[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48048894]as far as places go it's actually a fairly good one
they've already admitted it can be cleaned off, so it's no permanent damage
so it's ok to disrespect minorities in america, but when you disrespect that monument which both stands for the CSA and the dead soldiers (don't even grenadiac, they're inexorably linked, you can't have soldiers without the CSA), stop the presses?[/QUOTE]
Plant a sign in front of the monument, don't actually spray paint the monument itself.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48048909]and this monument as bda and i have stated again and again is pertinent to their case[/QUOTE]
Okay everybody, LordCrypto stated the monument was pertinent to their cause. Throw the old facts out, we've got new ones authored by LordCrypto.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048912]Okay everybody, LordCrypto stated the monument was pertinent to their cause. Throw the old facts out, we've got new ones.[/QUOTE]
The civil war was partly fought over slavery (it wasn't the sole reason but it sure as fuck was a big one), and the shooter admitted that he was motivated by a twisted form of nostalgia over the segregation days, which were directly linked with the civil war and the discriminatory heritage of the South.
The monument is pertinent to their cause, but spray painting a message above it isn't any less stupid.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048912]Okay everybody, LordCrypto stated the monument was pertinent to their cause. Throw the old facts out, we've got new ones authored by LordCrypto.[/QUOTE]
i'm sorry your ideals of accepting racism are being challenged
so lemme get this straight:
according to grenadiac,
it's bad to tag monuments if it's disrespectful, but if it isn't, it's perfectly ok
what?
(This was truncated from another post of mine which I edited, the thread is going too fast to allow for large post edits such as this one so I made it another post entirely)
As far as the whole "black lives matter" message goes, I think it's incredibly poorly formulated. Distinguishing "black lives" from any other life may raise awareness about their importance but it also draws a very unneeded and damaging line between people just based on their skin color. One of the most glaring issues with US society is that despite people fighting the use of demeaning words and fighting the most obvious forms of discrimination, they still persist in making that shallow distinction between one man and another based on how dark their skin is, and as long as that distinction exists and is accepted by the majority of people, the longer it'll take to solve these issues.
It's one of those cases where the thought is nice but the execution is terrible.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48048910]Plant a sign in front of the monument, don't actually spray paint the monument itself.[/QUOTE]
and would it have had the same meaning had it been a sign?
[editline]25th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48048932](This was truncated from another post of mine which I edited, the thread is going too fast to allow for large post edits such as this one so I made it another post entirely)
As far as the whole "black lives matter" message goes, I think it's incredibly poorly formulated. Distinguishing "black lives" from any other life may raise awareness about their importance but it also draws a very unneeded and damaging line between people just based on their skin color. One of the most glaring issues with US society is that despite people fighting the use of demeaning words and fighting the most obvious forms of discrimination, they still persist in making that shallow distinction between one man and another based on how dark their skin is, and as long as that distinction exists and is accepted by the majority of people, the longer it'll take to solve these issues.
It's one of those cases where the thought is nice but the execution is terrible.[/QUOTE]
"black lives matter [I]also[/I]"
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48048935]and would it have had the same meaning had it been a sign?[/QUOTE]
It would have, except it wouldn't have pissed off as many people by defacing (even temporarily) a memorial.
Pissing off people isn't going to make them listen to your point and it's not going to make your point stronger, it's going to make them care less. This kind of action is the very definition of kneejerk.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48048727]If anything, all this is going to do is pander to psychopathic white nationals into committing further crimes and atrocities.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Muh memeshit" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
I could see a few violent outbursts from white supremacists/KKK members because people have some fucking nuts members.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLq-73tP8hE[/media]
These people are still real.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48048935]and would it have had the same meaning had it been a sign?
[editline]25th June 2015[/editline]
"black lives matter [I]also[/I]"[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't the meaning really depend on the person viewing it? And don't you already make a distinction because the phrase specifies black lives in particular, even if you would include others with "also" a distinctive line has already been drawn with the use of the word "black".
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48048935]"black lives matter [I]also[/I]"[/QUOTE]
The point still stands, if anything it's made worse by including "also" because it sounds even more like black people are second rate citizens or should somehow be distinguished from white citizens or hispanic citizens or literally anyone else.
Raising awareness toward the fact that people are discriminated over something as dumb and petty as their skin color is good, but actually making the distinction yourself like it should be accepted isn't going to help at all, it's only going to hurt the situation some more.
Since we are back to banning people we're arguing with I'm done here.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048953]Since we are back to banning people we're arguing with I'm done here.[/QUOTE]
You've been posting in this thread for several pages and I'm honestly still confused as to what your point actually is
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48048952]The point still stands, if anything it's made worse by including "also" because it sounds even more like black people are second rate citizens or should somehow be distinguished from white citizens or hispanic citizens or literally anyone else.
Raising awareness toward the fact that people are discriminated over something as dumb and petty as their skin color is good, but actually making the distinction yourself like it should be accepted isn't going to help at all, it's only going to hurt the situation some more.[/QUOTE]
'black lives matter' exists because it isn't a distinction
it's because black people are still a wildly disadvantaged group. they don't have a choice in the matter until things improve
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48048952]The point still stands, if anything it's made worse by including "also" because it sounds even more like black people are second rate citizens or should somehow be distinguished from white citizens or hispanic citizens or literally anyone else.
Raising awareness toward the fact that people are discriminated over something as dumb and petty as their skin color is good, but actually making the distinction yourself like it should be accepted isn't going to help at all, it's only going to hurt the situation some more.[/QUOTE]
Black people largely are second class citizens though
[editline]25th June 2015[/editline]
This isn't to say hispanic, asian, gay, trans people also aren't second class citizens
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48048953]Since we are back to banning people we're arguing with I'm done here.[/QUOTE]
Nobody's been banned for anything other than posting dumb "muh X!" memeshit. While I think your position is ridiculous and that you are wildly missing the point of a pretty obvious gesture, I'm not about to ban you for it, at least not so long as you're playing by the rules.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48049048]hes just looking for a reason to get out of the argument without admitting he's wrong[/QUOTE]
What am I wrong about? That it's not OK to vandalize war memorials? Or that all Confederate soldiers weren't slave owners who enlisted to lynch black people?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48049068]What am I wrong about? That it's not OK to vandalize war memorials? Or that all Confederate soldiers weren't slave owners who enlisted to lynch black people?[/QUOTE]
i don't think anyone here comprehends your argument because:
you said that it's ok to tag monuments as long as it's in favor of what the monument represents
now you just said that it isn't cool at all
what are you saying? i am fully lost.
Although regardless of whether or not "black lives matter" is a good formulation it's important to note that it's often a better idea to say something meaningful than not say anything at all.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;48049090]i don't think anyone here comprehends your argument because:
you said that it's ok to tag monuments as long as it's in favor of what the monument represents
now you just said that it isn't cool at all
what are you saying? i am fully lost.[/QUOTE]
No, you're not lost. You're intentionally misrepresenting my argument and twisting it to look nonsensical by creating a fudge summary of it. You know what I'm saying but you don't know how else to make it look weak.
It'd be understandable (and probably right) to tag a monument to someone like Forrest particularly when the monument is directly glorifying racist crimes against humanity. It's not acceptable to tag a memorial for soldiers who died defending a city against an invasion, especially when odds are a) none of them owned slaves and b) most of them enlisted for the express purpose of preventing their city from getting Sherman'd.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48048667]Yet the memorial itself is a Confederate icon, the soldiers being memorialized having fought for the benefit of system of oppression in the perception of these folk. Yes, it is disrespectful, but what else can you expect? How can they simultaneously respect the values of white supremacy and demand an end to minority oppression and exploitation? They're conflicting ideologies. The monument was targeted for a reason. It IS relevant.[/QUOTE]
Just out of curiosity (and I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet) could a couple of Jewish people for example, do the same things to Wehrmacht memorial sites similarly in the case of this confederate memorial and hold the same meaning?
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;48049112]Just out of curiosity (and I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet) could a couple of Jewish people for example, do the same things to Wehrmacht memorial sites similarly to the this confederate memorial and hold the same meaning?[/QUOTE]
BDA has already said that the Wehrmacht were "nazi soldiers" so yes. There is no gradient, only good or evil.
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;48049112]Just out of curiosity (and I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet) could a couple of Jewish people for example, do the same things to Wehrmacht memorial sites similarly in the case of this confederate memorial and hold the same meaning?[/QUOTE]
As a jewish person I don't think it would have the same impact. Few defend the nazis these days and Jews are hardly second class citizens.
[editline]25th June 2015[/editline]
The argument is already closed on whether the nazis were bad people or not.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48049117]BDA has already said that the Wehrmacht were "nazi soldiers" so yes. There is no gradient, only good or evil.[/QUOTE]
unless if they defect, the personal beliefs the soldiers doesn't override the fact that they were still part of the axis war machine and helped to constitute it
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48049146]As a jewish person I don't think it would have the same impact. Few defend the nazis these days and Jews are hardly second class citizens.[/QUOTE]
But they were still utilized for the Nazi ideology correct? So if we assume the cause was defense of the homeland in the Wehrmacht's case since not all were Nazis, can we say the same for confederates defending their town? With that being said, what separates these two if we can safely assume white supremacy is a characteristic of the later Nazi ideology? Not defending either side btw, I'm just curious.
[QUOTE]The argument is already closed on whether the nazis were bad people or not.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking solely about the Nazis.
Under no circumstances should defacing a historical monument be considered acceptable, no matter the cause. The ends don't justify the means.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;48049214]Under no circumstances should defacing a historical monument be considered acceptable, no matter the cause. The ends don't justify the means.[/QUOTE]
I respectfully disagree.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48048757]I never said it's not a thing. I said that attacking monuments is silly and all it accomplishes is pissing off people.[/QUOTE]
Excellent. Outrage is a great way to get coverage. Just look at all these fucking news articles! If you want to get heard, piss somebody right off.
Once attention has been drawn you can then actually have discourse about the problem. Wait...hang on I'm in SH, so no we can't discuss this problem because "racism is solved/ a non-issue/ overblown/ a SJW conspiracy (delete as appropriate) stop tagging things to do with racism!".
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48049287]I respectfully disagree.[/QUOTE]
Then quite frankly, the type of action (obviously not the kind which may endanger lives) taken for the purpose of promoting a cause is down to personal opinion and is useless to argue over since a person can take a memorial differently then the person next to them.
[editline]25th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48049318]Excellent. Outrage is a great way to get coverage. Just look at all these fucking news articles! If you want to get heard, piss somebody right off.
Once attention has been drawn you can then actually have discourse about the problem. Wait...hang on I'm in SH, so no we can't discuss this problem because "racism is solved/ a non-issue/ overblown/ a SJW conspiracy (delete as appropriate) stop tagging things to do with racism!".[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and also the side-effect of pissing people off is leaving them emotionally charged, and that always works out well in addressing problems right? :v:
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48049117]BDA has already said that the Wehrmacht were "nazi soldiers" so yes. There is no gradient, only good or evil.[/QUOTE]
Not what I was implying at all. I don't believe to any degree that Confederate soldiers are evil by association. I have even openly stated that yes, I am aware of the war crimes committed by the Union, and find them to be just as ugly an organization. How can you be this obtuse? Do you literally not understand the concept of perspective, perception, and symbolism? Are these alien to you?
You are so damn obtuse.
[editline]25th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;48049327]Then quite frankly, the type of action (obviously not the kind which may endanger lives) taken for the purpose of promoting a cause is down to personal opinion and is useless to argue over since a person can take a memorial differently then the person next to them.
[editline]25th June 2015[/editline]
Yeah, and also the side-effect of pissing people off is leaving them emotionally charged, and that always works out well in addressing problems right? :v:[/QUOTE]
"Yes" to the first half, and "sort of" to the second.
Pissing people off can be toxic in the short run, but ultimately opens the situation up to more discussion than it might otherwise have. I mean, isn't this thread proof of that? The pissed off people come to argue, the sympathetic people come to argue, and now we're ten pages into a discussion that wouldn't have happened if this hadn't been done. As tempers cool, the discussion slowly becomes more productive, hopefully more people leave with a greater sense of understanding of the situation, and a step is taken in the right direction.
The concept of peaceful protest is not "silent, respectful, and easily avoided." The point is to be seen, be heard, and rile people up-- not to violence, but to argumentation and debate. Make people discuss it, make them question it, and more people who would have otherwise been neutral may be swayed, one way or another.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.