Should we be removing statues and logos?

[The Reformed American Republic]

Statues torn down by the mob are just as fallen as those which are demolished by committee.

Until they're put back up again.

And law and order is restored.

[Old Tyrannia]

Until they're put back up again.

The thing that can happen regardless of their method of demolition?

I'm not sure what your point is.

[Valrifell]

I say we go full Iconoclast, destroy all symbols and imagery meant to inspire reverence. No logos, no statues, no plaques, no headstones.

[Western Theram]

I say we go full Iconoclast, destroy all symbols and imagery meant to inspire reverence. No logos, no statues, no plaques, no headstones.

agreed

[Dominioan]

If we take them down, keep them intact and move them to public museums. If we leave them up, then provide some sort of way for people to learn about what those people actually did.

[Kowani]

The thing that can happen regardless of their method of demolition?

I'm not sure what your point is.

A) That the actions of the mob are just as long lasting as those of the committee (so long as the mob is composed of people from the committee
B) Attempting to oppose a necessary change because you dislike the process and not the outcome is nonsensical

[Old Tyrannia]

I'm not sure what your point is.

A) That the actions of the mob are just as long lasting as those of the committee (so long as the mob is composed of people from the committee
B) Attempting to oppose a necessary change because you dislike the process and not the outcome is nonsensical

So I take it you have no problem with people being lynched by mobs as long as they are guilty of whatever they're being lynched for?

Processes are important. People can't just go about vandalising public property with impunity. If a statue is controversial and there are people who wish for it to be removed, then there should be an open public discussion where the whole community can put their view forward and the people we elect to make these kinds of decisions for us should have the final say. If any group of disaffected people can simply go about tearing down public monuments they don't like and expect them not to be put back up again, that is bypassing the whole democratic and legal process.

[Kowani]

A) That the actions of the mob are just as long lasting as those of the committee (so long as the mob is composed of people from the committee
B) Attempting to oppose a necessary change because you dislike the process and not the outcome is nonsensical

So I take it you have no problem with people being lynched by mobs as long as they are guilty of whatever they're being lynched for?

I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, so I do actually have a problem with that. Nice try though.

Processes are important. People can't just go about vandalising public property with impunity.

Sure they can.

If a statue is controversial and there are people who wish for it to be removed, then there should be an open public discussion where the whole community can put their view forward and the people we elect to make these kinds of decisions for us should have the final say. If any group of disaffected people can simply go about tearing down public monuments they don't like and expect them not to be put back up again, that is bypassing the whole democratic and legal process.

Mobs do not form from nothing. They arise because of certain social conditions, one of which is usually a sense that their grievances are either unheard or unaddressed. There is a great need for spontaneous change, and it would be better if that need is put to tearing down statues than tearing down buildings.

[Necroghastia]

Recently in the USA, people have been taking down statues and logos because they are "racist". The question is, is it worth it?

I disagree, because we are removing our history and trying to forget our past, but that's my opinion on it.

Fucking how though? How is it "forgetting our past" if we decide hey, maybe we shouldn't have a Confederate memorial in front of a courthouse, theoretically a place of justice? How is it "removing our history" if we decide hey, maybe we shouldn't name sports teams after racist traitors or racist slurs? Come the fuck on.

[Valrifell]

Recently in the USA, people have been taking down statues and logos because they are "racist". The question is, is it worth it?

I disagree, because we are removing our history and trying to forget our past, but that's my opinion on it.

Fucking how though? How is it "forgetting our past" if we decide hey, maybe we shouldn't have a Confederate memorial in front of a courthouse, theoretically a place of justice? How is it "removing our history" if we decide hey, maybe we shouldn't name sports teams after racist traitors or racist slurs? Come the fuck on.

As we all know, nobody in the former soviet bloc can remember the USSR since they got red of their Lenin and Stalin statues. Tragic, really.

[Old Tyrannia]

So I take it you have no problem with people being lynched by mobs as long as they are guilty of whatever they're being lynched for?

I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, so I do actually have a problem with that. Nice try though.

All you are doing is evading the point, so I don't know why you feel so smug about it.

Processes are important. People can't just go about vandalising public property with impunity.

Sure they can.

Not in a society that upholds the rule of law.

If a statue is controversial and there are people who wish for it to be removed, then there should be an open public discussion where the whole community can put their view forward and the people we elect to make these kinds of decisions for us should have the final say. If any group of disaffected people can simply go about tearing down public monuments they don't like and expect them not to be put back up again, that is bypassing the whole democratic and legal process.

Mobs do not form from nothing. They arise because of certain social conditions, one of which is usually a sense that their grievances are either unheard or unaddressed. There is a great need for spontaneous change, and it would be better if that need is put to tearing down statues than tearing down buildings.

So if a mob of Hindu extremists or neo-Nazis decided to pull down a statue of Gandhi- that's okay because "mobs do not form from nothing," "their grievances are either unheard or unaddressed" and "there is a great need for spontaneous change?" Or are only left-wing mobs justified according to you?

[Kungsu]

Mobs do not form from nothing. They arise because of certain social conditions, one of which is usually a sense that their grievances are either unheard or unaddressed. There is a great need for spontaneous change, and it would be better if that need is put to tearing down statues than tearing down buildings.

But why the need for spontaneous change? Tearing down statues won't drastically reduce hate in America. If anything, it will polarize more people, rallying under the banner of due process, law, and order. It hurts the overall movement and hinders true progress.

We need to work step-by-step, not in great and radical leaps. Bring society together, don't tear it in half. We need to end the extreme polarization of America by stopping the demonizing of those we do not agree with, and instead try to figure out how we can best work with them to create meaningful progress.

[Estanglia]

Fucking how though? How is it "forgetting our past" if we decide hey, maybe we shouldn't have a Confederate memorial in front of a courthouse, theoretically a place of justice? How is it "removing our history" if we decide hey, maybe we shouldn't name sports teams after racist traitors or racist slurs? Come the fuck on.

As we all know, nobody in the former soviet bloc can remember the USSR since they got red of their Lenin and Stalin statues. Tragic, really.

Clearly the citizens of the former Soviet bloc all now suffer amnesia since the Soviet statues got taken down.
Those poor souls, if only there was some other means of remembering someone other than glorifying them with a statue.

[Kowani]

doublepost

[Kowani]

I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, so I do actually have a problem with that. Nice try though.

All you are doing is evading the point, so I don't know why you feel so smug about it.

Your point was a bad one.

Sure they can.

Not in a society that upholds the rule of law.

We already don't have the rule of law for much larger things that kill much more people. I don't think people pulling down statues is really going to threaten that.

Mobs do not form from nothing. They arise because of certain social conditions, one of which is usually a sense that their grievances are either unheard or unaddressed. There is a great need for spontaneous change, and it would be better if that need is put to tearing down statues than tearing down buildings.

So if a mob of Hindu extremists or neo-Nazis decided to pull down a statue of Gandhi- that's okay because "mobs do not form from nothing," "their grievances are either unheard or unaddressed" and "there is a great need for spontaneous change?" Or are only left-wing mobs justified according to you?

I would say their pain is legitimate and unheard and unaddressed, sure. I would also say that their preferred solutions will not solve those grievances in the slightest.

Mobs do not form from nothing. They arise because of certain social conditions, one of which is usually a sense that their grievances are either unheard or unaddressed. There is a great need for spontaneous change, and it would be better if that need is put to tearing down statues than tearing down buildings.

But why the need for spontaneous change?

Because people have been suffering for centuries, much of it after we realized the suffering was wrong. In practical terms, because lengthening the process gives reactionary elements time to roll them back.

Tearing down statues won't drastically reduce hate in America.

Well I would hope not, that's not what it's supposed to do.

If anything, it will polarize more people, rallying under the banner of due process, law, and order. It hurts the overall movement and hinders true progress.

I will be very honest, anyone who falls for this line because of statues was going to be on that side any way.

We need to work step-by-step, not in great and radical leaps.

Yes, that worked so well for the past half century.

Bring society together, don't tear it in half. We need to end the extreme polarization of America by stopping the demonizing of those we do not agree with, and instead try to figure out how we can best work with them to create meaningful progress.

You misunderstand. I am on one of the poles. I see the other poll as fundamentally wrong and entirely harmful. I do not want to reconcile with these people, I want to crush their ideas and end their proliferation.

[Kungsu]

You misunderstand. I am on one of the poles. I see the other poll as fundamentally wrong and entirely harmful. I do not want to reconcile with these people, I want to crush their ideas and end their proliferation.

I understand that you find yourself at one of the poles. The point I am trying to make is that polarization will not bring meaningful, good societal change. It forces the other half of society further and further away, increasing the hatred in society we strive to eliminate. It might work if a vast majority of society believed the same, but instead it's a pretty even split.

The change you want cannot be won in this way. It will only bring hate, violence, and further hardships for the people who are in need of change. It is counterintuitive. We must temper our idealism with pragmatism. As great a victory tearing down these statues would be in our hearts, it would only bring about a net negative outcome. We have to be calculating in our actions, or we risk letting the passions of our heart undermine the reality we so desperately need.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

i Think while we should remove it, we should at least put the logos and statues in a museum

I wouldn’t oppose transferring some of those to museums or related parks.

[Kowani]

You misunderstand. I am on one of the poles. I see the other poll as fundamentally wrong and entirely harmful. I do not want to reconcile with these people, I want to crush their ideas and end their proliferation.

I understand that you find yourself at one of the poles. The point I am trying to make is that polarization will not bring meaningful, good societal change. It forces the other half of society further and further away, increasing the hatred in society we strive to eliminate. It might work if a vast majority of society believed the same, but instead it's a pretty even split.

You continue to misunderstand. There is no "compromising" with bigotry, or those who would support it. Not on moral grounds, but on practical ones. Reactionary ideas must be opposed at every turn, and the social conditions which give rise to them abolished. That is how we win.

The change you want cannot be won in this way. It will only bring hate, violence, and further hardships for the people who are in need of change. It is counterintuitive. We must temper our idealism with pragmatism.

We have tried your way for the past half century. It has not worked. It has, in fact, been the opposite of productive, and has led to the dismantling off the causes it ostensibly champions.
It is time we try mine.

As great a victory tearing down these statues would be in our hearts, it would only bring about a net negative outcome. We have to be calculating in our actions, or we risk letting the passions of our heart undermine the reality we so desperately need.

Every time we do this, every time we let the "pragmatic moderates" dictate policy, the only side who wins are the reactionaries. Ja era

[Antarcticanie]

Personally, I think we should leave the statues up (I'm saying this from a purely political basis), for no other reason than to occupy space in the political dialogue. I don't have any connection to the statues, but these ideas don't exist in a vacuum. They exist not because one wants to remove racism from our political history, but because one wants to move down the field.
"Oh, you want to take down statues of slave owners? Ok!"
"Thanks!" *starts tearing down statue of George Washington*
"Wait! What are you doing? You said you were only going to take down statues of slave owners!"
"Yeah, we are."
"But he's one of the Founding Fathers, he's an American hero!"
"Your point being?"

[Nuroblav]

It doesn't really serve much purpose. If people want to, then sure. But going round forcing people to do so isn't that good of an idea.

That being said, it isn't usually the case that people are forced. Often it just tends to get brought up as a diversion, something along the lines of 'look at these SJWs destroying western society!!!!!!!' Is it really a big deal if someone decides they would rather change a signature picture?

[Kowani]

It doesn't really serve much purpose. If people want to, then sure. But going round forcing people to do so isn't that good of an idea.

...Nobody has forced anyone to do this.
What are you talking about?

[Nuroblav]

...Nobody has forced anyone to do this.
What are you talking about?

I know nobody has. I was simply making the point that it wouldn't be. Perhaps I forgot to add often when sort of thing is brought up it tends just to be a diversion from much more important. I'll put that in now.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

...Nobody has forced anyone to do this.
What are you talking about?

I know nobody has. I was simply making the point that it wouldn't be. Perhaps I forgot to add often when sort of thing is brought up it tends just to be a diversion from much more important. I'll put that in now.

I think it you read some of the posts from opposing sides in this thread you’ll get a sense that the removal or not does indeed have implications for these parties. I mean, check Kowani’s post on the subjects further up the page. I’m sure you’ll find a dissenting post too and read their reasoning.

It matters to a few.

[Kowani]

I know nobody has. I was simply making the point that it wouldn't be. Perhaps I forgot to add often when sort of thing is brought up it tends just to be a diversion from much more important. I'll put that in now.

I think it you read some of the posts from opposing sides in this thread you’ll get a sense that the removal or not does indeed have implications for these parties. I mean, check Kowani’s post on the subjects further up the page. I’m sure you’ll find a dissenting post too and read their reasoning.

It matters to a few.

Gracias

[Nuroblav]

I think it you read some of the posts from opposing sides in this thread you’ll get a sense that the removal or not does indeed have implications for these parties. I mean, check Kowani’s post on the subjects further up the page. I’m sure you’ll find a dissenting post too and read their reasoning.

It matters to a few.

Shall give them a look.