Self-righteous vandals

[Leonhard]

Please provide a list of the ones coming down legally.

I think it really began accelerating after Dylan Roof (a right-wing terrorist - radicalized by the Council of Conservative Citizens website), shot 9 African-Americans in Charleston. Complaints that had already existed about the statues of Confederates put up during the Jim Crow era, accellerated, and eventually lead the city to vote on and implement a removal of all the confederate memorials.

Then after that you had the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, mainly led by white supremacists, where another act of terrorism occurred, killing 1 person and injuring 28. This threw even more fire on it, and caused the city to move to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee. Currently the city mayor claims that state law prevents it's removal.

The U.S Army has declared that they intend to rename Fort Bragg. after something not associated with the confederacy, and both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine have banned the use of the confederate flag.

[Sparko]

I think it really began accelerating after Dylan Roof (a right-wing terrorist - radicalized by the Council of Conservative Citizens website), shot 9 African-Americans in Charleston. Complaints that had already existed about the statues of Confederates put up during the Jim Crow era, accellerated, and eventually lead the city to vote on and implement a removal of all the confederate memorials.

Then after that you had the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, mainly led by white supremacists, where another act of terrorism occurred, killing 1 person and injuring 28. This threw even more fire on it, and caused the city to move to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee. Currently the city mayor claims that state law prevents it's removal.

The U.S Army has declared that they intend to rename Fort Bragg. after something not associated with the confederacy, and both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine have banned the use of the confederate flag.

yeah the only ones I have seen that have been taken down legally are where the city has decided to remove them to prevent vandalism. What should happen is that the citizens should petition the city government to take down the statues, then the city leaders can decide and if they agree, remove the statue. That doesn't seem to be going on. They are being removed out of fear of rioting and vandalism.

[Starlight]

this was done with pretty much global support.

From across the globe from you I can testify that removal of US statues to the confederacy / offensive to black people, has support around the globe.

[Cow Poke]

From across the globe from you I can testify that removal of US statues to the confederacy / offensive to black people, has support around the globe.

By violence?

[Leonhard]

What should happen is that the citizens should petition the city government to take down the statues,

There's apparently a strange state law that prevents them from being taken down or updated, even if the city decided to do that. This is risky. Precisely because of situations like this where they fall out of favor, but it suddenly requiring an entire state to vote on it.

[Leonhard]

There's apparently a strange state law that prevents them from being taken down or updated, even if the city decided to do that. This is risky. Precisely because of situations like this where they fall out of favor, but it suddenly requiring an entire state to vote on it.

Though judges also apparently believe it isn't even up to the states, so there's a lot of forces at play preventing any democratic discussion about them.

https://theconversation.com/latest-l...donors-1411568

[Starlight]

By violence?

Please stop untruthfully using that word. Removing or defacing a statue without legal permission isn't violence.

[Cow Poke]

Please stop untruthfully using that word. Removing or defacing a statue without legal permission isn't violence.

Oh, give me a break. So, what would you call "removing or defacing a statue without legal permission? Theft? Vandalism?

And have you SEEN how these statures are being removed?

Sheeeeeesh... are you that dense?

[Leonhard]

Please stop untruthfully using that word. Removing or defacing a statue without legal permission isn't violence.

Vandalism is a violent act.

[Starlight]

Vandalism is a violent act.

I would never say that myself and would tend to regard it as false... But after consulting a number of dictionaries I'll concede the point that it looks like I'm using the word very narrowly in using it only to refer to person-on-person harm and that my usage is diverging from most dictionaries in this regard.

So, what would you call "removing or defacing a statue without legal permission? Theft? Vandalism?

I'd tend to call it vandalism I guess.

I have no problem with people vandalising / destroying / removing offensive statues if (a) a reasonable person might agree they are legitimately offensive, and (b) no human being is injured in the act (i.e. it's not 'violent' in the sense of human-on-human harm).

I have less and less sympathy for the act the more there is actual human-on-human violence, which is why I place so much emphasis on determining whether this has occurred and why I so objected to you muddying the waters in this regard! Likewise I have less and less sympathy for the act the less reasonable the claims that it is offensive become.

[Cow Poke]

I would never say that myself and would tend to regard it as false... But after consulting a number of dictionaries I'll concede the point that it looks like I'm using the word very narrowly in using it only to refer to person-on-person harm and that my usage is diverging from most dictionaries in this regard.


I'd tend to call it vandalism I guess.

I have no problem with people vandalising / destroying / removing offensive statues if (a) a reasonable person might agree they are legitimately offensive, and (b) no human being is injured in the act (i.e. it's not 'violent' in the sense of human-on-human harm).

I have less and less sympathy for the act the more there is actual human-on-human violence, which is why I place so much emphasis on determining whether this has occurred and why I so objected to you muddying the waters in this regard! Likewise I have less and less sympathy for the act the less reasonable the claims that it is offensive become.

Aren't you so very virtuous.

[Starlight]

Aren't you so very virtuous.

Yes, but I'm confused as to what the point of this comment is.

Nobody I've talked to here in my country has showed any concern about the way the offensive statues are being taken down (i.e. by citizens acting on their own initiative, versus by government authorities after being petitioned by citizens), there's simply general support for their removal by whatever means necessary. The assumption is, I guess, that if authorities are in the wrong by not acting to take down offensive statues / putting them up in the first place, then the general citizenry is justified in being politically active and in removing them themselves.

[Starlight]

To me this seems pretty legally problematic... a random person can simply write in some conditions which are binding on all future generations and can never be undone by any act of government? It doesn't seem plausible to have a system work that way.

Also, I note, that if "the monument is the property of the people" then it would seem reasonable for those said people to destroy it if they want to, as it is apparently their property not the state's.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, but I'm confused as to what the point of this comment is.

Nobody I've talked to here in my country has showed any concern about the way the offensive statues are being taken down (i.e. by citizens acting on their own initiative, versus by government authorities after being petitioned by citizens), there's simply general support for their removal by whatever means necessary. The assumption is, I guess, that if authorities are in the wrong by not acting to take down offensive statues / putting them up in the first place, then the general citizenry is justified in being politically active and in removing them themselves.

This is not the first time you put yourself out there as some sort of spokesman for your country, when others from the same country will totally dispute what you say.

[Starlight]

This is not the first time you put yourself out there as some sort of spokesman for your country, when others from the same country will totally dispute what you say.

I am sure, if you searched hard enough, you could find someone from my county who would disagree with any and every possible statement I might make. (Though I assume you're referring to that time when a South African immigrant living in a really out-there-unusual tiny town here misled you about common views on abortion in this country.)

I can, however, tell you what the people I've happened to talk to in my country have said.