Washington & Jefferson Statue Get Pulled Down

[Trollgaard]

He is a communist not a nihilist.

Actually, I'm not a communist. Communists want the MOP to be owned by the workers, whereas I advocate complete and total automation, as well as submitting the economy to AI control so as to best approximate post-scarcity.

What the actual fuck.

[Salus Maior]

Statues deify, they deny nuanced conversation by reinforcing the cultural narrative that minimizes the negative. They do not merely say "honor the good", they implicitly say that the bad is negligible.

If that's how you want to interpret it.

I certainly don't get that impression. When I see a statue, I think "hmm, that guy must have been significant in this region". I don't think "Oh, that must be their local deity".

[Northern Davincia]

Washington was against slavery. He freed his slaves on Martha's death. (She freed them earlier).

You can't own slaves and be against slavery.

You can, provided that you set your slaves free upon making that realization.

Actually, I'm not a communist. Communists want the MOP to be owned by the workers, whereas I advocate complete and total automation, as well as submitting the economy to AI control so as to best approximate post-scarcity.

What the actual fuck.

Sounds like standard posthuman technocracy.

[Kowani]

Actually, I'm not a communist. Communists want the MOP to be owned by the workers, whereas I advocate complete and total automation, as well as submitting the economy to AI control so as to best approximate post-scarcity.

What the actual fuck.

Yes, large ideas do often seem horrifying.

Statues deify, they deny nuanced conversation by reinforcing the cultural narrative that minimizes the negative. They do not merely say "honor the good", they implicitly say that the bad is negligible.

If that's how you want to interpret it.

I certainly don't get that impression. When I see a statue, I think "hmm, that guy must have been significant in this region". I don't think "Oh, that must be their local deity".

Literally 3 posts down:

Basic underlying human psychology. Size=Power. It goes for statues, political cartoons, architecture, you name it. Statues convey power and respect-obviously, nobody thinks the FF were literal gods, but the elevation of them to near mythical status is a part of the American Civic religion, which statues reinforce.

[Northern Davincia]

Literally 3 posts down:

Basic underlying human psychology. Size=Power. It goes for statues, political cartoons, architecture, you name it. Statues convey power and respect-obviously, nobody thinks the FF were literal gods, but the elevation of them to near mythical status is a part of the American Civic religion, which statues reinforce.

The size of their statues are proportional to their long-lasting deeds for America's betterment.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Solution: don't be an edgy nihilist.

...That's what I'm trying to do,

People like you scare me to no end. You are in my view the incarnation of evil.

Wow. I've been called lots of things on NSG, but the incarnation of evil's a new one.

Deification is rather too strong a word for simply making something bigger. Nobody looks at a twelve foot tall statue of anyone and equates them to a god (unless it's actually a statue of a god, of course). Does making a miniature statue of someone convey that they're some kind of pathetic subhuman not worthy of a life-size depiction? Obviously not. So why does it work in reverse?

Bsic underlying human psychology. Size=Power. It goes for statues, political cartoons, architecture, you name it. Statues convey power and respect-obviously, nobody thinks the FF were literal gods, but the elevation of them to near mythical status is a part of the American Civic religion, which statues reinforce.

Besides, as I have said, why should the good not be honoured? We humans have fairly complex minds, I remain confident we are quite capable of honouring the good and abhorring the bad simultaneously. If somebody chooses not to because they saw a piece of art, that's on them, not the art.

Art is made with a purpose. Statuary is made to amplify the socially desirable behaviour.

Civic religions keeps society together. Your post modernist agenda will atomize society.

[Northern Davincia]

...That's what I'm trying to do,


Wow. I've been called lots of things on NSG, but the incarnation of evil's a new one.

Bsic underlying human psychology. Size=Power. It goes for statues, political cartoons, architecture, you name it. Statues convey power and respect-obviously, nobody thinks the FF were literal gods, but the elevation of them to near mythical status is a part of the American Civic religion, which statues reinforce.

Art is made with a purpose. Statuary is made to amplify the socially desirable behaviour.

Civic religions keeps society together. Your post modernist agenda will atomize society.

That is the goal, not a flaw of postmodernism.

[An-Tanwir]

He is a communist not a nihilist.

Actually, I'm not a communist. Communists want the MOP to be owned by the workers, whereas I advocate complete and total automation, as well as submitting the economy to AI control so as to best approximate post-scarcity.

Those two beliefs coexist. Communists too want us to reach full automation, but they believe that worker ownership of the means of production is the only way to advance technology to the point of full automation due to contradictory forces in capitalism caused by commodity production (assigning quantitative value to inherently qualitative goods and services).

Basically, in a commodity-producing society, value is made up of two parts: constant capital (raw materials, machine costs) and variable capital (labor costs). Constant capital is relatively stable, as capitalists typically have contracts with other capitalists that set particular prices for machines and materials. Variable capital is always in flux due to the changing wants of consumers. The value of variable capital is basically "how much would I pay someone else to do this job if I already owned the tools and materials?". All the profits capitalists make come from underpaying their workers the full variable capital.

Capitalists compete with each other though, so they often cut into either their own profits or the wages of their workers in order to lower their prices and undercut each other. This leads to a downward spiral of price that is won by whoever can produce the product in the cheapest way. Due to this, capitalists invest in new technologies that use less labor, and thus lowering the amount of variable capital produced per commodity. Of course, less variable capital means a more shallow pool to drain profits from.

Increases in technology are limited by demand, of course. If I own a business that produces 10 commodities with $1 profit per commodity, and you offer me technology that would allow me to produce 100 commodities with $0.10 profit per commodity, but there's only, say, 50 consumers in the market, I would lose profit by switching to your technology.

In order to create a fully automated society, we need to abolish profits, and therefore abolish commodities. Communists believe that the way to do this is through a workers' uprising against the capitalist class, and subsequently a reorganization of the economy based on meeting (and exceeding) human needs rather than the accumulation of profits.

[The Alma Mater]

He is a communist not a nihilist.

Actually, I'm not a communist. Communists want the MOP to be owned by the workers, whereas I advocate complete and total automation, as well as submitting the economy to AI control so as to best approximate post-scarcity.

Multivac or Skynet ?

[Alcala-Cordel]

You can't own slaves and be against slavery.

Apparently you can, at this particular, peculiar period in history.

Most of the issue with him not freeing his slaves was that his estate was economically dependent on it, and also he could not legally free some of the slaves on his plantation, because he did not own them.

He did own some of them, but regardless there's no excuse for having slaves. It's too terrible to dismiss or ignore.

Washington was a slaveowner.

[Cisairse]

Apparently you can, at this particular, peculiar period in history.

Most of the issue with him not freeing his slaves was that his estate was economically dependent on it, and also he could not legally free some of the slaves on his plantation, because he did not own them.

He did own some of them, but regardless there's no excuse for having slaves. It's too terrible to dismiss or ignore.

Washington was a slaveowner.

Even worse than that he was a f*deralist

[Trollgaard]

Apparently you can, at this particular, peculiar period in history.

Most of the issue with him not freeing his slaves was that his estate was economically dependent on it, and also he could not legally free some of the slaves on his plantation, because he did not own them.

He did own some of them, but regardless there's no excuse for having slaves. It's too terrible to dismiss or ignore.

Washington was a slaveowner.

Which as I'm sure has been explained to you....was not a big deal at the time.

[Alcala-Cordel]

He did own some of them, but regardless there's no excuse for having slaves. It's too terrible to dismiss or ignore.

Washington was a slaveowner.

Which as I'm sure has been explained to you....was not a big deal at the time.

Only it was still just as immoral and there was an anti-slavery movement then. Once again, there is no justification.

[South Odreria 2]

Bruh if you think George Washington was bad you’re no better than people who think Fidel Castro was bad

[Trollgaard]

Which as I'm sure has been explained to you....was not a big deal at the time.

Only it was till just as immoral and there was an anti-slavery movement then. Once again, there is no justification.

Not by a majority or large chunk of the population, no. You can't judge the past based on present beliefs, or beliefs a generation or two past their time. It doesn't work like that.

You have a very black and white view of this...and the world is much more grey on most matters.

Washington owned slaves, yes. Washington is also a hero and founder of this country, and was loved and respected in his day. He was a good man, and he is worthy of remembrance and praise.

[The Two Jerseys]

Bruh if you think George Washington was bad you’re no better than people who think Fidel Castro was bad

Castro smoked tobacco, according to the applied ex post facto moral standards he's literally Satan.

[The Alma Mater]

Bruh if you think George Washington was bad you’re no better than people who think Fidel Castro was bad

Castro smoked tobacco, according to the applied ex post facto moral standards he's literally Satan.

Ironically, we have been censoring images of people smoking in places where kids can see them for decades. Check Lucky Luke

[Kowani]

Actually, I'm not a communist. Communists want the MOP to be owned by the workers, whereas I advocate complete and total automation, as well as submitting the economy to AI control so as to best approximate post-scarcity.

Those two beliefs coexist. Communists too want us to reach full automation, but they believe that worker ownership of the means of production is the only way to advance technology to the point of full automation due to contradictory forces in capitalism caused by commodity production (assigning quantitative value to inherently qualitative goods and services).

...Except for the fact that communists think that the people should control and own the automation, and I don't. I...also don't think that worker ownership is the only way to achieve automation, though it is a way.

Increases in technology are limited by demand, of course. If I own a business that produces 10 commodities with $1 profit per commodity, and you offer me technology that would allow me to produce 100 commodities with $0.10 profit per commodity, but there's only, say, 50 consumers in the market, I would lose profit by switching to your technology.

This is not only untrue, it's bad analysis from any perspective.

Civic religions keeps society together. Your post modernist agenda will atomize society.

...What, did you think I didn't have an idea of what to fill in the blanks with?

Actually, I'm not a communist. Communists want the MOP to be owned by the workers, whereas I advocate complete and total automation, as well as submitting the economy to AI control so as to best approximate post-scarcity.

Multivac or Skynet ?

Neither. It cannot be all-knowing, and deliberate mass murder is...not really my goal.

[Saiwania]

He did own some of them, but regardless there's no excuse for having slaves. It's too terrible to dismiss or ignore. Washington was a slaveowner.

Blame the economics of the era more so than the people participating in it. Slavery was normal and accepted back then for the landed gentry or wealthy elites who primarily cared about staying rich or becoming even richer. Lets keep in mind that hard physical labor had much more value then than now. We have machines that can do a ton of work for us that simply didn't exist. We would probably still have slavery in the traditional sense if coerced manual labor still was more profitable than expensive.

Now it has evolved to wage slavery where people largely aren't free to spend their waking hours as they want to, people who aren't rich enough typically trade their time for money in the process of selling a service or skill they have. Nearly every method of generating income will have a downside in terms of what is required to bring about material gain.

[The Alma Mater]

Multivac or Skynet ?

Neither. It cannot be all-knowing, and deliberate mass murder is...not really my goal.

Multivac was not allknowing (though his descendant far, far, far in the future was).
Of course, he did become suicidal from carrying all the burdens of humanity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svIXTDeZzDg

[Alcala-Cordel]

He did own some of them, but regardless there's no excuse for having slaves. It's too terrible to dismiss or ignore. Washington was a slaveowner.

Blame the economics of the era more so than the people participating in it. Slavery was normal and accepted back then for the landed gentry or wealthy elites who primarily cared about staying rich or becoming even richer. Lets keep in mind that hard physical labor had much more value then than now. We have machines that can do a ton of work for us that simply didn't exist. We would probably still have slavery in the traditional sense if coerced manual labor still was more profitable than expensive.

Now it has evolved to wage slavery where people largely aren't free to spend their waking hours as they want to, people who aren't rich enough typically trade their time for money in the process of selling a service or skill they have. Nearly every method of generating income will have a downside in terms of what is required to bring about material gain.

I definitely agree, the institution was created for a privileged class to exploit the labor of the proletariat. Still, the bourgeoisie do it of their own free will, and by doing so they make themselves monolithic parasites. It was acceptable to own slaves then just as mass exploitation is acceptable now, but that still doesn't justify it.

[Purpelia]

Wow. I've been called lots of things on NSG, but the incarnation of evil's a new one.

You literally just said that your goal is to watch the world burn.

[WayNeacTia]

Bruh if you think George Washington was bad you’re no better than people who think Fidel Castro was bad

Castro smoked tobacco, according to the applied ex post facto moral standards he's literally Satan.

He did bear a remarkable resemblance.

[Kowani]

Wow. I've been called lots of things on NSG, but the incarnation of evil's a new one.

You literally just said that your goal is to watch the world burn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGhJ5FuxUZU

[The Alma Mater]

You literally just said that your goal is to watch the world burn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGhJ5FuxUZU

Comparing yourself to the Joker does not really help with the whole "not evil" thing