Silent Sam is down!

[iiandyiiii]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Did you similarly object to Russians tearing down statues of Stalin, or East Germans taking sledgehammers to the Berlin Wall (which, note, is not how the Wall fell–it was way too heavy to be felled by a few sledgehammers, whose damage was primarily cosmetic)? Did you similarly object to Iraqis tearing down statues of Saddam?

Would Bricker object to a post-Castro Cuban crowd tearing down statues to the Castros without waiting for due/legal process?

[DrDeth]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Fifteen years later, Silent Sam–a monument to violent white supremacy–was erected in my home town of Chapel Hill.

Silent Sam was a monument to the honored war dead. Not to any one CSA traitor or to the South as a whole. It was to memorialize those that died. It was not a “a monument to violent white supremacy” of which there are many.
Thus, it should have stayed up. There are dozens of statues to Nathan B Forrest- let’s take them down first.

[iiandyiiii]

@DrDeth

Silent Sam was a monument to the honored war dead. Not to any one CSA traitor or to the South as a whole. It was to memorialize those that died. It was not a “a monument to violent white supremacy” of which there are many.
Thus, it should have stayed up. There are dozens of statues to Nathan B Forrest- let’s take them down first.

Have you read the speech Julian Carr made at the statue’s dedication? If not, you should. I think that makes it pretty clear that the message the statue intended to symbolize was defiance against challenges to white supremacy.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@DrDeth

Silent Sam was a monument to the honored war dead. Not to any one CSA traitor or to the South as a whole. It was to memorialize those that died. It was not a “a monument to violent white supremacy” of which there are many.

Could you possibly be wronger? From the dedication speech:

@Julian Carr

The present generation, I am persuaded, scarcely takes note of what the Confederate soldier meant to the welfare of the Anglo Saxon race during the four years immediately succeeding the war, when the facts are, that their courage and steadfastness saved the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South.

[Lemur866]

@Bricker

I want all monuments to remain standing unless removed by process that is not illegal. I’m in the side of deciding which monuments stay by the same process we decide whether we can have plastic straws and whether we can break someone’s nose in response to their support of a particular sports team.

I’m fully in favor of prosecuting the people who pulled down the statue with whatever appropriate vandalism laws that particular locality has, just the same as if they’d pulled down a statue of Ronald McDonald or a crucifix in a bottle of urine or something.

Now that the statue has been pulled down by vandals, who we both agree should be prosecuted according to whatever the appropriate whatever is, now what? Do we have an obligation to put the monument to white supremacy back up on the pedestal?

Thing is, the people who live there wanted the statue torn down. But the corrupt state government made that impossible. Now the statue is down. There’s no law saying the statue has to go back up. And it should not go back up.

[Bricker]

@Lemur866

I’m fully in favor of prosecuting the people who pulled down the statue with whatever appropriate vandalism laws that particular locality has, just the same as if they’d pulled down a statue of Ronald McDonald or a crucifix in a bottle of urine or something.

Now that the statue has been pulled down by vandals, who we both agree should be prosecuted according to whatever the appropriate whatever is, now what? Do we have an obligation to put the monument to white supremacy back up on the pedestal?

Thing is, the people who live there wanted the statue torn down. But the corrupt state government made that impossible. Now the statue is down. There’s no law saying the statue has to go back up. And it should not go back up.

I tentatively agree.

My only hesitation is the message this sends – “You’ll get your way with criminal actions!” but as long as there is a genuine effort to prosecute the guilty, that should be enough deterrence.

[DrDeth]

@iiandyiiii

Have you read the speech Julian Carr made at the statue’s dedication? If not, you should. I think that makes it pretty clear that the message the statue intended to symbolize was defiance against challenges to white supremacy.

It was a long, long meandering speech, that buy taking out selected bits could mean anything.

No doubt that man was a racist of the first order, but he was just a speaker. He didnt put up the statue.

[DrDeth]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Could you possibly be wronger? From the dedication speech:

And so? Carr was just a speaker.

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

To a lesser degree, I’ve stated them here. To a greater degree–the extent to which you believe something like that the highest morality is following the law, and that any lesser morality is cannot be subjected to debate–I have no interest in rehashing that conversation, which we’ve had many times before.

If there’s a particular viewpoint here that you disagree with, something specific, please quote it, and I’ll see if I think it’s worth addressing.

So far as I can see, a fair summary of your position is not dissimilar to that which caused you to abjure further dialogue with octopus: if you agree that someone is marginalized, then you accept (generally) their license to ignore at least some laws of their choosing.

I welcome your correction and expansion of that idea.

Did you similarly object to Russians tearing down statues of Stalin, or East Germans taking sledgehammers to the Berlin Wall (which, note, is not how the Wall fell–it was way too heavy to be felled by a few sledgehammers, whose damage was primarily cosmetic)? Did you similarly object to Iraqis tearing down statues of Saddam?

No, I generally favored those actions, because I didn’t regard the Soviet system or the Saddam regime as continuing – that is, they occurred in the context of a regime change, and one I favored. This is distinct from the present case, in which the actors wish only to impose their will in a specific area, and it differs also in that I favor the continuation of the current USA regime. (Present chief executive excepted, I admit).

[octopus]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

To a lesser degree, I’ve stated them here. To a greater degree–the extent to which you believe something like that the highest morality is following the law, and that any lesser morality is cannot be subjected to debate–I have no interest in rehashing that conversation, which we’ve had many times before.

If there’s a particular viewpoint here that you disagree with, something specific, please quote it, and I’ll see if I think it’s worth addressing.
Did you similarly object to Russians tearing down statues of Stalin, or East Germans taking sledgehammers to the Berlin Wall (which, note, is not how the Wall fell–it was way too heavy to be felled by a few sledgehammers, whose damage was primarily cosmetic)? Did you similarly object to Iraqis tearing down statues of Saddam?

The difference between those countries and the US is that the US has a functioning and representative government. Even if progress occurs slowly via legislative action, in a functioning democracy, that is preferable to judicial fiat or mob rule.

[bobot]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I am proposing that the next time you decide to post in a thread, you read more carefully what folks have said, and if you decide to make a guess as to what someone proposes, you not guess that they’re saying something so obviously foolish.

If you follow my proposal, you may find that I’ll respond in detail to your posts. For this thread, though, this’ll be my last response to you.

Man, this should be a Sticky at the top of every forum. I admire your composure.

[octopus]

@bobot

Man, this should be a Sticky at the top of every forum. I admire your composure.

Dodging a question is not composure. It may be posturing and deflection. But it’s not composure.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Society cannot continue without a widespread acceptance of the principle that the bar for the decision you describe is set extremely high.

The statue had been up for decades. Is it really true that leaving it there another year while continuing to pursue legal means was such a giant moral wrong that immediate lawless action was preferable?

And if you say, “Hell yes, that’s true,” then on what possible basis could you possibly condemn the abortion clinic vandalism except “I personally disagree with you?”

Only that it would not be much of an issue if it was just vandalism.

[BigT]

@Bricker

So far as I can see, a fair summary of your position is not dissimilar to that which caused you to abjure further dialogue with octopus: if you agree that someone is marginalized, then you accept (generally) their license to ignore at least some laws of their choosing.

I welcome your correction and expansion of that idea.

If that is so, then why do you ignore what has already been said? The OP makes a specific case for why it was okay to go against the law in this particular case. You instead state the strawman that he said that the marginalized get to disobey a law of their choosing.

The issue here is that the government specifically enacted a law in order to override the will of the people on this issue. They wanted to handle the situation legally, and try to get it taken down by part of the democratic process. But since that method was blocked to them, they were forced to extralegal means.

No, I generally favored those actions, because I didn’t regard the Soviet system or the Saddam regime as continuing – that is, they occurred in the context of a regime change, and one I favored. This is distinct from the present case, in which the actors wish only to impose their will in a specific area, and it differs also in that I favor the continuation of the current USA regime. (Present chief executive excepted, I admit).

And those governments were toppled by extralegal means. The very same means you are arguing is wrong. By your argument that the law should always be followed, those governments would have to continue in perpetuity, because their laws said they would.

I mean, you’re going against the founding principles of America with this. Our country was founded on the principle that any government that does not represent the will of the people is not legitimate, and that it is proper to use extralegal means to deal with them. That was the start of the Revolutionary War. America exists because “We the People” did not think the law represented us. That is the actual argument of the Declaration of Independence.

It’s not hard to understand. The government broke the social contract with the people by enacting a law that was against the will of the people. So the people were not beholden to that law. They responded in a proportional way, rather than destroying the entire government and killing a bunch of people. That’s a good thing.

The law is merely an agreement between the people and the government: a social contract, if you will. It is not scripture from a god that must be adhered to no matter what.

[octopus]

@BigT

If that is so, then why do you ignore what has already been said? The OP makes a specific case for why it was okay to go against the law in this particular case. You instead state the strawman that he said that the marginalized get to disobey a law of their choosing.

The issue here is that the government specifically enacted a law in order to override the will of the people on this issue. They wanted to handle the situation legally, and try to get it taken down by part of the democratic process. But since that method was blocked to them, they were forced to extralegal means.

And those governments were toppled by extralegal means. The very same means you are arguing is wrong. Those governments would have to continue in perpetuity, because their laws said they would.

I mean, you’re going against the founding principles of America with this. Our country was founded on the principle that any government that does not represent the will of the people is not legitimate, and that it is proper to use extralegal means to deal with them. That was the start of the Revolutionary War.

It’s not hard to understand. The government broke the social contract with the people by enacting a law that was against the will of the people. So the people were not beholden to that law. They responded in a proportional way.

The law is merely an agreement between the people and the government: a social contract, if you will. It is not scripture from a god that must be adhered to no matter what.

So… by that logic every judicial decree that counteracted a referendum or the legislature is illegitimate. About those abortion clinic bombings then?

[DrDeth]

@BigT

The issue here is that the government specifically enacted a law in order to override the will of the people on this issue. T

The Government is the Will of the People. The State passed a law that affect the whole state. I dont see anywhere where the City of Charlottesville actually wanted to pass a measure to take down Silent Sam.

Sure there have been many protests, but are they by the majority?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

So far as I can see, a fair summary of your position is not dissimilar to that which caused you to abjure further dialogue with octopus: if you agree that someone is marginalized, then you accept (generally) their license to ignore at least some laws of their choosing.

Not exactly. Those requirements of unjust laws must be ignored, and those prohibitions unjustly placed by unjust laws must similarly be defied. It’s not “of their choosing”–your phrasing deliberately belittles the reason for disobeying the laws, when that reason is precisely what I’m interested in.

Yes, I know the process is king for you. Ain’t for me. We’ve been through this, and I don’t see a need to rehash it. Do you?

@DrDeth

The Government is the Will of the People.

Is this a religious belief? I disagree with your religion.

[DrDeth]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Is this a religious belief? I disagree with your religion.

what are you babbling about?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@DrDeth

what are you babbling about?

I mean, I’m trying to figure out what nonsense you’re posting. The People, plural, don’t have a Will, singular, so your statement is gibberish. But I figured maybe it was religious.

In this case, even the most charitable interpretation of what you’re saying (that a democratically-elected government does a better job at satisfying a larger number of its citizens than any other system of government) is plainly wrong, given the multiple cites offered about NC’s antidemocratic shenanigans. So I see no reason to try for a charitable reading.

[DrDeth]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I mean, I’m trying to figure out what nonsense you’re posting. The People, plural, don’t have a Will, singular, so your statement is gibberish. But I figured maybe it was religious.

In this case, even the most charitable interpretation of what you’re saying (that a democratically-elected government does a better job at satisfying a larger number of its citizens than any other system of government) is plainly wrong, given the multiple cites offered about NC’s antidemocratic shenanigans. So I see no reason to try for a charitable reading.

So, then where is your comment on BigT’s post, to whom I was replying?

“The issue here is that the government specifically enacted a law in order to override the will of the people on this issue.”

If the People do have a will, it is their democratically elected government. Not mob violence by a tiny minority.

If indeed, NC’s had “antidemocratic shenanigans” then where is the vote by Charlottesville saying they wanted it down? They had plenty of time to pass one, and could even have passed such a measure in protest after the NC measure. But they didn’t. So as far as we know, the* majority of voters in NC* didnt want it taken down. There is no evidence at all to the contrary.

“Shenanigans” or not a small violent mob is by no means the will of the people.