NationStates

Alien Overlord wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Bring down every Confederate statue that's in the public plaza, change every school, bridge, street, etc. named after Confederate generals, take every Confederate flag off government flagpoles.

So, censor anything that you find distasteful? Gotcha.

A statue, the name of a school or a public plaza, none of that actually affects anyone in a meaningful way. Especially those who don't live around these things. As previously mentioned, these people are all DEAD. So who cares if the South wants to have a statue of them? Why does it honestly matter, and more so-why do some people feel it is justifiable to try and bring change on a community that isn't their own? The only people who should decide to take down the statue or rename the school are those actually living in the community where these things are. If people were as concerned about their own communities as they were about communities three states away, then our country would be a shining beacon of wealth and prosperity.

There's no censorship in the government ceasing to honour a person. The people are still free to say whatever they like, to put up statues on their own land, etc. They just don't get to do it through the government.

Nope as I'm a Yankee and son of the Union

Alien Overlord wrote:

Elgin Mills wrote:Removing statues is not censorship, because statues aren't speech. It's funny how no-one ever gets mad about Lenin statues getting torn down in 1991, but as soon as you go after our favorite band of Gentleman Slavers...

A painting isn't speech either, yet we would generally say that a regime that destroyed all paintings made by say, Jews, would be practicing censorship. Censorship, as the name implies is the censoring of ideas. A statue could very well represent an idea, and thus the destruction of a statue could represent the censorship of an idea.

I would be upset about Lenin statue being torn down in 1991, if the community living around those statues didn't want them to be torn down. People were eager for those statues to go, and if people in the South wanted to get rid of all Confederate symbolism, then it would be the same case. But it should be their choice, a local decision and not a federal one.

77.8% of Soviet citizens voted in a referendum to keep the USSR in 1991.

Alien Overlord wrote:

Elgin Mills wrote:Removing statues is not censorship, because statues aren't speech. It's funny how no-one ever gets mad about Lenin statues getting torn down in 1991, but as soon as you go after our favorite band of Gentleman Slavers...

A painting isn't speech either, yet we would generally say that a regime that destroyed all paintings made by say, Jews, would be practicing censorship.

Confederate generals weren't Jews being targeted by genocide, they were aggressors fighting and killing their countrymen for the right to own another human being. Your comparison wasn't a good one.

Alien Overlord wrote:Censorship, as the name implies is the censoring of ideas. A statue could very well represent an idea, and thus the destruction of a statue could represent the censorship of an idea.

Censorship my ass, if anything it makes the headaches louder. Nobody's silencing anybody when they're screaming on Fox News or in the public forum all the time anyway.

Kannap wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:A painting isn't speech either, yet we would generally say that a regime that destroyed all paintings made by say, Jews, would be practicing censorship.

Confederate generals weren't Jews being targeted by genocide, they were aggressors fighting and killing their countrymen for the right to own another human being. Your comparison wasn't a good one.

Alien Overlord wrote:Censorship, as the name implies is the censoring of ideas. A statue could very well represent an idea, and thus the destruction of a statue could represent the censorship of an idea.

Censorship my ass, if anything it makes the headaches louder. Nobody's silencing anybody when they're screaming on Fox News or in the public forum all the time anyway.

Nobody cares. The only thing that matters is power. Whoever has it can do whatever they want to whoever don't.

Elgin Mills wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:So, censor anything that you find distasteful? Gotcha.

A statue, the name of a school or a public plaza, none of that actually affects anyone in a meaningful way. Especially those who don't live around these things. As previously mentioned, these people are all DEAD. So who cares if the South wants to have a statue of them? Why does it honestly matter, and more so-why do some people feel it is justifiable to try and bring change on a community that isn't their own? The only people who should decide to take down the statue or rename the school are those actually living in the community where these things are. If people were as concerned about their own communities as they were about communities three states away, then our country would be a shining beacon of wealth and prosperity.

Removing statues is not censorship, because statues aren't speech. It's funny how no-one ever gets mad about Lenin statues getting torn down in 1991, but as soon as you go after our favorite band of Gentleman Slavers...

They kind of are, art is speech. I can find you the court case which said that if you like?

Salandriagado wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:So, censor anything that you find distasteful? Gotcha.

A statue, the name of a school or a public plaza, none of that actually affects anyone in a meaningful way. Especially those who don't live around these things. As previously mentioned, these people are all DEAD. So who cares if the South wants to have a statue of them? Why does it honestly matter, and more so-why do some people feel it is justifiable to try and bring change on a community that isn't their own? The only people who should decide to take down the statue or rename the school are those actually living in the community where these things are. If people were as concerned about their own communities as they were about communities three states away, then our country would be a shining beacon of wealth and prosperity.

There's no censorship in the government ceasing to honour a person. The people are still free to say whatever they like, to put up statues on their own land, etc. They just don't get to do it through the government.

A state government is simply an extension of those living within a state. If those living in a state did want to put up a statue (of anything, really) and the state government decided to fulfill those wishes, then i fail to see how anything is wrong. State governments don't need to be as politically correct as the Federal government, since a State government is representative of those living within the state, whereas the Federal government has to account for the whole nation.

Naturally the Federal government should have control over the states, but if you delegate the ability to put up statues to the State's, if that isn't a federal responsibility, then you can't quite complain about what the state's decide to raise-as long as it doesn't infringe upon our nations laws-which these Confederate statues, or that Lenin statue doesn't.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Elgin Mills wrote:Removing statues is not censorship, because statues aren't speech. It's funny how no-one ever gets mad about Lenin statues getting torn down in 1991, but as soon as you go after our favorite band of Gentleman Slavers...

They kind of are, art is speech. I can find you the court case which said that if you like?

Yes, art is speech. That's precisely why it shouldn't be on government property.

Alien Overlord wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
There's no censorship in the government ceasing to honour a person. The people are still free to say whatever they like, to put up statues on their own land, etc. They just don't get to do it through the government.

A state government is simply an extension of those living within a state. If those living in a state did want to put up a statue (of anything, really) and the state government decided to fulfill those wishes, then i fail to see how anything is wrong. State governments don't need to be as politically correct as the Federal government, since a State government is representative of those living within the state, whereas the Federal government has to account for the whole nation.

Naturally the Federal government should have control over the states, but if you delegate the ability to put up statues to the State's, if that isn't a federal responsibility, then you can't quite complain about what the state's decide to raise-as long as it doesn't infringe upon our nations laws-which these Confederate statues, or that Lenin statue doesn't.

Utter nonsense: state governments are as strongly bound by the principles underlying the constitution as the federal government is. Note, in particular, that your arguments could be used verbatim in support of religious indoctrination in schools. They fail here for precisely the same reasons.

Salandriagado wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:They kind of are, art is speech. I can find you the court case which said that if you like?

Yes, art is speech. That's precisely why it shouldn't be on government property.

Government property shouldn't have art?

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Yes, art is speech. That's precisely why it shouldn't be on government property.

Government property shouldn't have art?

Not art that makes political statements, no.

Salandriagado wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Government property shouldn't have art?

Not art that makes political statements, no.

It makes a historical statement, this man was important for our states history.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Not art that makes political statements, no.

It makes a historical statement, this man was important for our states history.

Having a statue of someone is a positive statement. He may be important but he's certainly not positive.

Heloin wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:It makes a historical statement, this man was important for our states history.

Having a statue of someone is a positive statement. He may be important but he's certainly not positive.

I'm sure people would say the same about any number of former presidents. Should any statue that offends anybody be removed?

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Not art that makes political statements, no.

It makes a historical statement, this man was important for our states history.

Hitler was important for German history. We don't celebrate him.

To be fair, we also don't want to celebrate him and Americans obviously want to celebrate the Confederacy.

Geneviev wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:It makes a historical statement, this man was important for our states history.

Hitler was important for German history. We don't celebrate him.

To be fair, we also don't want to celebrate him and Americans obviously want to celebrate the Confederacy.

I'd give zero shits if you decided for some reason that you did, however.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Not art that makes political statements, no.

It makes a historical statement, this man was important for our states history.

It makes a political statement that he's a hero. He wasn't. He was a war criminal.

And it is no more your state than it is mine.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Heloin wrote:Having a statue of someone is a positive statement. He may be important but he's certainly not positive.

I'm sure people would say the same about any number of former presidents. Should any statue that offends anybody be removed?

Crucifying people and burning them to death is not the same as being unpopular.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Hitler was important for German history. We don't celebrate him.

To be fair, we also don't want to celebrate him and Americans obviously want to celebrate the Confederacy.

I'd give zero shits if you decided for some reason that you did, however.

That would be your problem, then.

Kannap wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:A painting isn't speech either, yet we would generally say that a regime that destroyed all paintings made by say, Jews, would be practicing censorship.

Confederate generals weren't Jews being targeted by genocide, they were aggressors fighting and killing their countrymen for the right to own another human being. Your comparison wasn't a good one.

Alien Overlord wrote:Censorship, as the name implies is the censoring of ideas. A statue could very well represent an idea, and thus the destruction of a statue could represent the censorship of an idea.

Censorship my ass, if anything it makes the headaches louder. Nobody's silencing anybody when they're screaming on Fox News or in the public forum all the time anyway.

I wasn't making a comparison between the holocaust and the Confederacy, i was simply explaining how art can be censored just like the written word. Replace "Jew" with "Circus Clown" for all i care and my point stands. However i could argue you on some other points. Firstly that it wasn't the Confederate generals that seceded from the Union, it was the state governments. And we can't necessarily disseminate why each Confederate General chose to fight for the Confederacy. If accounts are to be believed, Lee chose to fight not for slavery but because of his loyalty to his home state. I don't know, but neither do you. No one will ever know for certain why each general chose to fight initially, or whether their reasons changed.

I don't really care, but you're arguing against a comparison that i didn't make.

I guess there is a difference of opinion then. A statue of anything being taken down for political purposes would seem a hell of a lot like censorship to me. Especially when it's not even the Community that forces it to be torn down.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Hitler was important for German history. We don't celebrate him.

To be fair, we also don't want to celebrate him and Americans obviously want to celebrate the Confederacy.

I'd give zero shits if you decided for some reason that you did, however.

Your apathy doesn't mean the rest of us have to be apathetic.

Pere Housh Alpha wrote:

Kowani wrote:Repeal. That’s about it. Repeal the laws celebrating the Confederates.

How about we don't. Do you have something against Robert E. Lee?

I don't see how anyone would not have something against Robert E. Lee.

Besides suffering huge manpower losses in battles, greater in proportion even than Grant, the man basically committed grand treason against the United States by siding with a section that claimed to be a foreign power. And, as W.T. Sherman pointed out, with a bad cause to start with.

Salandriagado wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:It makes a historical statement, this man was important for our states history.

It makes a political statement that he's a hero. He wasn't. He was a war criminal.

And it is no more your state than it is mine.

Honestly it shouldn't matter whether it was a war criminal or not. If the Iraqi's want to start putting up statues of Saddam Hussein, it would be wrong for America to forcibly stop them.

The sad part is, that these sort of supposed issues could easily be solved with a state-wide or local referendum.

Alien Overlord wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
It makes a political statement that he's a hero. He wasn't. He was a war criminal.

And it is no more your state than it is mine.

Honestly it shouldn't matter whether it was a war criminal or not. If the Iraqi's want to start putting up statues of Saddam Hussein, it would be wrong for America to forcibly stop them.

The sad part is, that these sort of supposed issues could easily be solved with a state-wide or local referendum.

Except that nobody has suggested anybody forcefully stop anybody from doing anything.

Geneviev wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I'd give zero shits if you decided for some reason that you did, however.

That would be your problem, then.

Well, i mean if Vak didn't give any shits if Germany did, then it really isn't a problem for him.