San Francisco may rename school named for Washington

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Some of these people may well be lauded for reasons beyond their tacit support for slavery. The context does matter here though. Putting up a statue of Robert E. Lee in the middle of a state capital would not be appropriate. Putting up a statue of Robert E. Lee in a military museum, Confederate graveyard, or on a military base might well be appropriate.

Museum or graveyard would be fine. US military bases shouldn't be lauding traitors.

Yeah. How the symbolism affects the people who actually use the building/base should matter more than how it affects people walking past. And both their reactions matter more than voter on the other side of town, who likely didn't even know the name of the building/base until it became a political issue.

Military bases are the best example. But it works for schools too.

[Fahran]

Museum or graveyard would be fine. US military bases shouldn't be lauding traitors.

Tactical excellence from American military officers is tactical excellence from American military officers. In the context of a military base, he represents martial excellence - one of the principal aims of those institutions.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

All the ones named after horrible people.


Again, that's completely irrelevant.

All of those are horrible people? Do you even know who some of them are named for? I bet you don't.

Its not irrelevant at all. You have no alternatives and would rather make grandiose statements to sound woke and edgy and instead you come of as a far left radical that has zero credibility by displaying total ignorance of history.

This is unusually hostile from you?

Harvey Milk was a city supervisor of San Francisco. Do you think you could give up one George Washington High School to make a Harvey Milk High School?

Or would that be too woke for your taste.

I'd like Steven Breyer to be honored with a public building, when he dies. He was from SF too. Would that be too political, or would it be a statement that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be political?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Museum or graveyard would be fine. US military bases shouldn't be lauding traitors.

Tactical excellence from American military officers is tactical excellence from American military officers. In the context of a military base, he represents martial excellence - one of the principal aims of those institutions.

ONE of, though. Military officers aren't sworn to tactical excellence, they're sworn to obey the President and the US Constitution.

I know, it sounds crazy, but apparently they're sworn to obey the President and/or the Constitution.

I may have it wrong, but it doesn't matter. Confederates didn't obey either. They were traitors, and only a sophist would consider that less significant than tactical excellence.

[Kowani]

Museum or graveyard would be fine. US military bases shouldn't be lauding traitors.

Tactical excellence from American military officers is tactical excellence from American military officers. In the context of a military base, he represents martial excellence - one of the principal aims of those institutions.

small note: Lee wasn't actually a very good general

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Have people actually decided yet? Sigh.

Let’s just allow the name “Washington” to be overloadable. You can interpret it as either George Washington or George Washington Carver. Problem solved. Everyone is happy without taxpayers paying. Same for other offending surnames.

What are we even arguing? Just do it.

[Albrenia]

Museum or graveyard would be fine. US military bases shouldn't be lauding traitors.

Tactical excellence from American military officers is tactical excellence from American military officers. In the context of a military base, he represents martial excellence - one of the principal aims of those institutions.

There's better generals to make statues of who aren't slave-supporting traitors. Study his strategy certainly, but don't glorify a man who betrayed what the military is sworn to protect.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Tactical excellence from American military officers is tactical excellence from American military officers. In the context of a military base, he represents martial excellence - one of the principal aims of those institutions.

There's better generals to make statues of who aren't slave-supporting traitors. Study his strategy certainly, but don't glorify a man who betrayed what the military is sworn to protect.

Don’t use public money to make human statues. Make cat statues if we have to make some. In fact just don’t. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

[Fahran]

If you knew how long I've waited to hear someone try to define "virtue-signalling".

Virtue-signalling, to use a bare bones definition, is "the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue."

So people who don't like virtue-signalling, consider it frivolous and not intended to change anything, but bad anyway because it might "accidentally" change something. That's the gist?

I never stated that I dislike virtue-signalling, though I do and can explain why I do now if you would like. The motivation behind virtue-signalling is the expression of an opinion intended to demonstrate one's good character or moral correctness to others. This strikes me as performative and superficial. However, stating a moral position, for whatever reason, may have an impact on the broader discourse - for better or for worse.

Well I'm a virtue-signaller then. If something I say happens to change the world, I'm at liberty to disavow that if I don't like the change that occurred. "I was just virtue-signalling, I didn't mean anyone to take it seriously".

I would have a good deal more respect for your position if you were presenting a moral argument because you sincerely believed it to be right and intended to take a serious stand than if you were presenting a moral argument solely to bolster your own image.

This is exactly what I meant when I said people shouldn't dismiss something as unimportant AND argue about the harm it might do. That's giving up the argument both ways.

I'm not dismissing it as unimportant. I'm dismissing the motivation behind it as not in good faith because the motivation aren't to further the ethical dialogue when one is engaging in virtue-signalling. The motivation is to gain social capital from like-minded persons.

Yet he was a poet. The 200 geographical locations (alone) with the same name in the US, is more like spam than poetry. I see nothing good, true or beautiful about it.

This is a different argument than the one that was originally presented.

Yes that's a serious objection. Not to Washington's name be used at all, but to it being used so much. It's a relic of an age when people didn't go far beyond the nearest city (or out of that city for that matter) and when they did, they appreciated the reminder that they were still in the US. There is nothing good, true or beautiful about parochialism.

On the contrary, there is quite a bit to admire in a local and communal outlook and a good number of thinkers far more gifted than you or I in terms of insight have often waxed poetic about the serenity one may find within the refuge of the familiar and the provincial. In terms of naming conventions, these are interwoven with histories and narratives about who we are and what we value. You may, of course, find a name dull, but, given our discourse thus far, I'm inclined to wonder if a love the poetic is the driving factor here. As a symbol and a national hero, Washington is quite useful and quite entrenched in the aesthetics of republicanism - most especially because of the parallels one may draw to Cincinnatus and the civic virtues this comparison evokes. The United States is a big place. I have yet to confuse Washingtons of import to me.

So it's reductionism. X feature "higher" in society relies on X-1 feature "below" it.

So adult society should "naturally" be built on the child's experience of family. Because that will be a good, true and beautiful society, I'm sure.

Or ... privilege and oppression defined by status at birth. This is so horrible, that Islamic theocracy might have been an improvement.

No wait. Saudi Arabia has both.

I have no idea how you could call a description of the foundational pillars of a particular society reductionism, especially when you then proceeded to misunderstand networks of extended kinship as inherently rooted in privilege and oppression, which gives a lot of insight into the paradigm you've adopted, and to mischaracterize by implication the nature of the changes Islam brought to Arabian society. We can, of course, talk about privilege and oppression within the context of any society, but that conversation should not sit adjacent to a conversation about the institutions and values that underpin a society. It's seeing everything as a nail because you have a hammer.

But not necessarily dramatically bad.

It could be dramatically good or dramatically bad, which is why we should proceed with understanding and wisdom as well as reason.

Oh believe me I'd love to "replace" some pillars. But it's a foolishly rash thing to attempt: for instance removing the modern equivalent of "subsistence" would be an unconditional living wage for everyone (so no-one is compelled to work to survive) and while I have faith the results would be good in the long term, I would not dare to predict the work ethic of the future, productivity, family structure, consumed culture or participatory culture that ultimately must be created by people together.

That's not really what I meant by subsistence, but go off, I guess.

The only worth I can get from this concept of "pillars" is that material conditions, family arrangements etc held widely in common, are the bottom levels of pillars on which traditions and culture grow. Removing or moving the bottom does not "topple' the pillar so much as remove (or move) one level, making the pillar shorter and less founded. The fault is with the analogy, not society, that social pillars don't fall over catastrophically, destroying other pillars and causing chaos.

You can experience social dysfunctions when you begin imposing dramatic social or ethical changes. In fact, even when moving towards beneficial and organic changes, you'll often see quite a few ugly ones pop out of the woodwork.

For example, the option for women to earn their own income before marriage, has changed the foundations of family. Not destroyed the concept of family, but broadened it and made the "breadwinner, housewife, children" model less substantial: it's still quite common, but it's much less apparent as the only option for young women and men. It used to be deeply disgraceful for either spouse to desert the other, leaving young children. Now it's rightly recognized as preferable in some cases, as a single parent (looking for another partner or not) is better for children than an unhappy marriage and the abuse all 'round which often follows from that.

Single parent households don't tend to create socially desirable outcomes in all honesty.

Sure. I made the point later that there are 'weak' conservatives who are really just for the status quo and quickly take the side of whoever won. Strong conservatives have views based in solid ideology, and sometimes what they seek to conserve I do respect.

Conservatism as defined by Russell Kirk is more of a politics than an ideology, principally because, unlike liberalism or communism, it does not propose a conclusive ideological and historical end. It does occasionally supplement itself with theology or secular theology, but I consider that quite distinct.

Or the discovery that beyond one's home town, there are innumerable memorials to Washington. And it's not a choice between One or None: one town opting out does not mean the first step on a slippery slope where they all do.

Does the existence of those towns, which may never be of consequence or import to you, alter the identity of your own town or diminish the act of honor embodied by the naming of your own town?

With the exposure that each town gets through media, I think there's a more compelling case than ever before to honor local heroes in the names of public buildings.

I would not have objections to that if those local heroes embodied virtues as manifested in the local community and no ulterior motive beyond that existed.

In the case of a school, it might be more realistically inspiring for students too. The chances of any of them becoming President are one in a billion. The chances any of them will gain the historical place of George Washington, are zero. Why not honor the small business-person who founded the first paper mill? Or the mayor who first organized the dredging of the harbor?

You began this post by lambasting a parochial mindset and now you seem to promote a parochial mindset.

"Usurping" might be a better word. You used "toppling" for pillars, it's confusing.

It's only a usurpation if something worthwhile remains to be usurped.

Even the claim they were "believed" to deserve the honors then, is dubious. Was it a democratic decision, or some bureaucrat without the imagination or initiative to choose anything but The Most Famous American? Even if it was a committee decision, it was probably some dumb first-past-the-post vote ... those tend to favor Name Recognition.

Well, aren't we the cynic.

"Slavery bad" seems pretty clear to me. So it used to considered acceptable? Even ten years ago, it was considered excusable? Well that's change for you: old people die and their old attitudes die with them.

I never asserted that slavery was morally acceptable. I stated that one might well deserve honors in spite of participating in slavery.

Well we seem to have agreed that virtue-signalling can sometimes have real effects, good or bad. If we could just agree that good (or to other people bad) effects are the purpose and intent of the virtue-signaller, then neither of us need feel bad about getting that label.

The issue with virtue-signalling as it is defined is that it is insincere.

OK. Those are reactionaries not conservatives, but fair enough.

Being pro-life is pretty milquetoast.

I can't tell you even vaguely, let alone exactly. The intention is more-equal opportunity, fewer crimes against the person, plenty of education and healthcare for everyone, a supportive and understanding environment for immigrants, and maximum scope for pursuit of happiness by those who can achieve it without infringing anyone else's rights. If even one of those progresses without other problems arising, I will be happily surprised!

Depending on your precise policy suggestions, pursuit of any one of these goals may well lead to other problems.

You for instance, support greater income equality. But I've only seen you mention it defensively. Higher taxes on the rich would obviously be necessary, which concords with my own conservatism on government borrowing. But I doubt we'll ever agree on the best way to raise taxes on the rich because you don't like the look of any kind of tax which hasn't been tried before. If you want to present yourself as a nuanced, or hybrid, conservative, I think you should give more thought to the kinds of change you're prepared to accept, or even support.

I think all people should be nuanced.

I will say though, that you're one of the most reasonable conservatives I've ever met, and it's probably because you understand that change will happen whether government tries to guide it or not.

Thank you.

"Visual art" in the old sense is a tiny fraction of the produced and consumed art nowadays. I frankly don't care what they're doing in the niche of still pictures. Even sculpture is crippled by seeing the two-dimensional representations before seeing the real thing, so public sculpture I just find sitting there is the only kind which ever impresses me.

Movies half-obsoleted visual arts, and television finished the job. "Artists" work mainly in off-screen roles of producing moving-pictures now and it really does not matter how much money changes hands over "fine art" because the art of an era is measured by the eyeballs it attracts.

Arguably music is a significant sector of art, but personally I've never put it in that category.

I think public apathy does quite a bit to explain the problems of modern art and in modern aesthetics, but the issue is that art does matter a lot. It can be the voice of a generation and it can sway the discourse, often in more substantial ways than moral utterances or virtue-signalling.

I don't find either side of politics (or ethics) beautiful. Ugly or beautiful seem like emotional reactions which, if I even felt them, I would try to avoid.

You're making me want to quote Lewis on aesthetics and language. This sort of outlook is one of the problems I'm hinting at in all honesty, and I don't say that as a dig at you.

Good as in well-intentioned? No. You personally perhaps.

A well-intentioned act may well come to evil though, no? The road to Hell and all that...

I pretty much bailed out of new video games because 'artistic' content was just distracting me from playing the game. And annoying me with the mixture of incompatible styles. Perhaps the deadlines are too short for what they're trying to do, or perhaps the art teams are too big. Anyway, video games aren't something I can give an objective opinion about.

Your opinion need not be objective so long as it is informed and well-articulated.

Yeah. Point against him IMO. The President is supposed to be chosen by the People. Adams must have run "against" Washington, to get VP, but he didn't get any recorded votes. Washington (the first time) was appointed by the "political class" and his historical stature has no doubt biased the People towards voting for rich and famous men endorsed by the political class.

I mean... I don't really perceive direct democracy as an intrinsic good. To me, it's more of an extrinsic good, but I would assert that Washington had enough popular assent to rule and that he largely ruled well enough to leave us with a lot of good precedents and principles. They were not perfect, but we are where we are now in large part because he didn't pull a Simon Bolivar.

If Donald Trump was still President you could say that tradition had been broken. But he's not.

And I would not have liked that tradition to be broken.

Sure, I'm not saying Washington was a sack of shit

I'd go so far as to assert that he's uniquely good for a political leader of a newly established polity.

Yeah, a strawman, or a false generalization from a subset of conservatives. I should have said the "statusquo-ist reasoning" which endorses anything, right or wrong, once it becomes the status quo. The NRA is an example, I'm sure there are others.

I think the NRA tends to win the arguments it enters in a lot of cases.

I went through this. Great leaders propound unpopular causes sometimes. If they win and popular opinion follows them, they look even greater. If they win and popular opinion stays against, they get voted out. And if they lose it could go either way. Trying and failing strengthens the conviction of their followers (sometimes in negative ways like "it's a conspiracy") and may even weaken the opposition with triumphalism and subsequent complacency. If the leader never tries at all because the polls say they will lose ... well they're not Great after all.

That sorta ignores the initial point that I made - which wasn't really meant to turn into a conversation about my opinions on place names and the Founding Fathers. Namely that unpopular virtue-signalling is often one reason progressives lose. Stating that the loss doesn't matter if one sticks to their principles is sorta side-stepping that.

[Fahran]

I'd like Steven Breyer to be honored with a public building, when he dies. He was from SF too. Would that be too political, or would it be a statement that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be political?

I could get behind a town called Breyersville.

[Suriyanakhon]

They really do seem to be doing their best to prove the far-right slippery slope argument about how eventually non-Confederate names & statues would be taken down true. I don't really care about whether or not these places remain called what they are, but it is a tad ironic.

[Deacarsia]

Yet another victim on the list of unnecessary and stupid changes being made to American institutions.

[Kowani]

They really do seem to be doing their best to prove the far-right slippery slope argument about how eventually non-Confederate names & statues would be taken down true. I don't really care about whether or not these places remain called what they are, but it is a tad ironic.

i mean
having read a local account of it, the "process" they went through was just
an absolute disaster

[The Two Jerseys]

They really do seem to be doing their best to prove the far-right slippery slope argument about how eventually non-Confederate names & statues would be taken down true. I don't really care about whether or not these places remain called what they are, but it is a tad ironic.

i mean
having read a local account of it, the "process" they went through was just
an absolute disaster

That article is one big oof.

[Ifreann]

You're denying an idea that no one is proposing, then. Choosing to not celebrate some figure from history is not an indictment of that person's lack of foresight, nor is it a denial of their historical significance. Who we celebrate now, today, in the present, in the current year, is an expression of our values now, today, in the present, in the current year.

You contradict yourself. You say that no one is saying that and it's not about 'that person's lack of foresight' yet straight afterwards you talk about 'in the present, in the current year' which (correct me if I'm wrong) is a thinly-vailed attempt to reject someone soley on that person's lack of foresight. If you have an opinion on the topic could you please at least be honest about it rather than being this disingenuous.

I'm pointing out that when we choose to celebrate someone by naming something in their honour we are not projecting our current values onto their time in history, the thing people are perpetually mad about. We are expressing our values now. If we choose not to celebrate someone by naming something in their honour, we're not saying that they should have known better, somehow, and comported themselves in accordance with our values. We're just saying that we're not going to throw them a party.

Maybe that is your impression.

It is, and I think it describes the situation well.

Seems more like you're inventing motivations and ascribing them to the half dozen people responsible for this decision.

[SD_Film Artists]

You contradict yourself. You say that no one is saying that and it's not about 'that person's lack of foresight' yet straight afterwards you talk about 'in the present, in the current year' which (correct me if I'm wrong) is a thinly-vailed attempt to reject someone soley on that person's lack of foresight. If you have an opinion on the topic could you please at least be honest about it rather than being this disingenuous.

I'm pointing out that when we choose to celebrate someone by naming something in their honour we are not projecting our current values onto their time in history, the thing people are perpetually mad about. We are expressing our values now.

Those values should include the proper contextualisation of history. This has been lacking in actions such as the thread topic.

If we choose not to celebrate someone by naming something in their honour, we're not saying that they should have known better, somehow, and comported themselves in accordance with our values. We're just saying that we're not going to throw them a party.

Which is a low-key way of saying 'we're going to remove names and/or statues of people who we deem to not be following the party line regardless of their historical context and significance'. Again, if you're going to say something then just say it rather than this spin BS.

Seems more like you're inventing motivations and ascribing them to the half dozen people responsible for this decision.

It's the reason which most of these statue/naming threads are based on. I wish that it could have a more innocent reason such as 'the statue is being moved to make way for a new hospital but it's ok as we'll put the statue in the hopstial so it's not actually going to be gone'. You don't even have to do any deep research; it's the headline of pretty much every one of these stories.

[Ifreann]

I'm pointing out that when we choose to celebrate someone by naming something in their honour we are not projecting our current values onto their time in history, the thing people are perpetually mad about. We are expressing our values now.

Those values should include the proper contextualisation of history. This has been lacking in actions such as the thread topic.

If we choose not to celebrate someone by naming something in their honour, we're not saying that they should have known better, somehow, and comported themselves in accordance with our values. We're just saying that we're not going to throw them a party.

Which is a low-key way of saying 'we're going to remove names and/or statues of people who we deem to not be following the party line regardless of their historical context and significance'. Again, if you're going to say something then just say it rather than this spin BS.

If I was going to say that then I would have said that. But I'm not saying that, so I didn't say it.

If you're going to insist on arguing against positions that I'm not holding then you really don't need to involve me.

Seems more like you're inventing motivations and ascribing them to the half dozen people responsible for this decision.

It's the reason which most of these statue/naming threads are based on. I wish that it could have a more innocent reason such as 'the statue is being moved to make way for a new hospital but it's ok as we'll put the statue in the hopstial so it's not actually going to be gone'.

It's really not.

[SD_Film Artists]

Those values should include the proper contextualisation of history. This has been lacking in actions such as the thread topic.



Which is a low-key way of saying 'we're going to remove names and/or statues of people who we deem to not be following the party line regardless of their historical context and significance'. Again, if you're going to say something then just say it rather than this spin BS.

If I was going to say that then I would have said that. But I'm not saying that, so I didn't say it.

If you're going to insist on arguing against positions that I'm not holding then you really don't need to involve me.

For all your talk of "choosing to celebrate" and "not throwing a party" the end result is that a significant historical figure's name/statue is being removed for knee-jerk political reasons which- through either ignorance or political malace- ignores the proper historical context of that person. Just be honest with what you're talking about. If you're not talking about that then please stay on topic.

It's the reason which most of these statue/naming threads are based on. I wish that it could have a more innocent reason such as 'the statue is being moved to make way for a new hospital but it's ok as we'll put the statue in the hopstial so it's not actually going to be gone'.

It's really not.

Then could you enlighten us?

[Ifreann]

If I was going to say that then I would have said that. But I'm not saying that, so I didn't say it.

If you're going to insist on arguing against positions that I'm not holding then you really don't need to involve me.

For all your talk of "choosing to celebrate" and "not throwing a party" the end result is that a significant historical figure's name/statue is being removed for knee-jerk political reasons which- through either ignorance or political malace- ignores the proper historical context of that person. Just be honest with what you're talking about.

I'm being perfectly honest. That I'm not saying the things that you have convinced yourself that I truly believe does not mean I am lying. You're just wrong about what I believe. Which is unfortunate since I've been talking about it for over thirty pages.

It's really not.

Then could you enlight us?

No, I can't. Different people have different positions in different situations, they want things renamed for a variety of reasons according to their varied beliefs. I can't give you one simple explanation for all of these threads because there is no such simple explanation.

There is no leftist plot to erase history or whatever. At least, not one that I've been briefed on.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/21/us/guy-fieri-flavortown-columbus-ohio-petition-trnd/index.html#:~:text=(CNN)%20The%20city%20of%20Columbus,of%20Columbus%20native%20Guy%20Fieri.
There was a proposal to rename Columbus Ohio to Flavortown. As a Columbus native, I was both amused and partially terrified.

As a Columbus native myself, I support being a citizen of Flavortown.

[San Lumen]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/21/us/guy-fieri-flavortown-columbus-ohio-petition-trnd/index.html#:~:text=(CNN)%20The%20city%20of%20Columbus,of%20Columbus%20native%20Guy%20Fieri.
There was a proposal to rename Columbus Ohio to Flavortown. As a Columbus native, I was both amused and partially terrified.

As a Columbus native myself, I support being a citizen of Flavortown.

Thats a weird name for a city in my view.

[SD_Film Artists]

For all your talk of "choosing to celebrate" and "not throwing a party" the end result is that a significant historical figure's name/statue is being removed for knee-jerk political reasons which- through either ignorance or political malace- ignores the proper historical context of that person. Just be honest with what you're talking about.

I'm being perfectly honest. That I'm not saying the things that you have convinced yourself that I truly believe does not mean I am lying. You're just wrong about what I believe. Which is unfortunate since I've been talking about it for over thirty pages.

Honest about what? It's not that I disagree (though I probably do too), it's that you don't really give a position to talk on. For the past few months you've largely just twisted people's words, jumped to conlusions and generally failed to stick to the questions at hand; I would have given up responding to you but I try to have some faith in that you're a veteran member. In the landlord and police threads you either stuck to borderline strawmen or just lead with 'but we could give people free stuff'; which while still a valid position to have, it is basically just turning the thread into a 'but what if socialism' thread rather than actually discussing what landlords/policeman could do differently inside this current society. But those are different threads; as for this thread, when people remove statues based on one political objection, how is not not as I described? Remember that they themselves have been saying that, not just me projecting it onto them.

No, I can't. Different people have different positions in different situations, they want things renamed for a variety of reasons according to their varied beliefs. I can't give you one simple explanation for all of these threads because there is no such simple explanation.

And yet you have the confidence to say 'It's really not' to one very prominant cause.

There is no leftist plot to erase history or whatever. At least, not one that I've been briefed on.

Again with the boarderline strawmen. No one is talking about somekind of hive mind where all left-wing people want to remove history. The removing of statues has a problematic disregard for history which many of the more SJW side of the left engage in as I mentioned earlier, but they don't actually get out of bed with a 'plot to erase history' in its entirity or whatever it is you're trying to imply.

[Ifreann]

I'm being perfectly honest. That I'm not saying the things that you have convinced yourself that I truly believe does not mean I am lying. You're just wrong about what I believe. Which is unfortunate since I've been talking about it for over thirty pages.

Honest about what? It's not that I disagree (though I probably do too), it's that you don't really give a position to talk on. For the past few months you've largely just twisted people's words, jumped to conlusions and generally failed to stick to the questions at hand; I would have given up responding to you but I try to have some faith in that you're a veteran member. In the landlord and police threads you either stuck to borderline strawmen or just lead with 'but we could give people free stuff'; which while still a valid position to have, it is basically just turning the thread into a 'but what if socialism' thread rather than actually discussing what landlords/policeman could do differently inside this current society.

I'll repeat that if I'm not making the arguments that you want me to make then you can just stop involving me.

But those are different threads; as for this thread, when people remove statues based on one political objection, how is not not as I described? Remember that they themselves have been saying that, not just me projecting it onto them.

Who are these people saying that historical figures should have had the foresight to abide by modern values? I can't recall anyone ever saying anything of the sort in this thread or any like it.

No, I can't. Different people have different positions in different situations, they want things renamed for a variety of reasons according to their varied beliefs. I can't give you one simple explanation for all of these threads because there is no such simple explanation.

And yet you have the confidence to say 'It's really not' to one very prominant cause.

Yes, I know that it's not the one thing that you believe it is because it is different things.

There is no leftist plot to erase history or whatever. At least, not one that I've been briefed on.

Again with the boarderline strawmen. No one is talking about somekind of hive mind where all left-wing people want to remove history. The removing of statues has a problematic disregard for history which many of the more SJW side of the left engage in as I mentioned earlier, but they don't actually get out of bed with a 'plot to erase history' in its entirity or whatever it is you're trying to imply.

No one is talking about a hive mind of the left, but you are talking the modus operadi of "these people".

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Yet another victim on the list of unnecessary and stupid changes being made to American institutions.

Who's the institutional victim? A dead guy? Or a building?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

... If the leader never tries at all because the polls say they will lose ... well they're not Great after all.

That sorta ignores the initial point that I made - which wasn't really meant to turn into a conversation about my opinions on place names and the Founding Fathers. Namely that unpopular virtue-signalling is often one reason progressives lose. Stating that the loss doesn't matter if one sticks to their principles is sorta side-stepping that.

Hopefully I'll get to the rest later.

You say Progressives lose, by calling for things that are not yet popular. But the alternative is keeping quiet and waiting until those things become popular ... which would not be leadership at all. Progressives should not be passive populists, though I can see why you'd like that.

Populism does have its place: a little honey helps the medicine go down