Political Roundtable Part XV

[gtn130]

I agree with the statement "all confederate monuments should be removed". But, those that don't want to remove the monuments aren't necessarily racist. And many would like to see contextualization of the monuments - that would be another approach, no?

Upon thinking about it - I might actually like the contextualization even more so.

I'm 100% not saying he's racist. I think his strategy of offering an olive branch to racists is a bad and wrong strategy and will only embolden those people. The reason Confederate history is celebrated in the south is because we allow it by doing things like saying 'some of your monuments are fine and not racist! this is a complex issue that requires so much nuance that all we can do is give everyone the benefit of the doubt!'

No. Err on the side of condemning racism instead of accidentally calling someone a racist who says they aren't a racist (they are).

It isn't an olive branch - it is being pragmatic. For one - you don't have a majority to do this. And his example - the notion of context with the monuments might even be better than tearing them down.

There is a problem when one side won't step even a little toward compromise, no? Monte's idea is a good one and worth considering - not dismissing out of hand.

Think about what you're saying here.

[gtn130]

Do you guys think people who fly confederate flags and defend confederate monuments aren't racist?

[I_Like_Dirt]

Do you guys think people who fly confederate flags and defend confederate monuments aren't racist?

What if they're just accidental racists and trying to let people know they're fans of Lynyrd Skynyrd?

[dckingsfan]

Do you guys think people who fly confederate flags and defend confederate monuments aren't racist?

Think about this statement - you have an "and" clause.

So, those that fly confederate flags - most likely.

Those that don't want to pull down monuments - not so much.

Those that want to do both - yes. But you just narrowed your group by a large factor.

[dckingsfan]

I'm 100% not saying he's racist. I think his strategy of offering an olive branch to racists is a bad and wrong strategy and will only embolden those people. The reason Confederate history is celebrated in the south is because we allow it by doing things like saying 'some of your monuments are fine and not racist! this is a complex issue that requires so much nuance that all we can do is give everyone the benefit of the doubt!'

No. Err on the side of condemning racism instead of accidentally calling someone a racist who says they aren't a racist (they are).

It isn't an olive branch - it is being pragmatic. For one - you don't have a majority to do this. And his example - the notion of context with the monuments might even be better than tearing them down.

There is a problem when one side won't step even a little toward compromise, no? Monte's idea is a good one and worth considering - not dismissing out of hand.

Think about what you're saying here.

Let there be no doubt - I am thinking my friend. Maybe address the compromise?

[gtn130]

It isn't an olive branch - it is being pragmatic. For one - you don't have a majority to do this. And his example - the notion of context with the monuments might even be better than tearing them down.

There is a problem when one side won't step even a little toward compromise, no? Monte's idea is a good one and worth considering - not dismissing out of hand.

Think about what you're saying here.

Let there be no doubt - I am thinking my friend. Maybe address the compromise?

Oh, well, let me address that. You're advocating that we compromise with pro-confederacy racists because validating their beliefs is somehow a good and pragmatic thing. Don't think we're gonna see eye to eye here my dude

[montestewart]

Like, Nate, a mod on this forum, has advocated for a white ethnostate and has shared propaganda about black people being genetically inferior, yet most folks here choose to interpret his posts as ~something else~ and try to reason with him as if his views are totally benign and somehow not set in stone.

There's a pattern here, and Monte's post crystallizes that pattern almost perfectly. Why is Nate still a mod and respected basketball poster? Because y'all offer him an olive branch for *reasons* that are beyond my comprehension.

I see what you're doing with the olive branch, appeasement, and acquiescence references, and I'm not really moved by them. It appears that you think there is only one view, yours, which is right, and only one view, Nate's, which is wrong, and anything that does not fully align with your view, which is right, necessarily aligns with Nate's view, which is wrong. I believe I've already pointed out how many people, including many African Americans, therefore align with Nate's view. You have your work cut out for you.

I'm not trying to change Nate's view, or your view. I've never seen either of you budge much from any position here, and I'm quite used to having my positions reduced to a prop in someone else's argument, to having my posts grossly mischaracterized in order to perfectly mesh with a profoundly undeniable point. It's just a style of debate; it doesn't bother me. I'm just thinking of that poor sucker who might think Nate's view and your view are the only options available. My views, which apparently support white supremacy, are another option.

[dckingsfan]

And gtn - you realize you are well in the minority right? And you know that even though I share your view, I realize that this will not be a short term "thing" - I think you are approaching this as a binary transaction - I don't think our politicians have that choice - well not and keep their jobs.

[DCZards]

It isn't an olive branch - it is being pragmatic. For one - you don't have a majority to do this. And his example - the notion of context with the monuments might even be better than tearing them down.

There is a problem when one side won't step even a little toward compromise, no? Monte's idea is a good one and worth considering - not dismissing out of hand.

Contextualization? I think the better compromise to tearing down the confederate monuments is to put them in a museum...where they probably rightfully belong.

[DCZards]

And gtn - you realize you are well in the minority right? And you know that even though I share your view, I realize that this will not be a short term "thing" - I think you are approaching this as a binary transaction - I don't think our politicians have that choice - well not and keep their jobs.

Being in the minority is not necessarily a bad thing. MLK and others who advocated for civil rights were in the minority at one time as well...and I'm sure much of the polling from the mid-1950s through the early '60s would reflect that.

[dckingsfan]

And gtn - you realize you are well in the minority right? And you know that even though I share your view, I realize that this will not be a short term "thing" - I think you are approaching this as a binary transaction - I don't think our politicians have that choice - well not and keep their jobs.

Being in the minority is not necessarily a bad thing. MLK and others who advocated for civil rights were in the minority at one time as well...and I'm sure much of the polling from the mid-1950s through the early '60s would reflect that.

No disagreement - and as I said earlier - I would like to see the monuments gone. But - I would be happy with them moved to a museum and contextualized.

Torn down would be fine - but just keep it moving forward...

[montestewart]

It isn't an olive branch - it is being pragmatic. For one - you don't have a majority to do this. And his example - the notion of context with the monuments might even be better than tearing them down.

There is a problem when one side won't step even a little toward compromise, no? Monte's idea is a good one and worth considering - not dismissing out of hand.

Contextualization? I think the better compromise to tearing down the confederate monuments is to put them in a museum...where they probably rightfully belong.

An outsized monument to the victims of slavery, alongside and dwarfing any remaining Confederate monument, might offer contextualization, but a museum (or a park like they do in Russia with Soviet-era statues) makes sense. Many statues were mass produced, and a museum would only need one example of each.

[gtn130]

It appears that you think there is only one view, yours, which is right, and only one view, Nate's, which is wrong, and anything that does not fully align with your view, which is right, necessarily aligns with Nate's view, which is wrong.

Ok so this you literally samesidesing racists with people who condemn racists. Don't do that. My argument is that the confederacy and its various symbols and monuments represent and defend racism. Nate spreads white nationalist propaganda on the internet. We are not the same even if you think our views are 'extreme' somehow.

I believe I've already pointed out how many people, including many African Americans, therefore align with Nate's view. You have your work cut out for you.

My only reference to Nate was regarding his history of posting white nationalist propaganda. I'm sure I don't agree with his super nuanced take that falls on the side of the confederacy, though.

I'm just thinking of that poor sucker who might think Nate's view and your view are the only options available.

Again,

me: racism is bad
Nate: blacks are genetically inferior and everyone should self-segregate

I'm prettay, prettay comfortable with my position, bro

[montestewart]

It appears that you think there is only one view, yours, which is right, and only one view, Nate's, which is wrong, and anything that does not fully align with your view, which is right, necessarily aligns with Nate's view, which is wrong.

Ok so this you literally samesidesing racists with people who condemn racists. Don't do that. My argument is that the confederacy and its various symbols and monuments represent and defend racism. Nate spreads white nationalist propaganda on the internet. We are not the same even if you think our views are 'extreme' somehow.

I believe I've already pointed out how many people, including many African Americans, therefore align with Nate's view. You have your work cut out for you.

My only reference to Nate was regarding his history of posting white nationalist propaganda. I'm sure I don't agree with his super nuanced take that falls on the side of the confederacy, though.

I'm just thinking of that poor sucker who might think Nate's view and your view are the only options available.

Again,

me: racism is bad
Nate: blacks are genetically inferior and everyone should self-segregate

I'm prettay, prettay comfortable with my position, bro

Good to hear. I'm good with mine too. Carry on.

[gtn130]

And gtn - you realize you are well in the minority right? And you know that even though I share your view, I realize that this will not be a short term "thing" - I think you are approaching this as a binary transaction - I don't think our politicians have that choice - well not and keep their jobs.

Can you guys remind me again of what the negative consequences are to tearing down confederate statues?

A few people will be a little perturbed?

[Zonkerbl]

If we continue to have neo Nazis marching around and getting pats on the back and thumbs up from the POTUS, Confederate statues are going to come down in retaliation. So Trump supporters could solve this problem RIGHT NOW by insisting their President condemn the Nazis without equivocating or making up lies about the imaginary "alt-left" or telling lies that BLM is a terrorist organization. Condemn the Nazis and you won't have Antifa to worry about either.

Without neo Nazis marching around with the support of the POTUS, we'll still have to deal with the fact that many, many confederate statues were put up with the explicit purpose of intimidating black people. Frankly, I don't think the white people get a say in identifying which statues are or aren't offensive. If a statue is identified as offensive, you get a chance to argue why, DESPITE THE STATUE'S RACIST INTENT, it should stay up. You can rely on the fact that, because of institutionalized racism, you will win the argument if it is at all coherent and persuasive, except in urban areas where white people are the minority.

I don't think all statues that have any connection with the Confederacy at all should come down. I do think that all the monuments that were erected with the explicit intent of intimidating black people should come down. I would point out that all such monuments are Confederate monuments.

[gtn130]

Do you guys think people who fly confederate flags and defend confederate monuments aren't racist?

Think about this statement - you have an "and" clause.

So, those that fly confederate flags - most likely.

Those that don't want to pull down monuments - not so much.

Those that want to do both - yes. But you just narrowed your group by a large factor.

Missed this one.

I think both in isolation are indicators that they at a minimum sympathize with racists. Defending confederate monuments means actually defending them in some capacity. I think someone who would go to that effort would invariably be racist, yeah.

Also "and" isn't a clause, it's a conjunction.

[dckingsfan]

The issue is that this is America. You don't get to do thing unilaterally - well, you can but you probably would be thrown out of office unless the majority supported you (see Baltimore).

[I_Like_Dirt]

Yeah, only options? No, but with an idea, you either agree with it or you don't. A compromise can happen sometimes, but other times, yeah, not so much. You either believe that genetic probabilities can be predicted by skin color and therefore should result in proactive policies designed to keep people out on the basis of said skin color (which is something nate has made very clear is his position in no uncertain terms in previous politics threads - although I don't personally like using someone as a direct example, he's the subject of conversation here for whatever reason) or you don't. If you don't, there is no compromise. If you do, there is no compromise. You either think the world is flat or you don't. You think 2+2=3 or you don't. Those who don't agree don't necessarily have to take the same position. Somebody could think 2+2=4 and someone else might think 2+2=5, but if you don't agree with the original premise, there actually isn't room for compromise there. I don't agree that 2+2=3, well, maybe sometimes given the right weather conditions and historical context.

These are far from the only two positions a person can take, but the way things are being presented is an either/or situation, so trying to bring compromise into the equation is more along the lines of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement strategy of finding compromise where there clearly wasn't any to be had.

[dckingsfan]

Do you guys think people who fly confederate flags and defend confederate monuments aren't racist?

Think about this statement - you have an "and" clause.

So, those that fly confederate flags - most likely.

Those that don't want to pull down monuments - not so much.

Those that want to do both - yes. But you just narrowed your group by a large factor.

Missed this one.

I think both in isolation are indicators that they at a minimum sympathize with racists. Defending confederate monuments means actually defending them in some capacity. I think someone who would go to that effort would invariably be racist, yeah.

Also "and" isn't a clause, it's a conjunction.

This is a supposition on your part. I don't think it is as universal as you might think. I would like to see the link where those that don't want to take down monuments are racist. I think that there are many who are racist but not all.

I am guessing from previous posts that Monte is far from racist. And yet he isn't for immediately tearing down all confederate monuments. But you would label him racist.

I think you are missing the nuance to his argument. And you blew by a really good idea because of that...