Should the names of Confederate figures be removed from public places of honor?

[BigT]

I don’t know why people make this so complicated. Are the things these people are famous for things we want to honor? If so, then we honor them. If not, we don’t.

Of course we’re judging by today’s morals. Because today’s morals are where morality is at today. The morals in the past were wrong. And while we can’t be sure ours are right, we believe they are closer to right than they were before.

We don’t celebrate the scientists of the past that were right by the science of their day but actually led us in the wrong direction. We celebrate those who helped us get to where we are today. Sure, future science may disprove some of current science, but this is okay.

The difference in Washington and Lee is that, while both had their good and bad points, Lee’s primary contribution to our country was a negative one, fighting for slavery, while Washington’s primary contribution was positive. Lee took us backward, while Washington brought us forward.

You can’t just celebrate what is perfect, because nothing is. Not people and not ideas. Even democracy or freedom have their down sides. RF’s ideas only work if we celebrate nothing. No, we celebrate when there is more good than bad, and acknowledge the bad is bad.

[Kimstu]

@iiandyiiii

No, it was just much worse in the South.

Yeah, but in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, which is when reconstruction/reconciliation policies were being decided, the distinction between Northern and Southern white attitudes toward slavery was much less clear.

Northerners in general were pissed at Confederates for rebelling against their country, not necessarily for keeping slaves or considering black people inferior to white. The Emancipation Proclamation, for instance, angered many Northern whites just as much as it did most Confederates.

[octopus]

@BigT

And here’s the proof that this is just another meaningless term.

Virtue signaling should mean a signal that tells someone else that you are a virtuous person–that you adhere to the values of the group. That’s what those two words mean put together–that you are signaling virtue.

But, instead, it is used for the concept of “telling people what I think is right.” As if this is some horrible thing. Actual virtue signaling isn’t even a bad thing–it’s good to let people know you share their values before arguing with them.

And, unfortunately, the term is itself a signal–a signal that you agree with a completely different set of values. Because it’s a term that’s only used in a few places–places with questionable morals.

In short, it’s the new “social justice warrior,” and just as useless a term. You might as well have said, “I have nothing of value to contribute to this argument.”

That’s a feeble attempt of utilizing the Halo effect. Since I used a phrase, accurately mind you, you think the argument is void?

And the term is also used to highlight the absurdity of those who are outraged by ever increasingly minor issues in order to prove membership in certain political tribes. The fact that you think calling out virtue signaling is an offense so severe that you are justified in engaging in a false guilt by association fallacy is itself a form of the farcical virtue signaling described above.