Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Is it acceptable to destroy anything that offends you?


stlrams

Recommended Posts

Can we finally get the monument to Moe Greene put up? 

He was this kid I grew up with; he was younger than me. ... That kid's name was Moe Greene, and the city he invented was Las Vegas. This was a great man, a man of vision and guts. And there isn't even a plaque, or a signpost or a statue of him in that town!

  • Like 4
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the other hand? Why were they built. Is it acceptable to build anything that offends others and symbolizes the oppression of a race?

If some people were interested in preserving these statues then why didn't they move them to a museum or a battlefield focused on the Civil War with statue from both sides, like the Civil War battlefields. People who wanted to see them could.

Why didn't they do this? Instead they wanted them kept so everybody had no choice but to see them in public thoroughfares and parks. Hurrah for those who took these statues down.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Max Power said:

We need to give this country back to the Indians to be whole again. Which tribe? :shrug: The one who had the highest kill count when Columbus showed up.

We should probably rename Columbus Ohio too before someone burns it to the ground. 

Native Americans immigrated from Russia, we should give North and South America to Russia. 

 

As far as kill counts go, I wonder which is higher on the soil of the USA. Is it Native Americans at the hands of foreign invaders, Africans by the institution of slavery or African Americans at the hands of the blue wall of silence? It may be a little hard to separate the later two as one morphed into the other.

Edited by Dezbelief
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Encumbrance said:

The reason they should stay or be removed through proper channels is because at some point, a certain region of the United States is going to have to reckon with its past honestly, as do other regions in the country. 

But no quarter for thugs and looters. Nothing but proper process should cause these to come down.  

 

7 hours ago, Encumbrance said:

This history is being written by thugs and looters, not winners. 

@Joe Bryant Richard Sherman would like a word with Encumbrance. 

Edited by Dezbelief
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, joffer said:

I think this is a sentence fragment.  what are you trying to say?

taking down a monument is killing free expression.

I’m saying the removal of monuments, statues etc doesn’t end or even address the issue of racism and police brutality so it’s pointless.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for the OP and anyone else who cares to answer.

 

Imagine the following purely hypothetical scenario: a group of political activists who feel oppressed by their government, voiceless in their own country, having recently been brutally and (in some cases fatally) attacked by the local law enforcement act out in defiance of that oppression by destroying 432 cases of private (not public) property and dumping all* of it into the harbor.

Thoughts on the justification of this act? Could you ever imagine condoning such an act? Could you imagine ever celebrating such an act?

*Note: the protesters "say" they dumped it all, but we'll never truly know if no looting occurred and indeed it'd be surprising to many if some of that tea DIDN'T make it into the pockets of those revolutionaries (or so-called "patriots").  Bonus question: isn't it interesting how one's political perspective alters both the language applied and the condemnation of the acts perpetrated? Please discuss.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Scoresman said:

Can we finally get the monument to Moe Greene put up? 

He was this kid I grew up with; he was younger than me. ... That kid's name was Moe Greene, and the city he invented was Las Vegas. This was a great man, a man of vision and guts. And there isn't even a plaque, or a signpost or a statue of him in that town!

Sonofabish! Do you know who I am? I'm Moe Greene! I made my bones when you were going out with cheerleaders!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Andy Dufresne said:

It offends me, ergo it must be destroyed.

Existence or non-existence. There's really no other option is there?

 

  Hide contents

 

It is ridiculous that we still have statues of Confederates in public squares and that their flag still flies prominently. But I'm sure we've had that discussion here before.

 

 

I'm not from the South and have never flown a Confederate flag but the Confederates were not evil people. They were Americans that had a disagreement and we as a nation fought over it. They rejoined the nation. To erase the history of those that stood up to the federal government and fought for their beliefs is wholly unamerican. History has shown that some of their beliefs were wrong but slavery was not the only reason the Civil war was fought. 

This retroactive tearing down of statues is reactionist fake revolutionary BS.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bostonfred said:

Fortunately, this is not a debate and I don't care about your political opinion any more than you care about mine here, because this is the FFA, and not a place to discuss our political preferences. 

My only goal was to point out that you might feel differently if the shoe were on the other foot, but alas you were far too clever.

:lmao:  Says the guy who wrote a 500 word science fiction essay about BLM and Kaepernick.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Insein said:

I'm not from the South and have never flown a Confederate flag but the Confederates were not evil people. They were Americans that had a disagreement and we as a nation fought over it. They rejoined the nation. To erase the history of those that stood up to the federal government and fought for their beliefs is wholly unamerican. History has shown that some of their beliefs were wrong but slavery was not the only reason the Civil war was fought. 

This retroactive tearing down of statues is reactionist fake revolutionary BS.

They supported an evil cause and continued to support it after the war through terror tactics of KKK, Jim Crow laws, voter suppression and systematic racism.

They stood up to the federal government in order to preserve their "right" to keep slaves and preserve their social order.

The same way that the German people have eradicated the swastika as a symbol of their shameful past so should we eradicate the confederate flag and restrict it to museums and other such places to provide a historical context.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Insein said:

I'm not from the South and have never flown a Confederate flag but the Confederates were not evil people. They were Americans that had a disagreement and we as a nation fought over it. They rejoined the nation. To erase the history of those that stood up to the federal government and fought for their beliefs is wholly unamerican. History has shown that some of their beliefs were wrong but slavery was not the only reason the Civil war was fought. 

This retroactive tearing down of statues is reactionist fake revolutionary BS.

Family Feud surveyed 100 people asking them for their reasons why the Civil War was fought. Wanna guess the number one answer? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, General Malaise said:

Family Feud surveyed 100 people asking them for their reasons why the Civil War was fought. Wanna guess the number one answer? 

Yes because the people on family feud are totally up on historical accuracy. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, stlrams said:

I’m saying the removal of monuments, statues etc doesn’t end or even address the issue of racism and police brutality so it’s pointless.  

pointless to you, not to others

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Moonlight said:

They supported an evil cause and continued to support it after the war through terror tactics of KKK, Jim Crow laws, voter suppression and systematic racism.

They stood up to the federal government in order to preserve their "right" to keep slaves and preserve their social order.

The same way that the German people have eradicated the swastika as a symbol of their shameful past so should we eradicate the confederate flag and restrict it to museums and other such places to provide a historical context.

This was a war fought at a time when there were still slaves in the North as well. Eventually the north abolished it completely. It wasn't totally about slavery. It was about not having their interests heard by the federal government to the point that open conflict and succession was their only recourse. The Union did not try Confederate leaders for war crimes and eradicate the southern people from history. They accepted their surrender and worked to assimilate them back into American culture because they were Americans. 

We look at history through the lense of today and can't even get the details of what happened accurate. There's a reason these people and statues were revered for hundreds of years until the current political climate. Now we have idiots that don't even know who a person is tearing down and defacing their statues. In Philly, the idiots spray painted and damaged Matthias Baldwin's statue because he looked like an old white guy. Yet if they read the plaque right in front of it, they'd have learned that he was an Abolitionist that fought to end slavery 30 years before the 13th amendment passed.

 

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Insein said:

I'm not from the South and have never flown a Confederate flag but the Confederates were not evil people. They were Americans that had a disagreement and we as a nation fought over it. They rejoined the nation. To erase the history of those that stood up to the federal government and fought for their beliefs is wholly unamerican. History has shown that some of their beliefs were wrong but slavery was not the only reason the Civil war was fought. 

This retroactive tearing down of statues is reactionist fake revolutionary BS.

There is a difference between erasing history and not displaying monuments to the confederacy

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Foosball God said:

I'll also say that I'd be much more thoughtful about the removal of things if they were actually of from the period, but most of these statues were erected in recent times.

How recent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2020 at 11:52 PM, General Malaise said:

Certainly don't remember the outrage when Saddam Hussein's (sp?) statue came tumbling down in Iraq.  Lotta cheers if I recall.  Read some of the things Chris Columbus or Nathan Bedford Forrest did to other humans and tell me their statues deserve a better fate than Hussein's.  Civil War soldiers were fighting a war against US (the U.S.) to continue the practice of slavery...why on earth SHOULD we let their monuments stand?  How do you think black people feel knowing that these relics to racism are still revered to this day?    

Amazing, I was thinking the EXACT same thing yesterday.

I think a good comparison would be Jewish people living in a town in Germany called Hitlersburg with statues of prominent nazis all over the place.  Oh and there are nazis on the currency well.  There's a reason that's not the case.  Hell, I don't think Lee even wanted these tributes to the confederacy.  It never should have been allowed in the first place.

Edited by St. Louis Bob
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonlight said:

They supported an evil cause and continued to support it after the war through terror tactics of KKK, Jim Crow laws, voter suppression and systematic racism.

They stood up to the federal government in order to preserve their "right" to keep slaves and preserve their social order.

The same way that the German people have eradicated the swastika as a symbol of their shameful past so should we eradicate the confederate flag and restrict it to museums and other such places to provide a historical context.

the german example is quite interesting and i’ve read some about how they eradicated nazi era items from culture.....through law.  our 1st amendment allows for hateful expression on our soil and the inability to pass certain laws.  to me and most historians, the civil war was about slavery, not state rights per se, but states wanting to keep slaves using the guise of states rights.  the civil war was about traitors to our government and memorializing these men should’ve never occurred.  that said, being able to unravel 250 years will not be simple, especially since legislation will be required.  we also need to remember that slavery was legal in this country, so these people did not commit crimes at the time. repugnant, yes, criminal, no.  i don’t have a good answer, but am fascinated as to how this plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Insein said:

This was a war fought at a time when there were still slaves in the North as well. Eventually the north abolished it completely. It wasn't totally about slavery. It was about not having their interests heard by the federal government to the point that open conflict and succession was their only recourse. The Union did not try Confederate leaders for war crimes and eradicate the southern people from history. They accepted their surrender and worked to assimilate them back into American culture because they were Americans. 

We look at history through the lense of today and can't even get the details of what happened accurate. There's a reason these people and statues were revered for hundreds of years until the current political climate. Now we have idiots that don't even know who a person is tearing down and defacing their statues. In Philly, the idiots spray painted and damaged Matthias Baldwin's statue because he looked like an old white guy. Yet if they read the plaque right in front of it, they'd have learned that he was an Abolitionist that fought to end slavery 30 years before the 13th amendment passed.

 

I dunno, GB.  I went to college in Mississippi, majored in history, specialized in this time period and while I can certainly understand where you are coming from, there's really no disputing that slavery was the root cause of the civil war.  Anything else used to explain the war away is really just window dressing on what the underlying issue really was.  The period of reconstruction was not a rosy one.  It was a choppy and was often violent.  The military was put in charge of 10 southern states to help keep order.  

There were confederate soldiers who were tried for war crimes; some executed.  General Pickett was brought up to tribunal for his role in signing off on the execution of North Carolina men who served in the Union Army, but his West Point buddy US Grant saved his hide.  Good to have friends in high places. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Scoresman said:

Can we finally get the monument to Moe Greene put up? 

He was this kid I grew up with; he was younger than me. ... That kid's name was Moe Greene, and the city he invented was Las Vegas. This was a great man, a man of vision and guts. And there isn't even a plaque, or a signpost or a statue of him in that town!

Good riddance IMO :coffee:

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, St. Louis Bob said:

Amazing, I was thinking the EXACT same thing yesterday.

I think a good comparison would be Jewish people living in a town in Germany called Hitlersburg with statues of prominent nazis all over the place.  Oh and there are nazis on the currency well.  There's a reason that's not the case.  Hell, I don't think Lee even wanted these tributes to the confederacy.  It never should have been allowed in the first place.

Southerners struggled greatly with the "Lost Cause" syndrome that plagued them.  So many lives lost, so many fortunes, livelihoods, businesses, dreams vanished after so much energy, time and resource was spent fighting for what they wanted.  It gutted the south emotionally, financially, physically.  The survivors had an impossible time letting go and Andrew Johnson was a HUGE southern sympathizer, so the atmosphere was ripe for hero worship.  These southern war generals are still revered, even in the face of growing scrutiny from the rest of the world.  It's hard to let go, but I think younger generations are forcing the issue now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying the Civil War was really about State Rights and not slavery would be like a couple breaking up after the boyfriend he cheated and him telling people they were splitting up because she was too controlling or they didn't see eye to eye anymore. Yeah, didn't see eye to eye on the cheating part. 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Saying the Civil War was really about State Rights and not slavery would be like a couple breaking up after the boyfriend he cheated and him telling people they were getting splitting up because she was too controlling or they didn't see eye to eye anymore. Yeah, didn't see eye to eye on the cheating part. 

I'd also add that when the girlfriend has the text(s) about the cheating part too.

Quote

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

Saying the Civil War was really about State Rights and not slavery would be like a couple breaking up after the boyfriend he cheated and him telling people they were splitting up because she was too controlling or they didn't see eye to eye anymore. Yeah, didn't see eye to eye on the cheating part. 

this whole current situation is the abused girlfriend standing up and saying "no more".  her friends are rallying around in support & then there are the other people who can't understand why she won't pipe down, take her beatings and abuse like a woman should and just make them a hot meal before she catches the hands again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rohn Jambo said:

Having a good education makes some people more well off than others.

It won’t be long before we hear a call to shutdown education.

Are you really just going to just lob it in there like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this situation is exactly like the analogies people are using. Those are tip top analogies from top men and top political thinkers.  

Edited by Encumbrance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dezbelief said:

@Joe Bryant Richard Sherman would like a word with Encumbrance. 

Please tell me where these "thugs" and "Richard Sherman" intersect. This isn't the non-politically correct use of the word. It's a word with real ramifications. These protestors are, to a large degree white. Richard Sherman is not the authority on what words I use and in which situations. Nor are you. Joe is only in so far as he moderates these boards, and I have no idea what his opinion on that will be. 

Edited by Encumbrance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Encumbrance said:

Please tell me where these "thugs" and "Richard Sherman" intersect. This isn't the non-politically correct use of the word. It's a word with real ramifications. These protestors are, to a large degree white. Richard Sherman is not the authority on what words I use and in which situations. Nor are you. Joe is only in so far as he moderates these boards, and I have no idea what his opinion on that will be. 

I wonder what his opinion will be on you circumventing the language filter with your "Interests".  :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WetDream said:

I wonder what his opinion will be on you circumventing the language filter with your "Interests".  :whistle:

Nobody circumvented anything. I typed it in. ##### is a word, much like bastard. 

I wonder if your tattling white uniform tattles on itself, Caffey. 

Edited by Encumbrance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Max Power said:

When do we get to the book burning phase of this plan? That's the one I'm waiting for. 

A good old, community-oriented book burning always goes a long way in stirring up the legislative minority in a community (note I use "minority" in terms of raw numbers, @Dezbelief

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the majority of the FFA "thinkers" think that property is justifiably torn down without process by a minority of people if the cause is right. In other words, any minority's take on what constitutes a "just" taking of property is "just" up to and including the cause that precedes it. That non-locals should judge or deem fit to acquit those who have chosen to not use process, or who have failed at using process, but still just go ahead and vandalize and destroy property anywhere. 

I wonder then, what causes earn this right to be called "just." 

Or, to the point of the OP, is it acceptable to destroy anything that offends you, to which the "heavy" thinkers here have offered no process to get from idea to practice, but rather, this is slavery and scores my antifa and BLM friends points, so why not? Slavery was bad, you know? Monuments to it galling. So they should be destroyed by minority opinion and no process. But "wait," they cry when it happens elsewhere. "This was an exception. Of course it was!" 

With no process and no exit strategy, you've got competing claims to justice in the name of destruction. It'll not end. It'll end at your line drawing of course, but your line drawing is arbitrary and not binding. 

This is the dumbest I've ever seen people argue in the FFA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ignore procedure is to ignore half the thought that went into our Constitution and administration of our laws. It trusts the mob. 

This is why things are burning. Because you are all this obtuse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

Gotta love an alias account going scorched earth on posters he disagrees with.  :lmao:

Only people scorching earth are the arsonists you support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Encumbrance said:

Please tell me where these "thugs" and "Richard Sherman" intersect. This isn't the non-politically correct use of the word. It's a word with real ramifications. These protestors are, to a large degree white. Richard Sherman is not the authority on what words I use and in which situations. Nor are you. Joe is only in so far as he moderates these boards, and I have no idea what his opinion on that will be. 

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

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dezbelief said:

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

What? What are you talking about? 

Sounds like you have an axe to grind, only it's not with me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, General Malaise said:

:lmao:

Uncanny that you knew I donated to the Arsonists Are Us Fund this year.  

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.  

Edited by Encumbrance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...