be spoken out against--you do so regularly as well. We're also not talking about silencing speech of individuals, we're talking about governmental, civic, societal endorsement when we're talking about monuments and statues on public land and maintained by public funds.

And, again, these are actions being taken locally in NO.

 

[UpaLoompa]

And as far as this story, you are correct that its the locals in this situation. With the previous Confederate iconoclasm it was national media and politicians, not local people who demanded it be removed.

Actually it was both local people and national attention. It was actually the local attention and discussion that brought in the national media.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Certain view points should be spoken out against--you do so regularly as well. We're also not talking about silencing speech of individuals, we're talking about governmental, civic, societal endorsement when we're talking about monuments and statues on public land and maintained by public funds.

And, again, these are actions being taken locally in NO.

Sure. Speak out.

That's a good point about community vs. individual. Here's how I see it. If a person decides not to say something then so be it. If someone decides someone else should be punished for what they said or advocates for restricting the communication of viewpoints then that becomes censorship. Now substitute "person" and "someone" with "community".

I'm fine with the actions being taken locally. Is anyone in this thread a member of the community in question though? I get the feeling some folks would pass a law against any memorial dedicated to the villainous traitors. Maybe not. That was just a general impression without closely examining exactly who said what. If that's the case then my mistake. I still stand behind my take on crossing over from using opposing speech to some form of censorship, regardless of my estimation of its prevalence in this thread.

 

[panamaican]

Yes, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease so then what?

Sounds good to me.

People saying they don't like something is fine. People trying to impose outside censorship isn't so fine. If I'm a member of the community displaying these statues I'd consider that far different than some dude in the North West taking offense and advocating/demanding they be taken down or some guy from NY crying that it's disrespectful to this, that, or the other. It's a fine line for sure, but the idea of opposing speech vs. censorship shouldn't be hard to grasp in general.

There wasn't a conversation so you didn't miss anything.

See this is where there is legitimate contradiction, if not outright hypocrisy. You can't call one group's advocacy censorship just because you don't like what they're advocating for. There's no censorship here. It's being voted on - that makes it a democratic process.

It seems as if you're holding 2 contradictory positions at the same time. You're pro free speech but when that free speech leads to a democratic vote then it stops being free speech and becomes censorship? Well, how else can the democratic process work if people don't use their free speech to influence policy?

How can people be allowed to put up statues via vote but can't vote to take down statues? It's very unbalanced.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

See this is where there is legitimate contradiction, if not outright hypocrisy. You can't call one group's advocacy censorship just because you don't like what they're advocating for. There's no censorship here. It's being voted on - that makes it a democratic process.

I guess you didn't read post #169.

 

[panamaican]

No. I don't particularly care. We have Confederate Heroes Day in Texas and plenty of statues of confederates, no one has made a fuss so far.

So then I don't see a problem in either location. I just disagree with people implying that people getting together to use the democratic process and winning a vote is an example of something gone wrong.

We should want people to settle differences via the vote. But it seems that some people can't handle being on the wrong side of a vote.

 

[panamaican]

I guess you didn't read post #169.

It wasn't directed to me so no. You had a response to something I wrote, I responded to that one.

 

[panamaican]

Sure. Speak out.

That's a good point about community vs. individual. Here's how I see it. If a person decides not to say something then so be it. If someone decides someone else should be punished for what they said or advocates for restricting the communication of viewpoints then that becomes censorship. Now substitute "person" and "someone" with "community".

I'm fine with the actions being taken locally. Is anyone in this thread a member of the community in question though? I get the feeling some folks would pass a law against any memorial dedicated to the villainous traitors. Maybe not. That was just a general impression without closely examining exactly who said what. If that's the case then my mistake. I still stand behind my take on crossing over from using opposing speech to some form of censorship, regardless of my estimation of its prevalence in this thread.

And so what if they did? If it's done legally then it's fine. It's not censorship to vote against statuary.

It's censorship to say that it can never be spoken of and then have it taken out of the history books. That's censorship.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It wasn't directed to me so no. You had a response to something I wrote, I responded to that one.

No worries. We don't always read every post in a thread.

But it does address your concern.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

And so what if they did?

Who, what?

 

[panamaican]

Who, what?

People voted against memorials for traitors.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

People voted against memorials for traitors.

Good for them. If they're part of the jurisdiction/tax base upon whose behalf the statues are displayed then that's how it's done. I thought I'd already agreed with that portion and that it was the calls from the outside I was commenting on.

 

[spin]

Who wins matters. Not to mention the fact that American colonists fought to end rule without representation. The South fought for the right to own black people as property. If you can't see the difference there you're being willfully dense.

Does every soldier fight specifically for their leader''s purpose? Or do they fight for their people?

I believe most southern people fought for the south because that is where they lived. Same with the northern.

It wasn't army of the right vs. army of the wrong.

 

[Denter]

So then I don't see a problem in either location. I just disagree with people implying that people getting together to use the democratic process and winning a vote is an example of something gone wrong.

We should want people to settle differences via the vote. But it seems that some people can't handle being on the wrong side of a vote.

No, it makes total sense. Right, wrong and identity aren't determined by vote. Nor should they be.