Is it acceptable to destroy anything that offends you? (1 Viewer)

[General Malaise]

It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.

 and 

 

[General Malaise]

Keep laughing, you're losing.  

eta* No, you simply "understand" why it is they do what they do and will disparage anyone who questions their methods as not "understanding" why they do what they do. When we perfectly understand why it is they do what they do but we disagree with arson and destruction of public property.  

lol wut?

 

[General Malaise]

For the record, I'd just like to categorically state that I am not pro-arson.  I didn't really give to an arsonist charity this year.  As far as you know.  

 

[Moonlight]

Monuments should never had been built in the first place. An insult to freedom. You want a print of Jackson, a picture of Lee or a bronze of Davis put it in your home or a museum. Keep it out of the public eye.

 

[belljr]

I would just like to announce that people have been arrested and charged for looting/vandalism during these times

2 lawyers in NY were arrested for the molotovs

 

[Ilov80s]

The statues are not personal property. I’m no legal expert but does the Constitution outlines any guidelines for public property?

 

[The Big Guy]

Perhaps the ashes are still warm from all the Trump fans burning J.K. Rowling's books.

I thought that the leftists were cancelling her for her transphobic comments recently, not the Trump fans. She is a target of the cancel culture outrage people, not the religious kooks.

 

[General Malaise]

I thought that the leftists were cancelling her for her transphobic comments recently, not the Trump fans. She is a target of the cancel culture outrage people, not the religious kooks.

Google again....she's had threats to burn books by religious kooks AND Trumpies.  It's all crystalized on Twitter too.  I have no doubts there are fringe leftists who want to burn her books too.  Lotta angst and scorn this Rowling chick stirs up.  Respect 

 

[Donning of a New Age]

Those 2 are part of my pro-arson posse! 

I wish I had a posse. 

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Guys the Civil War was absolutely about the spread of slavery. 

Read aloud as a declaration at the state capitol of Mississippi, the second state to secede...

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

It was the same from the other sates. Even in their own words... "(We) the Slaveholding States".

 

[Encumbrance]

The statues are not personal property. I’m no legal expert but does the Constitution outlines any guidelines for public property?

It's not an unconstitutional act -- so much of we think of an unconstitutional act, which is generally a civil wrong by a federal or state actor. It is an affront to property law in general, historically and statute-derived in the criminal law. The federal and state criminal laws are derived by the authority of the Constitution, but to say one is destroying property is unconstitutional is also not technically accurate. They're violating either a state or federal statute, or both. Public property is accorded much respect at the common and statutory law. It is not something to willy-nilly trifle with.  

 

[Encumbrance]

On a different note, I am surprised by the heavy-handedness of this thread. Because one takes a position where property destruction and arson by mobs is unacceptable, therefore, one must disagree with the position is so fifth grade grasping as to not deserve response. Rolling emojis simply bemoan a loser's position, frankly, and were so popular in the PSF among Trump acolytes because they had no proper defense to anything but a "we're in on this joke" emoji roll. Well, so much for that, one side or the other. Just because one hates the mob and destruction of property does not mean one wishes to see Confederate statues line once Elm-graced boulevards and streets. That's not the case. 

 

[General Malaise]

On a different note, I am surprised by the heavy-handedness of this thread. Because one takes a position where property destruction and arson by mobs is unacceptable, therefore, one must disagree with the position is so fifth grade grasping as to not deserve response. Rolling emojis simply bemoan a loser's position, frankly, and were so popular in the PSF among Trump acolytes because they had no proper defense to anything but a "we're in on this joke" emoji roll. Well, so much for that, one side or the other. Just because one hates the mob and destruction of property does not mean one wishes to see Confederate statues line once Elm-graced boulevards and streets. That's not the case. 

Oh please, you are the very same conclusion jumper who said I was pro-arson because I'm not outraged over the toppling of Confederate statues or other regalia and relics that have a history steeped in slavery, oppression and racism.  I don't like the way property or works of art or monuments are being destroyed but I also think we're WAY past the expiration point in our lifetimes where these relics are acceptable in the public eye.  But that doesn't make me in favor of setting cities ablaze.  

Not sure why you are surprised at the heavy handedness or any of the other negative observations you've lobbied about this thread when you yourself are guilty of making some pretty ridiculous statements of your own. 

 

[Encumbrance]

Oh please, you are the very same conclusion jumper who said I was pro-arson because I'm not outraged over the toppling of Confederate statues or other regalia and relics that have a history steeped in slavery, oppression and racism.  I don't like the way property or works of art or monuments are being destroyed but I also think we're WAY past the expiration point in our lifetimes where these relics are acceptable in the public eye.  But that doesn't make me in favor of setting cities ablaze.  

Not sure why you are surprised at the heavy handedness or any of the other negative observations you've lobbied about this thread when you yourself are guilty of making some pretty ridiculous statements of your own. 

I never said a thing about people being pro-arson until people started calling my position pro-Confederate or accusing me of using racial slurs to address the protest tactics. 

Then I figured what was good for the goose is good for the gander, and a pro-arson argument, given the defense of their position and tactics, is a lot closer to the truth than you'd like to admit. 

 

[General Malaise]

I never said a thing about people being pro-arson until people started calling my position pro-Confederate or accusing me of using racial slurs to address the protest tactics. 

Then I figured what was good for the goose is good for the gander, and a pro-arson argument, given the defense of their position and tactics, is a lot closer to the truth than you'd like to admit. 

I mean.....you were tossing around the word "thug" a little loosely around here. 

 

[Encumbrance]

I mean.....you were tossing around the word "thug" a little loosely around here. 

The people I've seen in the videos are largely white and I did not figure that would be an issue. From what I saw, anyway. 

I still don't think that the Richard Sherman Decree should either determine meaning or usage nor should it be worth an issuance of a call to the board's top moderator. Perhaps if I'd used real racially-charged language and had real sympathies for the Confederacy, it would be appropriate. As it is, this thread is pretty ####ty. I'm doing what I can to clarify what was said. Everybody else seems to want to herp derp it, in my estimation.  

 

[Encumbrance]

That's the other thing.  This thread seems to really bother you.  You've offered to leave it be and yet here you still are, still complaining.  Odd business, that. 

Not really odd. I didn't like the narrative after I left and didn't think my position had been given proper weight. It's quite natural to then reconsider and add addenda. 

And this thread bothers me for several reasons. The issue is framed wrongly and lamented wrongly.

Secondly, I view it as vital for the exact reason Smack Tripper pointed out upthread. It seems okay to side with arsonists and looters these days, and I'm not having any of that. I'm making it quite clear where my position lies so that people who may misunderstand either what violent civil disobedience means or what it can lead to are disabused of that notion.

Third, property rights are important to me, the country, our Constitution, our ability to exist peacefully. The destruction of private and public property should never have been abided in the sixties and should not be now. That was a huge mistake to let protestors run riot (literally) and we should do everything in our power to disallow it and make people go through normal channels. There must be some policing tactic between deploying riot police and standing down.

Fourth, that the last resort and procedural check against government (that of violence and flames) is the one considered first by the protestors. It shows they cannot succeed legislatively or judicially. They alone must be judge and jury. THAT ####### bothers me. I've thought long and hard about these things. Some twenty-something year-old lawyer (keeper of the language, keeper of laws) hurling Molotovs at cop cars is lucky he's not shot dead on sight. He or she should be given no more weight than I. But their violence demands that it should be so. That's what bothers me, I guess, really intrinsically. You can't win through proper channels so you'll resort to violence as your means. I have no quarrel with justified revolution. I have huge quarrel with revolution over a statue. And I certainly don't think, just because there's a threat of violence, that their position should command any more weight than given to my opinion. Simply because I refuse to take up arms scores points for idiotic mob passion, not to right thinking and right reason.  

 

[Moonlight]

Not really odd. I didn't like the narrative after I left and didn't think my position had been given proper weight. It's quite natural to then reconsider and add addenda. 

And this thread bothers me for several reasons. The issue is framed wrongly and lamented wrongly.

Secondly, I view it as vital for the exact reason Smack Tripper pointed out upthread. It seems okay to side with arsonists and looters these days, and I'm not having any of that. I'm making it quite clear where my position lies so that people who may misunderstand either what violent civil disobedience means or what it can lead to are disabused of that notion.

Third, property rights are important to me, the country, our Constitution, our ability to exist peacefully. The destruction of private and public property should never have been abided in the sixties and should not be now. That was a huge mistake to let protestors run riot (literally) and we should do everything in our power to disallow it and make people go through normal channels. There must be some policing tactic between deploying riot police and standing down.

Fourth, that the last resort and procedural check against government (that of violence and flames) is the one considered first by the protestors. It shows they cannot succeed legislatively or judicially. They alone must be judge and jury. THAT ####### bothers me. I've thought long and hard about these things. Some twenty-something year-old lawyer (keeper of the language, keeper of laws) hurling Molotovs at cop cars is lucky he's not shot dead on sight. He or she should be given no more weight than I. But their violence demands that it should be so. That's what bothers me, I guess, really intrinsically. You can't win through proper channels so you'll resort to violence as your means. I have no quarrel with justified revolution. I have huge quarrel with revolution over a statue. And I certainly don't think, just because there's a threat of violence, that their position should command any more weight than given to my opinion. Simply because I refuse to take up arms scores points for idiotic mob passion, not to right thinking and right reason.  

What were the proper channels for George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery and Martin Gugino to follow? The "procedures" were cops lie and cover up, prosecutors fail to indict and look the other way and a President says the protestor was a "set up" who was looking to be hurt.

The actions of protesters led to charges being filed in these cases.

When were these confederate monuments coming down? Another twenty years? 

I do not support arson, looting or violence to police. But I have no problem with public confederate monuments being torn down. They've been up forever/ If you want to keep them, move them to a museum or civil war battlefield.

 

[Dezbelief]

Not really odd. I didn't like the narrative after I left and didn't think my position had been given proper weight. It's quite natural to then reconsider and add addenda. 

And this thread bothers me for several reasons. The issue is framed wrongly and lamented wrongly.

Secondly, I view it as vital for the exact reason Smack Tripper pointed out upthread. It seems okay to side with arsonists and looters these days, and I'm not having any of that. I'm making it quite clear where my position lies so that people who may misunderstand either what violent civil disobedience means or what it can lead to are disabused of that notion.

Third, property rights are important to me, the country, our Constitution, our ability to exist peacefully. The destruction of private and public property should never have been abided in the sixties and should not be now. That was a huge mistake to let protestors run riot (literally) and we should do everything in our power to disallow it and make people go through normal channels. There must be some policing tactic between deploying riot police and standing down.

Fourth, that the last resort and procedural check against government (that of violence and flames) is the one considered first by the protestors. It shows they cannot succeed legislatively or judicially. They alone must be judge and jury. THAT ####### bothers me. I've thought long and hard about these things. Some twenty-something year-old lawyer (keeper of the language, keeper of laws) hurling Molotovs at cop cars is lucky he's not shot dead on sight. He or she should be given no more weight than I. But their violence demands that it should be so. That's what bothers me, I guess, really intrinsically. You can't win through proper channels so you'll resort to violence as your means. I have no quarrel with justified revolution. I have huge quarrel with revolution over a statue. And I certainly don't think, just because there's a threat of violence, that their position should command any more weight than given to my opinion. Simply because I refuse to take up arms scores points for idiotic mob passion, not to right thinking and right reason.  

The Boston Tea Party must really stick in your craw. Generally I agree with your stance, but there are exceptions. We are living through one of those exeptions.

 

[Jagov]

For me, the destruction of statues & monuments is sad. Move them to a museum or add some new plaque describing with the dude did so that people can become more informed. Removal just helps to increase peoples ignorance about what actual took place. Having a broad historical understanding of matters we support AND dislike is a good thing.

And where should this all end? Demolish the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial? Mount Vernon? Monticello? Does Mount Rushmore now need a face lift? Currency wise, do we need to recall bills and coins? What about the thousands of towns, cities, counties, schools, libraries, streets, etc that are named for these folks. Change them all?

Do we need to give 1/3rd of the continental US back to the French because Jefferson bought it in 1803 with funds generated by a nation with slavery?

Are horses, cows and pigs now animals of oppression seeing that they only arrived in the Western Hemisphere after Columbus?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

For me, the destruction of statues & monuments is sad. Move them to a museum or add some new plaque describing with the dude did so that people can become more informed.

I agree.

However, they have had decades to do this. The point sure seems like they did not want to keep them as history. We have writings as to how the strategy of being in everyone's face was part of the consideration.

In the early 1900s, states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise black Americans. In the middle part of the century, the civil rights movement pushed back against that segregation. (...huge spikes in construction twice during the 20th century: in the early 1900s, and then again in the 1950s and 60s. Both were times of extreme civil rights tension.)

James Grossman, the executive director of the American Historical Association, says that the increase in statues and monuments was clearly meant to send a message.

"These statues were meant to create legitimate garb for white supremacy," Grossman said. "Why would you put a statue of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson in 1948 in Baltimore?"

 

[stlrams]

For me, the destruction of statues & monuments is sad. Move them to a museum or add some new plaque describing with the dude did so that people can become more informed. Removal just helps to increase peoples ignorance about what actual took place. Having a broad historical understanding of matters we support AND dislike is a good thing.

And where should this all end? Demolish the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial? Mount Vernon? Monticello? Does Mount Rushmore now need a face lift? Currency wise, do we need to recall bills and coins? What about the thousands of towns, cities, counties, schools, libraries, streets, etc that are named for these folks. Change them all?

Do we need to give 1/3rd of the continental US back to the French because Jefferson bought it in 1803 with funds generated by a nation with slavery?

Are horses, cows and pigs now animals of oppression seeing that they only arrived in the Western Hemisphere after Columbus?

Great posting, where does it stop.  I’ll add in we need to rename streets, schools, towns, counties etc.  Let’s start with Yale university named after a slave trader then havard named after a slave owner.  Do you think this would ever happen?  

 

[Workhorse]

For me, the destruction of statues & monuments is sad. Move them to a museum or add some new plaque describing with the dude did so that people can become more informed. Removal just helps to increase peoples ignorance about what actual took place. Having a broad historical understanding of matters we support AND dislike is a good thing.

And where should this all end? Demolish the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial? Mount Vernon? Monticello? Does Mount Rushmore now need a face lift? Currency wise, do we need to recall bills and coins? What about the thousands of towns, cities, counties, schools, libraries, streets, etc that are named for these folks. Change them all?

Do we need to give 1/3rd of the continental US back to the French because Jefferson bought it in 1803 with funds generated by a nation with slavery?

Are horses, cows and pigs now animals of oppression seeing that they only arrived in the Western Hemisphere after Columbus?

There’s a big difference between statues and monuments of people who did great things but were also had some flaws and ugliness in their history and people who were immortalized specifically to honor and reinforce their ugliness. Removing Lost Cause memorials falls into the latter.

 

[Jagov]

I agree.

However, they have had decades to do this. The point sure seems like they did not want to keep them as history. We have writings as to how the strategy of being in everyone's face was part of the consideration.

In the early 1900s, states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise black Americans. In the middle part of the century, the civil rights movement pushed back against that segregation. (...huge spikes in construction twice during the 20th century: in the early 1900s, and then again in the 1950s and 60s. Both were times of extreme civil rights tension.)

James Grossman, the executive director of the American Historical Association, says that the increase in statues and monuments was clearly meant to send a message.

"These statues were meant to create legitimate garb for white supremacy," Grossman said. "Why would you put a statue of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson in 1948 in Baltimore?"

For me, a long legacy of not doing what is proper and correct does not equate with "destroy them" now. That these things were not moved in the past should not be justification to destroy them today.

 

[Jagov]

There’s a big difference between statues and monuments of people who did great things but were also had some flaws and ugliness in their history and people who were immortalized specifically to honor and reinforce their ugliness. Removing Lost Cause memorials falls into the latter.

I have no problem with removal or enhancement with more details about their deeds. The destruction part concerns me. Once destroyed, they are gone for ever and any teaching value they may have been able to provide is also gone.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

For me, a long legacy of not doing what is proper and correct does not equate with "destroy them" now. That these things were not moved in the past should not be justification to destroy them today.

If the intent is to "never move them", I'd have to disagree. In that case I prefer Gen. Robert E Lee's position on it.

 

[DaVinci]

I have no problem with removal or enhancement with more details about their deeds. The destruction part concerns me. Once destroyed, they are gone for ever and any teaching value they may have been able to provide is also gone.

This is nonsense. You don’t erect a statue glorifying Hitler to teach people what a bad guy he was. These were erected as monuments to racial hatred. If you want to create teaching value, replace them with statues of slaves or slain civil rights advocates.

 

[Ilov80s]

There’s a difference between a statue of Washington and a statue of Jefferson Davis in that the statue of Washington is honoring him in spite of his flaws. The Jefferson Davis statue was erected to honor his flaws. The Jefferson Davis statue is only there because he spear headed the Confederacy and their fight to preserve slavery. 

 

[Ilov80s]

It's not an unconstitutional act -- so much of we think of an unconstitutional act, which is generally a civil wrong by a federal or state actor. It is an affront to property law in general, historically and statute-derived in the criminal law. The federal and state criminal laws are derived by the authority of the Constitution, but to say one is destroying property is unconstitutional is also not technically accurate. They're violating either a state or federal statute, or both. Public property is accorded much respect at the common and statutory law. It is not something to willy-nilly trifle with.  

I don’t support destroying private property.  Public property is a little different though. It gets tricky because to say it can never be damaged is to almost say that one must accept the authority of the government at any cost. I don’t believe that is a founding principle of the country. Quite the opposite actually. Ultimately, I’ll let the opinions on statues coming down and how to handle protestors who damage them to the locals who live their and collectively own that public property.

 

[Charlie Steiner]

 These were erected as monuments to racial hatred.

How do you know this?

Take the Lee and Jackson monument that was taken down in Baltimore, for example. According to this brief blurb about it, it came about because a successful banker from Baltimore named J. Henry Ferguson left provisions in his will to build a monument of two of his childhood heroes as a gift to the city.  I can't say for sure, but my guess is that his image of them was based on their prowess as warriors on the battlefield more than anything else.  Or was that just a lie he told in order to get this reminder of the white man's dominance over blacks built?

One ancillary issue that's happening now is every motive is now perfectly understood and that motive is always deliberate racism.  Everything was done by whites who secretly hate blacks. This reminds me of the scene from Full Metal Jacket when Joker was interviewing the helicopter gunner: "Any (Asian slur) that moves is V.C.; any (Asian slur) that doesn't move is a well-disciplined V.C.." The narrative that's still being formed is dangerously close to reaching the point where it's a known fact that all whites are racist, and since racism is not to be tolerated, anything related to whites doesn't have to be tolerated. That sounds extreme and impossible, and I hope that's true, but right now, with things so much in flux and mob mentality ruling the day, it's sadly still a possibility, and at the very least, currently serves to place 'white' opinions on this issue secondary to 'black' opinions; ever heard "you're not black and can't possibly know what it's like." Sounds logical on the surface, but also pretty much ends any give and take in a discussion.

For the record, I also don't agree with the existence of monuments to Confederate historical figures in public venues other than museums, historical sites, etc., but to say all those statues were built for some racist agenda is dangerous.

Also for the record, the competition to build the Lee and Jackson statue was won in 1935 by a woman, which must have been a rare accomplishment given the time.  

 

[msudaisy26]

There’s a difference between a statue of Washington and a statue of Jefferson Davis in that the statue of Washington is honoring him in spite of his flaws. The Jefferson Davis statue was erected to honor his flaws. The Jefferson Davis statue is only there because he spear headed the Confederacy and their fight to preserve slavery. 

Good post. People need to read up on why these monuments were put up in the first place. Spoiler alert it wasn't just to honor Confederate generals. 

 

[Dezbelief]

How do you know this?

Take the Lee and Jackson monument that was taken down in Baltimore, for example. According to this brief blurb about it, it came about because a successful banker from Baltimore named J. Henry Ferguson left provisions in his will to build a monument of two of his childhood heroes as a gift to the city.  I can't say for sure, but my guess is that his image of them was based on their prowess as warriors on the battlefield more than anything else.  Or was that just a lie he told in order to get this reminder of the white man's dominance over blacks built?

His father was a slave owner, I have my doubts about his true motives. There is a letter of his in the Library of Congress  https://www.loc.gov/item/mal3834100/  anyone willing to read through it to see if his views on equality and race relations are in it? I lack the will to decipher his penmanship at the moment. 

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I think we should have statues of dissenting Native Americans on all our community property. 

That's what I think. I mean, we won't even have to ask the owner of the property because it's all ours. Every last bit of it.  

Can’t have a statue if not dissenting?  Doesn’t seem fair to me.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

The statues are not personal property. I’m no legal expert but does the Constitution outlines any guidelines for public property?

I don’t have a problem with removing all statues.  I can think of very few that are not butt ugly and only pigeons like them.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

And this thread bothers me for several reasons. The issue is framed wrongly and lamented wrongly.

You don’t seem painfully shy to me.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

You can pry my White Lion cassette tape from my cold, dead hands you monsters!! 

Or, when the children cry

 

[Charlie Steiner]

His father was a slave owner, I have my doubts about his true motives. There is a letter of his in the Library of Congress  https://www.loc.gov/item/mal3834100/  anyone willing to read through it to see if his views on equality and race relations are in it? I lack the will to decipher his penmanship at the moment. 

Because his father owned slaves, that means he agreed with slavery and believed in it too?  So we ARE holding children responsible for the sins of their fathers. As for the letter, I tried to read it from the image and couldn't make out a single word, so we're back to deciding for ourselves what his motives were. On one hand, I believe it is perfectly rational to assume that if one generation feels a certain way about an issue, that the next would share that mindset; on the other, there are also many examples of children breaking from their parents' mindset, and since part of the inscription on the moment (copied below from the link in my previous post, part bolded for my emphasis) gives why I believe the reason he idolized Jackson and Lee had less to do with which side they fought on and the corresponding causus belli.  A bit myopic on his part, to be sure, but fueled by the belief in his race's superiority over another?An imperfect comparison would a monument in Germany to Erwin Rommel for his prowess as a field commander.

FWIW, this is the entire inscription that was on the monument:

(Base, around top SO GREAT IS MY CONFIDENCE IN GENERAL LEE THAT I AM WILLING TO FOLLOW HIM BLINDFOLDED  STRAIGHT AS THE NEEDLE TO THE POLE  JACKSON ADVANCED TO THE EXECUTION OF MY PURPOSE

***(West steps THEY WERE GREAT GENERALS AND CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS AND WAGED WAR LIKE GENTLEMEN./ - Ferguson

(South steps THE PARTING OF GENERAL LEE AND STONEWALL JACKSON ON THE EVE OF CHANCELLORSVILLE

(North steps:) GIFT OF J. HENRY FERGUSON OF MARYLAND.

I guess all the racial hatred and keeping blacks down for all eternity is implied.

As far as the monument even being approved and built in the first place, that to me is the real issue, and one that has been rectified, albeit long after it should have been.

 

[General Malaise]

Not really odd. I didn't like the narrative after I left and didn't think my position had been given proper weight. It's quite natural to then reconsider and add addenda. 

And this thread bothers me for several reasons. The issue is framed wrongly and lamented wrongly.

Secondly, I view it as vital for the exact reason Smack Tripper pointed out upthread. It seems okay to side with arsonists and looters these days, and I'm not having any of that. I'm making it quite clear where my position lies so that people who may misunderstand either what violent civil disobedience means or what it can lead to are disabused of that notion.

Third, property rights are important to me, the country, our Constitution, our ability to exist peacefully. The destruction of private and public property should never have been abided in the sixties and should not be now. That was a huge mistake to let protestors run riot (literally) and we should do everything in our power to disallow it and make people go through normal channels. There must be some policing tactic between deploying riot police and standing down.

Fourth, that the last resort and procedural check against government (that of violence and flames) is the one considered first by the protestors. It shows they cannot succeed legislatively or judicially. They alone must be judge and jury. THAT ####### bothers me. I've thought long and hard about these things. Some twenty-something year-old lawyer (keeper of the language, keeper of laws) hurling Molotovs at cop cars is lucky he's not shot dead on sight. He or she should be given no more weight than I. But their violence demands that it should be so. That's what bothers me, I guess, really intrinsically. You can't win through proper channels so you'll resort to violence as your means. I have no quarrel with justified revolution. I have huge quarrel with revolution over a statue. And I certainly don't think, just because there's a threat of violence, that their position should command any more weight than given to my opinion. Simply because I refuse to take up arms scores points for idiotic mob passion, not to right thinking and right reason.  

Asked earlier, but not sure you saw:

Did the destruction of the Saddam Hussein statues and property bother you?  If not, why not.

 

[belljr]

For anyone just joining, here is the tl;dr

People that were throwing molotovs should be arrested and charged with arson!!!

They were arrested.

You support arsonists!!!!

 

[Parrothead]

Winston Churchill?

Looks like he's on the list

 

[Zigg]

A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man. 

Where did this truly crumulent quote come from?

 

[Ilov80s]

Winston Churchill?

Looks like he's on the list

Not a fan of trashing Churchill statues. Racist and imperialist, yes. But he also displayed strong leadership during the war against fascism.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

 and 

Says you because the post echos your viewpoint. 

If it didn't I doubt you would think it was such a 

Also, the other poster carpet bombed this place with a lot of posts whereas your guy pulls out a Dillinger, fires one shot and you say it's over, 

Hope all's well GM,  

 

[Ministry of Pain]

For anyone just joining, here is the tl;dr

People that were throwing molotovs should be arrested and charged with arson!!!

They were arrested.

You support arsonists!!!!

-In Tampa they want to arrest the looters in Wal Mart, my question who wants to press charges? WalMart? I can support that actually. But how about Politicians that didn't lose power and now want to put people back in their place? See there has to be some of this going on, payback for the riots. 

 

[Honus]

Winston Churchill?

Looks like he's on the list

I think this is where I’d draw the line. 

 

[gruecd]

To answer the original question, it simply depends who you are. As a 43-yo straight white dude, I’m pretty sure nobody gives a flying F what offends me. It is what it is. 

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Wait!

Tell Me

 

[DJackson10]

So the police are standing down to allow people to destroy a Virginia monument... 

Is this monument of a traitor from The Civil War? If so it should be destroyed. Why do we have statues and bases named after traitors? This is like calling the White House The Benedict Arnold House or something like that. 

 

[DJackson10]

Same in MN. A native group tore down a Columbus statue while the police stood around. 

Good the dude was a racist and left destruction and enslaved people. He was an absolutely terrible/horrible person and should not be celebrated. He also didn't find North America he found The Caribbean Islands and enslaved and tortured and murdered a lot of the natives there 

 

[DJackson10]

Nickleback CDs?

Everyone but the lead singer is pretty cool but can we just disband them? Destroying NB CD's is perfectly cool in my book though