San Francisco may rename school named for Washington

[San Lumen]

Or how about just leave the current name and that of DC and Jefferson City.

No.

Its not irrelevant your the one who proposed the renamed therefore id' like some proposals.

It is irrelevant. It needs to be something besides what it is now.

Such as what? Your the one proposing this therefore the onus is on you to provide alternatives.

[Cordel One]

No.

It is irrelevant. It needs to be something besides what it is now.

Such as what? Your the one proposing this therefore the onus is on you to provide alternatives.

No, it really isn't.

[San Lumen]

Such as what? Your the one proposing this therefore the onus is on you to provide alternatives.

No, it really isn't.

Yeah it is. You proposed renaming anything named for those two men because of your revisionist history and radical far left agenda so what would you change it too? Im not giving suggestions for you.

[Kannap]

No.

It is irrelevant. It needs to be something besides what it is now.

Such as what? Your the one proposing this therefore the onus is on you to provide alternatives.

NSG is the proper place for municipalities seeking to rename things, of course.

When my city wanted to seek input on renaming the Zebulon Baird Vance monument, you betcha they came to NSG. *nods*

[Cordel One]

No, it really isn't.

Yeah it is.

No, it isn't. Wanting to change the name to something besides Washington is a legitimate postition to take on its own without specifying an alternative.

You proposed renaming anything named for those two men because of your revisionist history and radical far left agenda so what would you change it too? Im not giving suggestions for you.

Revisionist? Oh, how will we ever be able to tell who these people were without stuff named after them! If only we had some sort of printed work that detailed who they were!

Oh, that's right, we have books. Oh, and movies. And historic sites. And reenactments. We all know who Hitler was and Germany took down all the swastikas.

[Kannap]

No, it really isn't.

Yeah it is. You proposed renaming anything named for those two men because of your revisionist history and radical far left agenda so what would you change it too? Im not giving suggestions for you.

While renaming things is a leftist ideal, it's not one very far to the left. It fits in line with the empty meaningless performance stunts that leftists closer to center pull off, like painting "Black Lives Matter" on a downtown street instead of actually doing anything about police brutality.

[San Lumen]

Yeah it is.

No, it isn't. Wanting to change the name to something besides Washington is a legitimate postition to take on its own without specifying an alternative.

You proposed renaming anything named for those two men because of your revisionist history and radical far left agenda so what would you change it too? Im not giving suggestions for you.

Revisionist? Oh, how will we ever be able to tell who these people were without stuff named after them! If only we had some sort of printed work that detailed who they were!

Oh, that's right, we have books. Oh, and movies. And historic sites. And reenactments.

No it is not a legitimate position. Lets not forgot you proposed blowing up Mount Rushmore and taking down the Washington Monument .

What would be a good alternative? You cannot suggest someone be renamed without an alternative or how about we rename Washington DC, The Capitol? That would offend no one.

[Cordel One]

No, it isn't. Wanting to change the name to something besides Washington is a legitimate postition to take on its own without specifying an alternative.

Revisionist? Oh, how will we ever be able to tell who these people were without stuff named after them! If only we had some sort of printed work that detailed who they were!

Oh, that's right, we have books. Oh, and movies. And historic sites. And reenactments.

No it is not a legitimate position. Lets not forgot you proposed blowing up Mount Rushmore and taking down the Washington Monument .

What would be a good alternative? You cannot suggest someone be renamed without an alternative or how about we rename Washington DC, The Capitol? That would offend no one.

Again, holding this position does not require me to have specific alternatives in mind.

[San Lumen]

No it is not a legitimate position. Lets not forgot you proposed blowing up Mount Rushmore and taking down the Washington Monument .

What would be a good alternative? You cannot suggest someone be renamed without an alternative or how about we rename Washington DC, The Capitol? That would offend no one.

Again, holding this position does not require me to have specific alternatives in mind.

It does when you suggest something so absurd.

[Cordel One]

Again, holding this position does not require me to have specific alternatives in mind.

It does when you suggest something so absurd.

That doesn't even make sense. The case for replacing the name and the case for what the name should be changed to are completely separate arguments.

[San Lumen]

It does when you suggest something so absurd.

That doesn't even make sense. The case for replacing the name and the case for what the name should be changed to are completely separate arguments.

No they aren't.

[Cordel One]

That doesn't even make sense. The case for replacing the name and the case for what the name should be changed to are completely separate arguments.

No they aren't.

You'd lose a high school debate if you tried saying that there.

[San Lumen]

No they aren't.

You'd lose a high school debate with that claim.

Its real easy to say change the name of this or that if you don't have viable alternative for it. If your not going to give one than its silly to say rename it.

Washington was the founder of this country and to say the capital city or a school named for him should be changed because he held slaves or racist beliefs and doesn't hold up to today's standards is completely utterly ludicrous.

If you had your way everything named for anyone from before the 1940s would likely be altered.

[Cordel One]

You'd lose a high school debate with that claim.

Its real easy to say change the name of this or that if you don't have viable alternative for it. If your not going to give one than its silly to say rename it.

That's not how it works.

Washington was the founder of this country and to say the capital city or a school named for him should be changed because he held slaves or racist beliefs and doesn't hold up to today's standards is completely utterly ludicrous.

Not really.

If you had your way everything named for anyone from before the 1940s would likely be altered.

I don't know about everything...

[San Lumen]

Its real easy to say change the name of this or that if you don't have viable alternative for it. If your not going to give one than its silly to say rename it.

That's not how it works.

Washington was the founder of this country and to say the capital city or a school named for him should be changed because he held slaves or racist beliefs and doesn't hold up to today's standards is completely utterly ludicrous.

Not really.

If you had your way everything named for anyone from before the 1940s would likely be altered.

I don't know about everything...

You can't propose something be changed without an alternative name for it.

Maybe not everything but most names.

[Kannap]

No, it isn't. Wanting to change the name to something besides Washington is a legitimate postition to take on its own without specifying an alternative.

Revisionist? Oh, how will we ever be able to tell who these people were without stuff named after them! If only we had some sort of printed work that detailed who they were!

Oh, that's right, we have books. Oh, and movies. And historic sites. And reenactments.

No it is not a legitimate position. Lets not forgot you proposed blowing up Mount Rushmore and taking down the Washington Monument .

What would be a good alternative? You cannot suggest someone be renamed without an alternative or how about we rename Washington DC, The Capitol? That would offend no one.

Removing the faces from Mount Rushmore and respected the land as sacred land of the Lakota Sioux is based AF.

[Kannap]

You'd lose a high school debate with that claim.

Its real easy to say change the name of this or that if you don't have viable alternative for it. If your not going to give one than its silly to say rename it.

Washington was the founder of this country and to say the capital city or a school named for him should be changed because he held slaves or racist beliefs and doesn't hold up to today's standards is completely utterly ludicrous.

If you had your way everything named for anyone from before the 1940s would likely be altered.

Keep moving your argument back a decade every time you bring it up, before you know it you'll reach the 2020s.

[Names Are Too Hard]

Its real easy to say change the name of this or that if you don't have viable alternative for it. If your not going to give one than its silly to say rename it.

Washington was the founder of this country and to say the capital city or a school named for him should be changed because he held slaves or racist beliefs and doesn't hold up to today's standards is completely utterly ludicrous.

If you had your way everything named for anyone from before the 1940s would likely be altered.

Keep moving your argument back a decade every time you bring it up, before you know it you'll reach the 2020s.

If you had your way, babies born in 2030 wouldn’t be named!

[San Lumen]

No it is not a legitimate position. Lets not forgot you proposed blowing up Mount Rushmore and taking down the Washington Monument .

What would be a good alternative? You cannot suggest someone be renamed without an alternative or how about we rename Washington DC, The Capitol? That would offend no one.

Removing the faces from Mount Rushmore and respected the land as sacred land of the Lakota Sioux is based AF.

I think the Crazy Horse monument is more offensive and I don't see the point of carving up the mountain for it. Mount Rushmore is already done.

[Kannap]

Keep moving your argument back a decade every time you bring it up, before you know it you'll reach the 2020s.

If you had your way, babies born in 2030 wouldn’t be named!

That's Lumen's idea, not mine. I'm not the one saying "X before #### needs to be renamed"

[Kannap]

Removing the faces from Mount Rushmore and respected the land as sacred land of the Lakota Sioux is based AF.

I think the Crazy Horse monument is more offensive and I don't see the point of carving up the mountain for it. Mount Rushmore is already done.

Sure you do, of course you fucking do. I'm not surprised.

The monument erected on Native sacred land dedicated to the men who genocided Native Americans? Perfectly fine, of course, inoffensive.

The monument erected on Native sacred land, commissioned by the Sioux themselves, to display their hero - one who took arms against the United States that was genociding their people? Offensive as fuck, horrible.

Classic Lumen, absolutely disgusting take.

[San Lumen]

I think the Crazy Horse monument is more offensive and I don't see the point of carving up the mountain for it. Mount Rushmore is already done.

Sure you do, of course you fucking do. I'm not surprised.

The monument erected on Native sacred land dedicated to the men who genocided Native Americans? Perfectly fine, of course, inoffensive.

The monument erected on Native sacred land, commissioned by the Sioux themselves, to display their hero - one who took arms against the United States that was genociding their people? Offensive as fuck, horrible, should be removed.

Classic Lumen, absolutely disgusting take.

From everything iv;e read many Sioux are against the monument not for it.

[SD_Film Artists]

They're kissing SJW ass, and I think you know that. If they removed the figures for non-SJW reasons (such as, converting to a Catholic school and wanting to have a name which sounds more like a church, perhaps maintaining a statue of Washington to demonstrate that no unpatrioticness is intended) then I don't think there'd be as much of an issue.

Why should they have to signal patriotism?

Why shouldn't they? Not that they should be forced to do it BTW, and I actually find the 'oath of alliegence' in schools to be kinda creepy, but that's just an extra detail to a sentence which was itself an extra detail to the main point; that they're kissing SJW ass and you know it.

Isn't it more respectful to Lincoln's memory to choose to honour him based on a full understanding of his life a presidency, instead of doing it just because it's the done thing?

Yes, except that's not what's happening, infact it's the opposite of what's happening as the Modus operandi for these people is- 'find out something negative about this historical figure which might not even be a secret, imply that it's akin to having the same beliefs today, then pretend that he/she is only about that one bad thing regardless of any heroic actions and historical significance.

[Kannap]

Sure you do, of course you fucking do. I'm not surprised.

The monument erected on Native sacred land dedicated to the men who genocided Native Americans? Perfectly fine, of course, inoffensive.

The monument erected on Native sacred land, commissioned by the Sioux themselves, to display their hero - one who took arms against the United States that was genociding their people? Offensive as fuck, horrible, should be removed.

Classic Lumen, absolutely disgusting take.

From everything iv;e read many Sioux are against the monument not for it.

A little more digging and I'll concede that it appears many are against the Crazy Horse monument despite it being commissioned by a Lakota chief.

But it's still disgusting that you find that monument to be more offensive than the monument that literally memorializes and celebrates the men who led a genocide against the Native Americans.

To be fair, the idea of Mount Rushmore itself isn't what I'm against, I'd have no problem if it were located somewhere else. But it's on sacred land and those Natives have been very vocal about having the monument removed and their land kept sacred.

[The Two Jerseys]

Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas.

Confusing as that is, that's not what I meant.

there are like 15 towns/cities named Hampton in the U.S., but having two in the same state would be confusing.

Hampton, Virginia vs. Hampton, Missouri is one thing

Hampton, Missouri vs. Hampton, Missouri is another

They'll be fine.