Geeto67's Political Playground

[BStowers023]

Should this lady go to prison?

 

[zeitgeist57]

IIRC, that's exactly what happened and Trump still lost his shit.

 

Greg, please....we all know the President of the United States truly is a lost cause at this point.

 

Aside from my intrinsic respect for the office of the Presidency that I have as an American citizen, I struggle every day to find someone that truly is aware of what's going on around the world and is pleased with Trump.

 

I mean, there may be an NRA deal or a tax break here and there...but blind squirrels finding nuts and blah blah blah

[greg1647545532]

Fair enough, I would have said, "The good people of Charlottesville voted to take down their own statue and the right collectively lost its shit, had a riot, and ran someone over to death," but Tim would call me Bob Ross again.

[zeitgeist57]

Should this lady go to prison?

 

 

She should if only for that terrible speech and Clinton-esque hand gesture.

 

Can you ensure that was a functioning weapon before she cut it? Might be plastic with a steel collar that she cut through. :gabe:

[CRed05]

Don't be a twat.

 

I'm being dead serious. Unlike greg's post, which was a ridiculous hypothetical, mine actually exist and is historically correct.

 

[BStowers023]

I'm being dead serious. Unlike greg's post, which was a ridiculous hypothetical, mine actually exist and is historically correct.

 

 

It doesn't fit his agenda, therefore he will not give you a serious reply.

[greg1647545532]

I'm being dead serious. Unlike greg's post, which was a ridiculous hypothetical, mine actually exist and is historically correct

 

You said you were fine with a case by case basis. So is Kerry, so am I. What's the issue exactly? Nobody is discussing taking down Washington staues so it is sort of a ridiculous hypothetical.

[BStowers023]

You said you were fine with a case by case basis. So is Kerry, so am I. What's the issue exactly? Nobody is discussing taking down Washington staues so it is sort of a ridiculous hypothetical.

 

But why the double standard?

[CRed05]

You said you were fine with a case by case basis. So is Kerry, so am I. What's the issue exactly? Nobody is discussing taking down Washington staues so it is sort of a ridiculous hypothetical.

 

Well I doubt anything discussed here is really going to change the world, but we do it for the funz.

[greg1647545532]

But why the double standard?

 

I'm not aware of any Washington statues that were erected to intimidate black people.

[Geeto67]

I'm being dead serious. Unlike greg's post, which was a ridiculous hypothetical, mine actually exist and is historically correct.

 

Ok, First off, We shouldn't be taking anything down in London, because last I checked England isn't part of the United States. Same thing with Peru where the Inca pyramids are located. It's their culture, let their governments deal with how they want to handle. Just because we are the US doesn't mean we have to stick our morally superior dick in every single thing.

 

Second, Show me the statue they have erected to Ghandi's pedophilia and I will absolutely support it being taken down. Same with the statue erected specifically to honor Washington's slave ownership. Let's be clear about something: Every single member of the confederacy committed an act of treason against the US government. And I don't mean treason like they way people throw it around with respect to trump or W or Obama, but in the literal definition that is enumerated in the constitution (levying war against the government and aiding and abetting its enemies). During the war there was at least one person executed specifically for treason, and 500 executed for crimes related to treason. Lincoln, post the civil war decided it was the best interest in healing the country to not levy charges of treason against Davis, Lee, et al..., he absolutely felt they had committed treason and publicly said so many times (most famously in an 1863 published letter stating several confederate generals had committed treason), so it wasn't like he had a bad case - he just felt it wasn't in the country's best interest in reconstruction.

 

When the United Daughters of the Confederacy began their statue campaign, their aim was to honor the specific act of committing treason against the united states in order to keep people as property. They didn't phrase it that way their official position is "Commemorating Confederate Soldiers", but it's kind of the same thing, is it not? Think about their mission which is specifically to do two things - erect "heroic" monuments and run a disinformation campaign that trivializes the impact or conditions of slavery.

 

As a private organization they are free to believe whatever, but where I draw the when they convince the government to buy into their mission of honoring traitors who believed so hard that black people are inferior that it cost many of them their life. To use your prior example: this is like whatever the english version of NAMBLA is petitioning the Queen to erect a statue to ghandi's illicit love of children and the queen responding "ok, should we erect it outside a school so it will really scare the children to behave? or will in front of parliament do so that the children thinks the government just want's to fuck them?". The UDOTC choose to do this specifically during times when the country was fighting for civil rights as a form of protest - is this the message you really want to honor?

 

Nobody in history is squeaky clean, people are people and sometimes the rise to power causes a stockpile of skeletons to build in ones closet. What is important is the message we seek to honor. In the case of confederate monuments, most (not all, but def most) are specifically honoring bigotry, without much in the way of generally redeeming other qualities. Frankly, there are plenty of private individuals who honor that, and millions of books, movies, etc...that prevent us from ever forgetting it, so why must the state buy into that continuing message? Why do you want the government honoring bigotry. I don't exactly see a lot of state monuments to Hitler or the German army in the US, so why does this group of enemies of the US get "special treatment"?

 

By the way, I always joke that there are no monuments to Benedict Arnold - America's most famous traitor - but it turns out there is one: The Boot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument

It was erected specifically to honor Arnold's contribution and sacrifice at the Battles of Saratoga, which broke the back of the British forces and led to the US's inevitable victory. Arnold's later defection to the British means that his name doesn't actually appear on this monument to him (it's a boot because he was shot in the leg), making it a Damnatio memoriae - commerating the act but condemning the person. The old joke told about Arnold is that if he was ever caught by the American forces he sold out they would cut off and bury his wounded leg with full military honors and try and hang the rest of him as a criminal and enemy of the state. It turns out it really wasn't a joke.

 

Since you are South African, I have to ask - would you be ok with the SA government erecting Statues honoring "heroes" who championed Apartheid now?

Edited March 8, 2018 by Geeto67

[CRed05]

Since you are South African, I have to ask - would you be ok with the SA government erecting Statues honoring "heroes" who championed Apartheid now?

 

Well, South Africa has gone through this whole statue thing already...and then some. Cities and airports have been renamed, and the person a place might have been named after, probably didn't even have anything to do with Apartheid, but the fact that they were white was enough.

 

There is no way that a statue of anyone championing Apartheid would ever get erected right now, but for the most part, I would be against the removal of an existing statue.

 

Let's take Hendrik Verwoerd, the "father" of apartheid. His statue was taken down years ago. I understand why his in particular was taken down, I don't necessarily agree with it being taken down because it is part of SA history (He was Prime Minister, which is probably why he had a statue in the first place).

 

The ANC themselves have said that "removal of apartheid statues is an insult to SA's rich history".

http://ewn.co.za/2015/04/07/Removal-of-apartheid-statues-an-insult-to-SAs-rich-history

 

What started happening instead, was that black historical figures started getting statues and monuments erected to stand next to the existing white ones.

 

For example, a very significant event in SA history was the Battle of Blood River. On one side of the river you will find a monument for the group of white pioneers that were attacked by the Zulu's, on the other side of the river you'll find a monument to the fallen Zulu's.

 

Or here you'll see a statue of Louis Botha (The Union of South Africa's first Prime Minister, before apartheid), and recently added statue of a Zulu king facing him.

 

http://c7.alamy.com/comp/DFBH1G/a-statue-king-dinuzulu-cetshwayo-which-has-been-covered-for-2-years-DFBH1G.jpg

[Geeto67]

Keep in mind what I am saying here....not all confederate statues need to come down. I am not even saying all UDOTC statues need to come down, but some of there weren't put up with the best of intentions and some of them carry some really nasty messages that the state pays to maintain.

 

Let's consider one of Ohio's confederate monuments: "The Lookout" at the confederate cemetery on Johnson's Island. It's not commemorating any one person or event, ostensibly its a cemetery marker, replacing the previous marker which was just a bolder. It honors those POWs who are buried in the cemetery, not the cause of the confederacy, not the individual achievements of a confederate, just people who died and not necessarily in combat. It has a pretty standard message that you find in any cemetery, the only questionable thing is the inscription "Dead but sceptered sovereigns who still rule us from the dust" presumably referring to the fact that this was an officer's camp. It also has an inscription that honors all masons buried there regardless of Union or confederate. It's a hard case to make that it should be removed, and rightly so the monument has pretty much avoided that discussion.

 

At the same time Let's consider the Battle of Liberty Place Monument in New Orleans. The monument memorializes a specific event: a failed insurrection by a pro-south, white supremacist group that occurred 10 years after the end of the civil war. It was lobbied for by the UDOTC, and passed by the city as part of a collection of Jim Crow laws passed at the same time. At the time, several groups objected to it because of the overt racisim which caused a delay in it's erection (the lookout was erected in 1910, this was erected in around 1900), and there has been constant objection to it since then. Because of it's controversy, it became a rally point for many white supremacy groups for roughly 100+ years. Several lynchings actually occurred there. David Duke has praised it as a symbol of white pride. in 1974 the city added this inscription "battle of Liberty Place" and this monument are important parts of the New Orleans history, the sentiments in favor of white supremacy expressed thereon are contrary to the philosophy and beliefs of present-day New Orleans" but it did little to slow it's use as a congregation point for white supremacist groups when they conducted protests. When it was announced it would be removed, Mississippi House of Representatives member Karl Oliver said publicly "all who call for it's removal should be lynched" (fyi he represents the district in which Emmit Till was actually lynched). So tell me, to what value does this ad to the message of the state or the city? What historical value is really being celebrated? It's a monument that was specifically put up to intimidate black people from day one, and recognized as such, and continued to do so until 2017. It's not even on the site of the actual battle, though it is not far from it and on the same street (canal street). I don't really have a problem with the state saying "we aren't going to continue to endorse this message of hate". Do you?

[Trouble Maker]

http://c7.alamy.com/comp/DFBH1G/a-statue-king-dinuzulu-cetshwayo-which-has-been-covered-for-2-years-DFBH1G.jpg

 

What in the fuckity-fuck is he wearing?

[BStowers023]

Speaking of S. Africa, what's going on there with farmers land being taken?

[o0n8]

The white supremacists who have protested on Lee’s behalf are not betraying his legacy. In fact, they have every reason to admire him. Lee, whose devotion to white supremacy outshone his loyalty to his country, is the embodiment of everything they stand for. Tribe and race over country is the core of white nationalism, and racists can embrace Lee in good conscience.

 

 

The question is why anyone else would.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

[CRed05]

What in the fuckity-fuck is he wearing?

 

I think that's right after the statue was erected, so it still has a protective cover over it.

 

Speaking of S. Africa, what's going on there with farmers land being taken?

 

Not much else have happened since the vote in Parliament to add an amendment to the constitution to allow land expropriation without compensation.

 

Not only has it stirred up shit between black and white, but kind of caused more shit between the different black "tribes" or ethnic groups. During apartheid, the government gave the Zulu king a bunch of land that he's been sitting on for himself (surprise, surprise), and is now worried that he will lose it. Swaziland, a neighboring country is now trying to get in on the action, saying that a bunch of South African land actually belongs to Swaziland :dumb:

[CRed05]

I don't really have a problem with the state saying "we aren't going to continue to endorse this message of hate". Do you?

 

I think in the example you used, it's unfortunate that something that marks an historic event and location (nearby location perhaps), was being used by the KKK and other groups as a rallying point and to continue spreading a message of hate. Could you not implement something to prohibit that from happening, instead of removing the monument? I guess not, and maybe in this case, it was just too much trouble than it was worth.

 

The wiki page says that the last inscription read "In honor of those Americans on both sides who died in the Battle of Liberty Place ... A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future". Which I think is a pretty good message.

[cdk 4219]

I mean are they really "terrible" people because they like to have sex with women whom they are married to? Does that really play into their role as advocates at all? I honestly don't know why people fixate on this stuff - it's pointless. America is so puritan sometimes.

 

Politicians can have consensual, of age, sex with whomever they like so long as they can balance a budget, broker trade deals, and advance civil rights and liberties in this country. Why do we care so much?

 

Again, absolutely reaffirming the continuing problems we will have in this world. When is it appropriate to act like that and then lie profusely about it? I would guess they taught that at law school. Hopefully you can teach your children your wisdom, seems like a very educated path.

[Geeto67]

I think in the example you used, it's unfortunate that something that marks an historic event and location (nearby location perhaps), was being used by the KKK and other groups as a rallying point and to continue spreading a message of hate. Could you not implement something to prohibit that from happening, instead of removing the monument? I guess not, and maybe in this case, it was just too much trouble than it was worth.

 

The wiki page says that the last inscription read "In honor of those Americans on both sides who died in the Battle of Liberty Place ... A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future". Which I think is a pretty good message.

 

I think you underestimate American's ability to hold a grudge, esp southern Americans. I lived in New Orleans for just over 4 years and "the lost cause" is very much alive and well in the south: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

 

The thing that separates southerners from everyone else, is this latent hatred and bigotry is part of their cultural identity and that's much harder to separate than the tribalism we tend to see here in the north. One thing I have personally noticed here in Ohio, and even in NY is that the casual racism you encounter is aggressive and drawn along cultural lines. Look at how often certain immigrants here get blamed for the problems most societies face and how people have no issue using "turds" and other aggressively pejorative and suggestively racist terms. Things here in the Midwest are "ni#@$%er rigged" and the Somali population if "full of turds" because crime. But with southerners it's much deeper and matter of fact. Black people are just inferior to them and they don't lose an ounce of sleep over it, and don't need to walk around calling people the n word or turd when "Boy" and "Son" or any number of seemingly innocent but obviously subjugating terms will suffice. They aren't the cause of crime, they are "victims of being driven to it because their inferiority keeps them from being productive, we should put them back in subjugation to save them from themselves". It's insidious. Minorities and children are expected to say "yessir" and "nosir" but if you say it as an adult white male they will look and treat you as a subordinate or mentally impaired.

 

 

So let's talk about monuments, the government, and messages conveyed. Every confederate monument exists on the spectrum between the two cases I posted above, and sadly most fall more in the direction of the New Orleans monument than the one in Ohio. In post civil war, reconstruction, America people got really good at drafting laws to circumvent the 13th amendment to the constitution. This is where the concept of disparate impact comes in: they could draft laws that on their face looked benign but in practice had horrible effects on specific populations of people. At first some of these were comically bad, but they evolved into the segregation laws called "Jim Crow laws". On it's face separate but equal sounds....um....equal, but we know now that it isn't. Putting a memorial to a confederate general in a public park sounds benign, except when it's a general known for killing and beating slaves and the public park you put it in is in a black neighborhood in a state that otherwise has no ties to the person, and you are doing it at a time in history when Segregation is under attack or civil rights were being rallied for. The battle of liberty place monument was intended to be a beacon for white supremacy, and it did that job effectively. A lot of other monuments were placed for the same purpose with similar or lesser effect. And just because they weren't effective doesn't mean they aren't innocent either.

 

The thing about government land is that it enjoys privileges that private land does not. People can exercise their constitutional rights on public land (like free speech), which they cannot do on private, and not be touched by the government. So the government can't really interfere with white supremacists right to publicly gather as long as they are not harming the public at large. Why did the state feel the need to erect a beacon to that cause on public land? to draw those people. Why did they continue to leave it in place and even replace it when construction moved it? because that's what they believe in. Why else would a government allow a private group to erect a monument to their message on public land if they didn't feel they also supported that message? And in the face of no amount of carved foot notes or asterisk's are going to dilute that message, the last resort is removal.

 

A person puts up a horribly racist statue on his private land, sure we can all judge him for it, and say nasty things, but as long as he is within his local building code there isn't much that can be done. But on public land? that's when the city, state, or federal government is choosing to make a statement. A lot of people are calling out these vestiges of horribly racist local governments and saying "is this what you still believe"? if not then take this symbol of hatred down.

 

Every square inch of land in the US is historical in some way, and monuments could probably be placed on all if we really felt statues were how we recorded history, but we don't. We reserve it as a commemorative honor, to say something special. I think these statues have said all they are going to say on this matter and if we are going to move forward it is to focus on how we came together after and not how divided we were then.

[Geeto67]

Again, absolutely reaffirming the continuing problems we will have in this world. When is it appropriate to act like that and then lie profusely about it? I would guess they taught that at law school. Hopefully you can teach your children your wisdom, seems like a very educated path.

 

Ah see, the "lie profusely" about it is the rub. Most politicians feel like they have to lie profusely about it because the majority of Americans will judge them, even if the sex is consensual and permitted.

 

Whether you like it or not, marriage is an agreement between two people, and sometimes that agreement has non-conventional terms. Right more Americans would be understanding about someone having an affair and lying about it than they would about a politician and their spouse having an open marriage. So, can you really blame them if they just want to avoid public scorn?

 

Is it an indicator of a lack of integrity and a character flaw? yes it is. Does it affect their ability to be an advocate and represent the common interests of the people who elected them? it does not.

 

Integrity in terms of politicians is kind of a tricky thing to discuss. On the one hand we don't want a politician that has integrity to his own beliefs because we want him to be able to change his mind in the light of different facts, and work with people whose opinion is different than theirs to find a common solution. On the other hand we want politicians to have integrity toward the role and to represent all the interests of the people they represent in the face of special interests that try to sway their actions.

 

The sad truth is we tend to elect politicians that have the wrong types of integrity because we let our "morals" decide for us, and lying about an affair in the face of the ramifications of public opinion isn't really a good indicator of anything.

 

think about the town hall Marco Rubio had in the wake of the parkland shooting. David Hogg, one of the victims, asks him (and I am paraphasing) "will you continue to take money from the NRA" and Marco Rubio responded (paraphrasing) "I don't buy into their agenda, they buy into mine". On it's face it seems innocuous, but what David was really asking was, "Why do you continue to advance this special interest when we, the people you represent, are telling you we want action" and what Rubio is really saying is "The NRA brings me something that I don't get from representing you so I am going to continue to make my platform something they are interested in investing in". Why don't we have a bigger issue with that than we do with who played hide the pink in the stink with whom?

[CRed05]

"full of turds"

 

Today I learned that turd has racial connotation. Here I thought turd just fit somewhere between poop and shit.

[Geeto67]

Today I learned that turd has racial connotation. Here I thought turd just fit somewhere between poop and shit.

 

To some people it's sub-textual and contextual. If you keep referring to groups of brown people as "turds" it's hard to argue that complexion isn't factoring in there in some way. I mean, scumbags doesn't have a color associated with it why not use that? or any number of other ones. Why use one where it's a commentary of both color and consistency of character?

 

I mean I figured it would be obvious when the sentence starts off with "the Somali population in Columbus is ...", but maybe people in cbus really are more literal than subtextual. Maybe it's just more unknowlingly insensitive than intentional, who knows? I'm not in their heads, I can just say how it sounds to me.

[TTQ B4U]

To some people it's sub-textual and contextual. If you keep referring to groups of brown people as "turds" it's hard to argue that complexion isn't factoring in there in some way. I mean, scumbags doesn't have a color associated with it why not use that? or any number of other ones. Why use one where it's a commentary of both color and consistency of character?

 

I mean I figured it would be obvious when the sentence starts off with "the Somali population in Columbus is ...", but maybe people in cbus really are more literal than subtextual. Maybe it's just more unknowlingly insensitive than intentional, who knows? I'm not in their heads, I can just say how it sounds to me.

 

You tend to put race and religion into just about everything. Whether you do it unknowingly or intentionally I don't know. In 2016-2017 it was trendy to use the term "brown people" and play them as victims in nearly any instance and it was trendy to hate on white people. Time to end that bullshit victim mentality. Keep race out of things that it wasn't brought into. Believe me if I want to use a derogatory racist term I will and you know it. When I don't please don't try and plug one in as if I am. Turds is a term I'll gladly use regardless of one skin color. You know me but then you really don't. My family is rather mixed from a Italians, to Irish and Japense to my brother in law who is as black as my avatar and my sister in law who is a mix.

[Geeto67]

You tend to put race and religion into just about everything. Whether you do it unknowingly or intentionally I don't know. In 2016-2017 it was trendy to use the term "brown people" and play them as victims in nearly any instance and it was trendy to hate on white people. Time to end that bullshit victim mentality. Keep race out of things that it wasn't brought into. Believe me if I want to use a derogatory racist term I will and you know it. When I don't please don't try and plug one in as if I am. Turds is a term I'll gladly use regardless of one skin color. You know me but then you really don't. My family is rather mixed from a Italians, to Irish and Japense to my brother in law who is as black as my avatar and my sister in law who is a mix.

 

 

I wasn't referencing anyone in specific Tim, but clearly I hit a nerve with you. But thank you for demonstrating what I was talking about before, with this thing about brown people and it being "trendy to hate on white people".