This is virtually the same mentality behind pulling down the monuments of Confederate soldiers I'm surprised you have a problem with it, I'm surprised your surprised given you werent surprised when these same morons defaced an Andrew Jackson statue thinking it was a Stonewall Jackson statue.

Facts and reason no longer matter in todays america, what matters is 'the feelz' and that guy has a racist sounding name and should therefore be punished for no other reason than some people feel he should

A friend of mine named Robert Lee [insert last name here], named for his grandfather (who it happens was named in 1890 for Robert E. Lee) was told by a random woman in the grocery store checkout line that he should change his name because it is racist.

Um.

Plus given he is asian that means (according to SJWs) he has white privilege and should be punished for that alone

Who could confuse a living Asian named Robert Lee with a 100+ years dead Confederate General named Robert E Lee? The same sort of people who think that because Gen Lee rode a grey horse named Traveller, that the USC Trojans' mascot, a white Andalusian horse named Traveler (note the difference in spelling) had to be banned; the same sort of people who defaced the statue of Jean d' Arc in New Orleans (since she is riding a horse and fought in a type of civil war - when France threw off English rule); the same sort of people who defaced a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Chicago and the Lincoln Monument in Washington, D.C. However, it's unlikely that any of the people who did such things is conservative or libertarian. Progressives seem to have a monopoly on feel-good vandalism these days. But, don't worry. By not condemning vandalism and violence by Progressives, the neo-Nazi types will learn from the examples and imitate them. What color should be splashed on the MLK statue? Or, should it just be pulled down?

ESPN, for some time now, has been towing an uber-liberal line and would rather alienate half of its potential audience -- just like most Hollywood actors and directors -- than grow a set.

I remember learning about whipping boys. That idea was so crazy, punishing someone innocent in the guilty party's stead.

Yet here we are.

They should throw red all over the MLK monument, since it's an ugly work by a communist.

I rarely say this, but lujlp is correct. Amy, you displayed the stark, raving idiocy to support the special snowflakes in their transparent (to everyone, except you) power bid to suddenly decide that statues that have existed longer than they've been alive, which were never a problem, suddenly became a problem and demand their removal.

Yes, I'm aware I'm being harsh. Famous for it. It is just so unlike you, Amy, to capitulate to crybullies, and to fail to recognize their pathetic control issues for what they are.

Yeah, ESPN long since blew past the last exit on the PC superhighway. They are determined to fight to the death, which is not too far away at the rate that they are losing revenue. ESPN has prospered for a long time by using their market position to compel cable operators to put them on basic cable, which means that ESPN collects subscriber fees for every cable subscriber, including the large percentage who never watch sports. But now there's cord-cutting and cable subs are declining, which hits ESPN particularly hard because they are losing that free revenue.

So given that challenge to their business model, it would seem to be a bad idea to go around offending a large percentage of their audience, but that's exactly what ESPN has done. ESPN no longer has cable sports to itself; Fox has raided a lot of their audience on the high end (the World Series, NFL football), and NBC Sports on the low end (hockey, Formula 1 and Indycar), and ESPN is increasingly at the mercy of the rather fickle audience for the urban sports, mainly basketball. And that's without getting into the challenge from online.

Here's a picture of the sports Robert

https://twitter.com/RobertLeePXP/status/822250115905847296

ESPN can go suck a bag of dicks.

ESPN communique

> Amy, you displayed the stark,
> raving idiocy to support the
> special snowflakes

She wut?

When?

ESPN communique ~ Crid at August 23, 2017 6:59 AM

"We didn't make him. We asked him. Eventually, we mutually agreed to switch."

Um, let's see, his employer "asked" him and he "eventually agreed" to switch. Yet there was no pressure put upon him.

There is a clear lack of understanding of the power dynamic here.

Patrick, you're being silly. Two considerations here.

First -- Whatever Amy's beliefs about this summer's stupidities, it's not like she published the conclusive legal opinion mapping out America's future handling for these disagreements. Specifically: No one asked her. Generally: She's offering bar wisdom here, speculative insights, as are we all.

Secondly -- The sheer screech of your 6:11am comment is precisely the madness evinced by the social figures you seem inclined to critique... She holds an opinion of some inconsequential (and perhaps imaginary) difference to your own, but Dammit you are taking names now and she's on your list forever: Her sin is original and she can never be forgiven.

"Stark, raving idiocy" isn't the language of thoughtful disagreement. Mostly, this makes you look childish... As if you're going to hold your breath and turn blue until everyone agrees with you every day in every way.





I'll never forget Raddy's first comments in support of Trump last summer. We'd disagreed about plenty of stuff over the years, but his comments about Trumo were nakedly childlike. Close paraphrase: He's rich! You're not rich! How dare you not vote for him?

When people are that eager to be simplistically judged for their thinking, there's no reason to deny them the privilege. Or its consequences.

> There is a clear lack of
> understanding of the power
> dynamic here.

Which, in recent years heretofore, has usually meant a lawsuit.

Why should an Asian named Lee put up with manipulation like this from an employer?

(Just thinking out loud... Y'know... It's not like I admire all that witless litigation....)

She wut?

When?

Crid

here

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2017/08/18/not_foolish_to.html#comments

ESPN went full SJW a long time ago:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/11/27/streaming-tv-free-market-costs-leftwing-espn-7-million-subscribers/

Jeez-- An outcome you don't like can only mean "stark, raving idiocy to support the special snowflakes."

You are going to be tremendously disappointed in the dynamism of the years ahead. You'll deserve it.

I had some moments like this as a scuba diver, where you suddenly realize that the one thing that looks like it shouldn't be moving isn't moving.

Sorry. Wrong thread. Carry on.

Here, I'll keep going: Your decision to characterize Amy's clear, sincere, and unremarkable reasoning about this matter as "stark, raving idiocy to support the special snowflakes" doesn't appear as a principled position on your part. It makes you look profoundly closed-minded.

And terrified. You can't afford to answer her rhetoric in a tone similar to hers.

We can guess why not.

Crid, if it makes you feel better to imagine that I'll be suffering, have at it. No one is more aware than I am of the trauma you're suffering from, since you vehemently opposed gay marriage and can only be staggered and stunned at the breathtaking example of judicial overreach taken by the Supreme Court to force it down our collective throats.

The point is, Amy should have recognized that this sudden umbrage at the statues that have been in place for their entire lifetimes without a single peep about them was nothing more than a power bid.

They've navigated through their lives thus far without any big, bad statues hurting them. This was about their feigning wounded fee-fees to force others into doing their bidding.

Condoleeza Rice feels we should leave them alone, as these statues present an opportunity to educate our young ones as to who these people are. Charles Barkley has stated he doesn't give a shit about them.

These two can manage. So can you, snowflake.

OK folks, things are getting a little out of hand, and it is time for a reality check. So, if you are advocating for the removal of a Confederate monument from a courthouse, or major thoroughfare, or what have you, to some other location that would be more appropriate - say, a Confederate cemetery, or a museum, or perhaps a battlefield - then you are advocating a perfectly reasonable position, and one whose time has come. I hate Confederate monuments because I am sick and tired people indulging in the self-deception that the Civil War was not about slavery, and I find glorification of Americans who fought AGAINST America irksome. At the same time, I also recognize that there are perfectly reasonable and nice people who disagree with me. I think the monuments probably should be moved, but I don't think that you're a Nazi or a racist if you disagree with me.

The problem is that the discussion is not being driven by reasonable people, but rather by the most vile, ignorant, and hateful elements out there.

If you are one of the folks who support moving Confederate monuments as I describe above, well. But if you are one of the many folks out there who can't distinguish between Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis, or who put George Washington on the same plane as Robert E. Lee, because you allow the fact that all of these folks owned slaves to blind yourself to the obvious, major, and undeniable differences between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington on the one hand, and the Confederate leaders on the other, then you are not a fighter for equality, you're just an ignorant, obnoxious, bigot. If you are so narrow-minded that you cannot look at the lives of great historical figures of the past - such as our founding fathers or Christopher Columbus - in their totality, considering all they accomplished and what they contributed to what we enjoy today, and making due allowances for the culture, beliefs, and legal and social mores and constraints that prevailed during their own lives, then you are a pompous, arrogant, foolish egotist with far too high an opinion of yourself.

And finally: If you aren't content with advocating for the relocation of statues that you don't like, but rather, you feel empowered to resort to vandalizing them yourself, then you're not anti-fascist, you ARE a fascist - whether you know it or not, and whether you call yourself "Antifa" or not. Your tactics have a lot more in common with those of ISIS and the Taliban (notorious destroyers of historical monuments) and of the Brownshirts and Blackshirts (notorious users of political violence) than they do with any decent person in America.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-columbus-monument-20170821-story.html

I hate Confederate monuments because I am sick and tired people indulging in the self-deception that the Civil War was not about slavery,

1. All wars are about population pressures and resources whatever their officially recognized cause

2. Are you ideologically consistent? As Lincoln didnt give a fuck about slavery, as shown by his open willingness to allow it to continue, do you also hate his monuments?

lujp -

1. I reject your premises.

2. "Are you ideologically consistent?" As the man said, "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Furthermore, I am not accountable to you for my consistency or lack thereof.

3. Your remark about Lincoln is a self-serving distortion which you yourself know to be such, deep down inside.

lujp -

As I said:

"I think the monuments probably should be moved, but I don't think that you're a Nazi or a racist if you disagree with me."

But you DO think ill of me because I have a different opinion on the topic than you. In fact, you appear to be just as blinded by your passion about the topic as the Antifa folks who want to burn down the Jefferson Memorial (although I assume that you are a much better person than they are in that you are not going to resort to violence or try to ostracize me from society to punish me for my opinion, as they would).

Statuary and commemoration of the past are complicated and nuanced issues. But you come off like you are wired with a toggle switch, with two settings: A. "Agree with me 100%",or B. "you are are a hypocritical jerk."

Sorry, not so. The fact that you feel that way is your problem, not mine. Which is another thing that sets you apart from the jerks that I was criticizing. You're not making it my problem by destroying property and hurting people over it.

I hate Confederate monuments because ... I find glorification of Americans who fought AGAINST America irksome.

At that time, people in both the North and South believed secession was legal. The New England states contemplated secession during the War of 1812 and considred making a separate peace with England, even going so far as to send an envoy to London to discuss terms.

Less than fifty years later, the sons of those secessionist-minded New Englanders would take umbrage that any state in the union dared dissolve said union.

I am sick and tired people indulging in the self-deception that the Civil War was not about slavery....

The war itself was not directly about slavery. The underpinnings of the South's pseudo-feudal agrarian socio-economic system were built upon a foundation of slavery. And the New England abolitionists' open animosity toward slave owners created a bed of ill-will in both camps.

The South's dependence upon cotton was complete and total. Exporting cotton to mills in England was chief source of income for the South. Tobacco and indigo were also cash crops but could only be grown in certain areas and so did not bring in the money that cotton did. Slavery meant cheap labor and with cheap labor the South could undercut Egyptian or Indian cotton prices. Northern mills coveted that cotton and Northern politicians did all they could to impose tariffs on exports and force the sale of that cotton to Northern mills at depressed prices.

In addition, Southerners feared their slaves. John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry and Nat Turner's rebellion had created a primal fear in the South that the Northern abolitionists would incite and arm a slave rebellion - exactly what John Brown had been trying to do.

Relations between the North and South got so bad that Senator Charles Sumner was brutally beaten in the Senate chamber in 1856 after speaking passionately against slavery and the violence in "Bloody Kansas."

The streets of Baltimore ran red with a bloody riot in 1861. Just after the opening shots of the Civil War in Charleston, anti-war activists and Southern sympathizers clashed in the streets of Baltimore with units of the Massachusetts militia on their way to join the Union army. A later historian judged that "it was the Baltimore riot that pushed the two sides over the edge into full-scale war, 'because then was shed the first blood in a conflict between the North and the South; then a step was taken which made compromise or retreat almost impossible; then passions on both sides were aroused which could not be controlled'".

New York city suffered draft riots in 1863. Rioters resented that richer Americans could pay $300 to avoid being drafted but poorer Americans, predominantly Irish immigrants could not afford to and had to register for the draft. The riot turned into race riot with African-Americans being attacked and lynched in the streets.

The Irish immigrants had been quickly naturalized as citizens due to Tammany Hall's efforts to expand the party's voter rolls. Citizens had to register for the draft starting in 1863. African-Americans were not considered citizens (part of the Dred Scott decision) and as non-citizens could not be compelled to register for the draft. The Union army did not want them anyway, believing blacks to be inferior to whites as soldiers.

Irish immigrants and freed blacks competed for low-wage jobs in New York City at that time and blacks would generally work for less money. To the Irish immigrants, the Emancipation Proclamation (1862) added to their resentments. They feared that freed blacks from the South would flee north and compete for the already-limited number of jobs. Unemployed immigrants lived in grinding poverty in the Five Points and other tenement slums of New York. Having the prospect of freshly-emancipated blacks adding to the labor competition sent them over the edge.

Anti-war newspapers inflamed the resentments of the poor immigrants with anti-draft editorials. Newspapers and party officials raised the specter of a New York deluged with former slaves taking jobs away from poor white immigrants, inflaming racial tensions.

Without slavery, there is no Civil War. But it was not the direct cause.

Notice that we're all talking about ESPN today? Hmmm.

Purportedly, the reason ESPN switched him to a different game was not that they thought anyone would be offended, but rather that they felt there was a possibility that Lee's coverage of the Virginia game would become the subject of jokes and memes. Which....it probably would. It was Lee they were trying to protect, not some imagined offense-taking people. But of course, there was probably no way to have made this switch without generating a whole different series of jokes and memes.

It was Lee they were trying to protect, not some imagined offense-taking people. But of course, there was probably no way to have made this switch without generating a whole different series of jokes and memes. ~ Steven at August 23, 2017 10:57 AM

It wasn't Lee they were trying to protect. This switch was made to showcase ESPN's own imagined racial sensitivity. "Look at us, making a switch so people won't be offended; so Lee won't be mocked in a bunch of racist right wing memes. We're so sensitive and wonderful. We just want to hug ourselves all day long."

Otherwise, you just make the switch and run with it, you don't announce it and then put out a memo about it.

Conan:

Relations between the North and South got so bad that Senator Charles Sumner was brutally beaten in the Senate chamber in 1856 after speaking passionately against slavery and the violence in "Bloody Kansas."

That's "Bleeding Kansas," not "Bloody Kansas."

And Sumner's "Crimes Against Kansas" speech was pompous and bursting with overwrought rhetoric (basically like something Crid would write), and pointedly insulting to several of his fellow Senators, most notably Andrew Pickens Butler.

Stephen Douglas, another Senator who was targeted by Sumner, was visibly angered and heard to remark "There's one damned fool who's going to get himself killed by another damned fool."

The prophecy was very nearly proven accurate when Representative Preston Brooks, a cousin of Butler's, beat Sumner nearly to death with a metal-capped gutta-percha cane.

Sumner's injuries kept him out of Senate for two years and he contended with mental health issues that we would now call PTSD for the rest of his life.

Denis

1. You could reject the fact that 2+2=4, it would be just as meaningful and correct

2. The mans quote war far longer and doesn't mean what you think it does, read it in it's entirety

3. Sure it was self serving, but it want a distortion. The standard be just those Confederate soilders Lincoln's attitudes were just as bad, if not worse in some instances.

Infact, given secession was not illegal at the time it could be agrued Lincoln did far more harm to the county that the Confederacy

It's possible to recognize the sheer blithering idiocy of this move by ESPN — which reads like an Onion headline — without relitigating the Civil War and its causes.

Patrick, no doubt that Sumner was a pompous ass. His entire career gives testimony to that. I included his beating by Brooks as an example of how much relations between the North and the South had deteriorated.

And, BTW, Horace Greeley coined "Bleeding Kansas" for the New-York Tribune, but "Bloody Kansas" was also in use. Still is.

It's possible to recognize the sheer blithering idiocy of this move by ESPN — which reads like an Onion headline — without relitigating the Civil War and its causes. ~ Kevin at August 23, 2017 12:24 PM

You're new here, aren't you?
__________________________________________________

FYI - Luj and Denis:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson (Self-Reliance)

Related:

https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/status/900359475504271362

There was a deaf kid in kindergarten named Hunter. The deaf sign for hunter looks sort of like a gun. The school told his parents he would need to change the sign he used for his name (in deaf world that means change his name).

There was a deaf kid in kindergarten named Hunter. The deaf sign for hunter looks sort of like a gun. The school told his parents he would need to change the sign he used for his name (in deaf world that means change his name).

cc at August 23, 2017 1:53 PM

Yes, the progressive plan to demonize guns has spiraled out of control.
Now we have confederate statute phobia, Naziphobia, and even fear of anything that might remind people of the former Superintendent of the United States Military Academy (including the name of his horse)

"Close paraphrase: He's rich! You're not rich! How dare you not vote for him?"

Nope. I insulted you by suggesting that his world of billions was beyond OUR understanding other than by capitalist means, in which having more toys means he is more successful. From there, it was all you.

-----

Today, one's bedazzled smartphone and latté makes one more of an authority on the Civil War than anyone of the day. Step aside, great-great-Grandpa: we know more about what you did and why you did it than your primitive ass could ever understand. {tweet}

The civil war was about slavery.

"it felt right to all parties"

Really? ALL parties? ALL!?

I kind of think that the guy pulled off the job simply because of his name might not agree (although, if he wants to work again he will suck up to the bosses and agree with them out loud)

> if it makes you feel better to
> imagine that I'll be suffer

It would make us feel better if you wouldn't disregard the things people write to make make weirdly-phrased accusations.

> suggesting that his world of
> billions was beyond OUR understanding
> other than by capitalist means

Kitten, you shouldn't pretend to be intellectual. He was a trust-fund baby. You fell in love with a TV star, that's all.

There are many drooling morons out there, and some who act violently/illegally on little or no information. But this is more virtue signalling by ESPN, which has been rather left politically for a while now. Odd that a sports program should even have a left right leaning let alone it be obvious.

I think what Trump should have said at the start would have been give people a history lesson that they are not getting in schools. "in Cville we have a violent radical communist group fighting a hated radical socialist group and a historical racist radical group started by the Democratic party, fighting over statues of Democrats who fought for slavery, which were put up decades later by Democratic politicians. And somehow the press is going to spin this as a Republican/right caused mess.
Republicans believe in freedom of speech and Lawful assembly. So let these leftist groups yell it out but violence and vandalism by any of them will not be tolerated."

This is virtually the same mentality behind pulling down the monuments of Confederate soldiers

It's not. The civil war WAS about slavery. Yeah, yeah, state's rights, but again, they weren't arguing to have petunias be the state flower with the feds going, "Whoa, baby."

It's ugly to have statues of people who fought to preserve slavery of a number of our fellow citizens.

Oh, and a good many of those statues went up yesterday. And the notion that something having existed a while is reason it should continue existing is just silly.

> Oh, and a good many of those
> statues went up yesterday.

Exactly. Anyone who wants to defend these monuments, or who ask me and others to be concerned for their removal, needs to do a Chesterton's Fence appraisal on them and get back to us.

Amy's position is moderate.

Animated version.

This sequence of tweets holds the best defense of these monuments that I've seen, without searching too carefully, over the past two weeks... But it does not compel my sanctimony.

Lexington, VA., August 5, 1869.

Dear Sir--Absence from Lexington has prevented my receiving until to-day your letter of the 26th ult., inclosing an invitation from the Gettysburg Battle-field Memorial Association, to attend a meeting of the officers engaged in that battle at Gettysburg, for the purpose of marking upon the ground by enduring memorials of granite the positions and movements of the armies on the field. My engagements will not permit me to be present. I believe if there, I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered. Very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

R. E. Lee.

(Emphasis: Uncle Cridmo)

That Lee fella sure was a stand-up guy.

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

That Lee fella sure was a stand-up guy. ~ Abersouth at August 24, 2017 4:22 AM

It's vitriol like this that attempt to make racism a Southern-only phenomenon.

The truth is that, in it's first 200 years of existence, the United States has not been kind to it's citizens of African descent. Slavery, segregation, and discrimination have marred the cherished foundation of "all men are created equal."

Dred Scott and Plessy were US Supreme Court decisions, not strictly Southern ones.

The famous Brown case outlawing Plessy's "separate but equal" was, in its full name, Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka. That's Kansas, neither a Southern nor former slave state.

Boston schools remained segregated until mandated busing in the '70s, a policy that was greeted with violence, protests, and white flight to the suburbs.

California has been less than kind to its citizens of Asian or Hispanic descent. California's government, through its attorney general, Earl Warren, led the charge to limit Asian immigration through the '30s and to imprison Japanese-Americans during the war. Los Angeles streets were the scene of racist mob violence during the war's Zoot Suit Riot in which soldiers and sailors sought out and beat Hispanic-Americans for perceived unpatriotic acts, such as wearing the fabric-intensive zoot suits.

While Jim Crow was embodied in law in the South, its spirit was in effect everywhere.

The truth is that we need to do better. And if moving a statue of General Lee to a museum is a step in the right direction, then it's a step that should be taken.

A caveat is that moving a statue changes nothing. The statue is neither the inspiration for nor the instigator of racism. It's just a statue.

Conan:

Patrick, no doubt that Sumner was a pompous ass. His entire career gives testimony to that. I included his beating by Brooks as an example of how much relations between the North and the South had deteriorated.

It was both an indication of how far relations had deteriorated and certainly caused them to deteriorate further. In reading the newspapers of the time that reported on the incident, there's an overwhelming sense that the time for talk was done.

The response to the horrific beating (which kept Sumner out of office for two years, and contended for the rest of his life with mental health issues that we would call PTSD today), was predictably divided by the Mason-Dixon line.

The Charleston Mercury gloated that Sumner was "well and elegantly whipped, and he richly deserved it." Southerners were sending Brooks commemorative canes inscribed with things like "Hit him again!"

The North, by contrast, was disgusted, including Brooks fellow Democrats. The democratic Patriot and State Gazette of Montpelier, Vermont, said of the incident, "The remarks made by Mr. Sumner, which provoked this assault, were malignant and insulting beyond anything ever uttered in coolness upon the floor of the Senate. Yet, had they been ten times more so, they could have afforded no excuse for this brutal and dastardly attack. The House owes it to its own character to expel this cowardly wretch at once."

While debate raged whether to "expel this cowardly wretch," Brooks resigned. But his absence was brief. His constituents reelected him in a overwhelming show of support, and he resumed his seat two weeks later.

But karma would dispense justice of a sort, even the law would not.

Anson Burlingame, a Representative from Massachusetts, denounced Brooks on the floor of the House as "the vilest sort of coward." Brooks responded that he would face Burlingame in a duel "in any Yankee mudsill of his choosing."

Burlingame accepted the challenge at once, and, as the challenged party, chose rifles as the weapons and, to avoid U.S. laws prohibiting dueling, chose the Canadian side of the Niagara as the location. He set out at once, but Brooks, reportedly unnerved by Burlingame's enthusiastic acceptance and reputation as a crack marksman, was a no-show, claiming it was too dangerous for him to pass through Yankee territory.

Brooks was dead of a liver ailment six months later.

And that Patrick is why I worry a bit about a civil war.

"The response to the horrific beating (which kept Sumner out of office for two years, and contended for the rest of his life with mental health issues that we would call PTSD today), was predictably divided by the Mason-Dixon line."

The lines today are between large coastal cities and the middle of the nation. The cultural divide is huge and only getting larger. And coastal societies are promoting violence. The fact that Antifa was at Charleston is barely mentioned. That they were the first to attack is similarly covered up. The concentration of new reporters in a small number of large cities has encouraged this trend. People who live in those cities get very little information from outside of them. And most of them refuse to acknowledged that this 'bubble' exists.

I have no problem if local citizens want the monumnets gone.

I have no problem if the local/state government facing budget problems decide they no longer want to pay for their upkeep.

But lets be honest here, the majority clamoring for their removal aint local.

And the argument for their removal keeps shifting when people point out the flaws in the reasoning.

It was about not venerating those who supported slavery and racism, until people pointed out Lincoln was just as racist and left a out for slavery to continue. Until it was pointed out a bunch of military bases are named after confederate soldiers, until it was pointed out a lot of federal buildings have plaques to politicians who were openly KKK members.

I have no problem with any action that someone can articulate a sound, reasonable, logically consistent argument.

But the crowd agitating for these removals are the same people who burn cars to prevent Milo Yinaplous and Ann Coulter from speaking.

They are the same people who want to ban Mark Twain books because he used the word nigger

They are the same people who scream 'racist' when you criticize muslim terrorism

They are the same people who call for reparations, claim the term 'black hole' is offensive, bitch about man-spreading as though it were a crime, and call for the firing of college professors who question why colleges have Halloween costume dress codes.

"The civil war was about slavery."

The Civil War was about an economic structure and a culture, of which slavery was an essential part. If slavery was all there was to it, there wouldn't be people still going around waving Confederate flags today.

Cousin Dave: The Civil War was about an economic structure and a culture, of which slavery was an essential part. If slavery was all there was to it, there wouldn't be people still going around waving Confederate flags today.

You really think 99% of the Confederate Flag wavers have the slightest clue as to what the Civil War was about?

"Oh, it wasn't about slavery! It was all about states' rights!"

Yeah, and I'm the Church Lady.

"You really think 99% of the Confederate Flag wavers have the slightest clue as to what the Civil War was about?"

No, I dont. And the ANTIFA protestors have even less of a clue of the long term deep associations right up until present day, between the Democratic party and slavery, racism, segreqation and discrimination.

Saying the Civil War was about slavery is like saying milk is really just the same as water, as water is the largest component of milk

> It's vitriol like this that
> attempt to make racism a
> Southern-only phenomenon.

[1.] Trust no one not a chemist who uses the word "vitriol" on the internet. It's the United States. If your panties wad so readily, stay home and do your nails.

[2.] The naked bonerism of your sensitivity here is breathtaking. At no time did Aber suggest that "racism" was exclusively Southern. At no time did he compare it to California, the Takla Makan, or the Scottish Highlands: What he said, entirely, was—

> That Lee fella sure was
> a stand-up guy.

[2a.] Dood. That's all he said.

> economic structure and a culture

How fucking blind, how witless, how irrational and how fucking monstrous do you have to be to pretend that words like "economic," "structure," and "culture" can disregard the animal theft of life labor, and every other component of well-being, from the enslaved?

Well, I've known some black people who were pretty fuckin' oblivious. But not one of them, not one, has ever been persuaded that American slavery was about "economic structure and a culture." For some reason, all of them —to a man, woman and child— are equipped to recognize the Hell-scorched humanity at the center of such considerations.

Why do you suppose that is?

And why aren't you?

Why do you suppose that is? - Chris

Because the people you know are as dumb as you?

Seriously, civilization has been round for over 65,000 years now and slavery still exists today

Are we really supposed to ignore the fact that slave labor was considered a viable economic driver just because for less than one tenth of one percent of the history of human civilization it was practiced by (in the USA) less than two tenths of one percent of humanity on the north North American continent 150 years ago?

Should we also stop pretending water is wet?

How much of reality must we all ignore so you can be smugly superior in your idiocy?