tired of being nice? Just want to go apeshit?

fanfiction plus aesthetic plus rambling

[rockin-robinz]

Robin Watching: 1658/∞

Jason Todd

Image Source

Tales From the Dark Multiverse: Batman - Hush by Dexter Soy

[silverlessly]

Happy that Dexter Soy is back, he makes young male characters look arguably strong but still realistic in terms of build, that's part of why his art style resonates. With modern character design/style and realistic anatomy that brings out the most athletic parts, his Red Hood hits different, just see how many teenage boys and girls with gender envy want to look like that

DC is adapting very well to the modern comics world

[mahougirlmutualaid]

Hello!!! I'm posting to bring attention to this fundraiser. My close friend Krish's sister, Krizzia, is recovering from NMDA-r Encephalitis, an illness that causes severe inflammation of the brain and can cause you to lose your ability to walk, your memory, your ability to eat on your own, and can induce seizures.

Krizzia is on the road to recovery, but really needs our help to be able to thrive. She's starting to get her ability to walk back, but it requires consistent therapy, something she hasn't been able to afford. She also needs 40-70$ a week to be able to afford her seizure medications, and is trying to save up for an IVG, which costs $9000, to repair her very vulnerable immune system. It's been a very very hard year for them, and I'm gonna do everything I can to help.

Krish is such a kind person and Krizzia has such a beautiful soul. Please reblog if you can!

Krish's PayPal: [email protected]

The gofundme link will be in the replies!

If you don't have Paypal but want to donate, DM me and I'll figure out how we can work it out! Also, if you want to support them, all the money from myart commissions goes directly to their family!

[bridemontharchive]

A Disabled Black Man Could Be Executed For a Crime That Wasn't Properly Investigated

Key evidence was lost, the case against him was based on racial stereotypes, and they could execute a man with an intellectual disability.

Please spread the word and keep an eye on the story!

https://innocenceproject.org/pervis-payne-wrongful-conviction-what-to-know-innocent-tennessee/

[fieropasto-deactivated20210613]

[silverlessly]

o n e j o b

[peakyscreencaps]

random screencaps: peaky blinders | 3.01

[peakyblindersdaily]

“Get someone nice.”

[silverlessly]

Low self-esteem meets self-destructive and creates an interesting mirror duo

[miiriya]

Miiriya

[porunareff]

KING SHIT

[silverlessly]

[oceans-foundfamily]

This is a NIGHTMARE

[missespaintadventures-deactivat]

when you have a shit blog and someone follows you

[silverlessly]

Aren't you tired of being nice? Don't you just want to go apeshit?

[whitepeopletwitter]

[amarretto-cowboy]

Fun fact: Auschwitz still stands. The Anti-Semitic street signs also remain as a reminder.

Also… This is literally every civilization on the planet.

Think Hindus like seeing the Taj Mahal?

Think Ndwandwe like seeing statues of Shaka Zulu?

[bestieboomdrive]

“signs also remain as a reminder.”

White Libertarians love to “remind us” about the Holocaust. They just don’t think of it as a cautionary tale.

Fun Fact: Tons of Nazi Statues, and Architecture were happily destroyed by mobs and the government after WW2, because statues and structures that glorify the holocaust aren’t the same as installations meant to educate about the horrors of genocide.

You Fucking Idiot.

[chilled-welsh-sam]

I love how many people are going “buh the statues serve as a reminder” in the notes like no my dude they are memorials made post war during the heights of the civil rights movements by racists who wanted to keep black people opressed.

[walkingmusical]

As a history graduate, I can confirm that I have never once used a statue to study history.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Which in no way disproves the point, just like Welsh’s post doesn’t. The statues still serve as a reminder whether or not they were intended to, and whether or not you studied them in history class.

[magister-christophe]

I don’t know how you can’t see the dishonesty behind what you’re saying.

In the correct context constructs can be used to memorialize events in an appropriate way - Auschwitz used as a location of mourning and education, to remind people specifically of the atrocity of the holocaust, for example.

In the correct context, a statue of Hitler could be used to educate people on the wild fervor and idolization people had, or can have, towards dangerous political leaders. Without context, a statue of Hitler would just be a monument to Hitler.

Most of these statues scattered about the US have absolutely no context attached to them. The intent was to be monuments built to commemorate the efforts of people to victimize others, and without the correct context to say otherwise, that’s exactly what they are and always will be.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I don’t know how you can’t see the dishonesty behind what you’re saying.

>In the correct context constructs can be used to memorialize events in an appropriate way - Auschwitz used as a location of mourning and education, to remind people specifically of the atrocity of the holocaust, for example.

Okay, I’m not reading any more of your post. You’re already moving the goalposts. The clear implication was “if I don’t use these statues as a history graduate, they’re historically worthless”.

Which is false, and has nothing to do with the argument that the statues are kept around as reminders to the general public. It’s not even the first time I’ve rolled my eyes at that argument*. I also have issues with the idea of angry mobs tearing down statues, especially when they regularly went after the wrong statues. They attacked statues of black soldiers, abolitionists, even put graffiti on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.

If you want a statue removed, there are civil processes. Even if one thinks distaste for such statues is justified, that doesn’t justify the way people try to take said statues down.

A lot of people like OP justify the emotion, but gloss over the actions people choose to take because of it.

I don’t care what ad hoc nonsense you just came up with to imply the debate is about ‘appropriate’ places and ways to learn history. These folks hate the statues’ existence. They aren’t dumping the statues in front of museums, they’re going Boston Tea Party. If it was feasible, I think they’d melt the statues down on the spot.

This is BLM UK, mind you. The vandals spread over here. Someone tried to burn down Market House in Fayettesville, apparently because a small part of it was used as a slave market over a century ago and was kept as a historical exhibit. That’s about as “appropriate” as it gets.

The building was occupied, incidentally. The arsonist put lives at risk.

I pointed this out, and one of these folks blocked me.

I know you feel compelled to defend your Team, but maybe take the L every once in a while? *The last time involved a ‘history major’ who said America shouldn’t have statues of slave owners. I asked about statues of Caesar. He spewed mockery that didn’t answer the question, and blocked me.

[magister-christophe]

Individual instances of destruction that you disagree with aren’t relevant. No one here has said “every removal or destruction of property by force is justified” so I don’t know why you’re bringing these examples into it. You said something about goal post moving?

This isn’t about “defending a team”, the only team I’m on is one of intellectual honesty, which is evidently a foreign concept to you. This is a discussion about whether or not monuments (in general) should be protected based on the claim that they’re “reminders” of past events.

You said “The statues still serve as a reminder whether or not they were intended to”. This is the point you’re saying “isn’t disproven”. I’m not moving any goal posts, what I’ve said is directly on topic*.

Just saying any statue or monument “is a reminder” and leaving it at that is weasley as fuck, because aside from being worthlessly vague, the important part is what exactly they’re reminding people of. That’s what the value of reminders is derived from.

You make a list of groceries to remind you what you need. You write an event on a calendar to remind you to go. You know what’d be a shitty reminder? Just the word “reminder” written on a piece of paper.

So I made this crazy assumption that, by “the statues are still a reminder”, you aren’t claiming they’re a reminder of how wonderful the immortalized person or event was; that something like Auschwitz still standing is not a reminder of a better fuckin time, and argued from there. Is that a fair assumption to make? If not then stop being weasley about it and clarify what exactly you mean by “reminder”.

So my question is, how would you know what a statue reminds people of without context? Or what if, more importantly, the context directly contradicts that interpretation? If a monument had only existed - like the infamous Robert Lee memorials, sitting on a literal high horse - as a reminder of how wonderful and loved and honored a seditious slave-owning racist is by the people around you, why should we value this reminder?

*The topic since the very beginning of this post has been the context in which monuments remind people of past events. Every comment made on this thread is directly related to this. You need to scrub the word “goalpost” from your vocabulary.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>Individual instances of destruction that you disagree with aren’t relevant. No one here has said “every removal or destruction of property by force is justified” so I don’t know why you’re bringing these examples into it. You said something about goal post moving?

BLMers repeatedly said or implied their angry mobs removing statues was a fundamentally good idea, and refused to address the fact that many of the targeted statues were actually good people. 

I did not say or imply that BLMers endorsed all forceful property destruction/removal.

Yes, I did say you were moving goalposts, because you are.

Which I why I’m not wasting a second more of my time.

[magister-christophe]

You ignored literally everything to do with the actual discussion on this post and instead responded to the one thing that wasn’t relevant. Bravo.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I responded to the first thing I saw and declared I was running away from the debate, because rebutting your posts in detail is frustrating. I literally did not read the rest of your post, because I know I would end up wasting type typing a full response. 

And I physically should not be doing that. I already have shoulder, arm, and hand problems.

[anubianpagan]

Tbh if you can’t see the value of statues, monuments, and relics of the past as important, you’re already beyond help.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

No, they have to be the Correct Relics, and interpreted in the Correct Way.

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

If you want to get statues out of the public eye, do so in the proper way. They can be removed and placed in a museum or something for historical context. The problem is these idiots aren’t content with that, they want to destroy. They’re so foaming at the mouth mad that they even attack the statues of people who were fighting for the Union.

[silverlessly]

Given the history of the United States, I think people have the right to throw down some statues. They really do and if you disagree, you don’t care about fairness across social groups, simply useful compleceny.

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

“The only fair thing to do is to destroy property” Or maybe you’re just a psychopath.

[silverlessly]

Destroying property showcasing slave owners <<<<<<<< Everything slave owners did, and we both know it, that’s the part that goes unsaid. If you want to talk about actual psychopathy, investigate there, investigate slavery and the men on the statues. People’s reaction to it is in fact the opposite of psychpathy. That’s fairness. I said what I said

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

That excuse rings severely hollow, when they even go after the statues of people who fought in the Union and others like George Washington who opposed slavery. You really think they give a shit about the context? They want to smash for the sake of smashing, and you’re defending them!

[silverlessly]

Oh I’m sure black people remember the founding fathers era. 3/5 humans.

I’m sure George Washington had no more historically realistic reason to oppose slavery, such as economical ones that would mean the slaves would become consumers of the very job machines were developped to do faster as well as taxpayers. Mind you, the law still treating them like subhumans, but…I thought they were free men now? Strange disparity. Abject legal conditions, but still paying up. I’m sure he was a hype woke king

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

You know, this is why it’s important to teach history in school. The 3/5 human act was to prevent slave owners from forcing their slaves to vote in favor of keeping slavery. Slavery was very limited and mainly agriculture. Contrary to the myth, slaves weren’t widespread all over the US in all aspects of creation.

[silverlessly]

>Still had no legal rights whatsoever, no legal protection, no civil rights, no property rights. They could, you know, have made them free citizens instead. It was once again a purely political and economical move, not a social one. That’s ironically the reason why descendants are mad when we circle back. Even after the age of suffering, the nation didn’t see them as equal but as pawns in their economical agendas while they could get killed by lynching for looking at a white woman. Absolutely no rights to live like a human, but yippi, you get 3/5 a vote.

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

You make it sound like it was really so fucking simple. Yeah, we only had a civil war over it, costing countless people their lives, no biggie. Could’ve just snapped our fingers and ended slavery. You truly are pathetic, maybe you should be more concerned about certain religious groups that are CURRENTLY owning black slaves. Nah, far easier to virtue signal about the past and destroy property.

[silverlessly]

"You truly are pathetic"

Welp, meaning you begin to see the depth of my point and despise it enough to resort to that kind of things, trying to cut deep with a knife what was shown with opinions. People died, my friend, white and black during the Civil War.

Only, generations after generations of black people were born, lived their lives and died in slavery. No dreams, no weddings, no traveling, no discovering, no countryside with the grandchildren and growing old near chickens and the beach while southern belles complained about their third husbands, doing nothing and laughing at them on the front porch. Labour, rape, humiliation and death. That's psychopathy. I may be biased but only to a certain extent ; some destinies are objectively worse than others and we know it, I know we both know it, that's the saddest part. The concessions black people had and have to make on the political scene and discussions like these are far bigger, deeper than white people in the USA and still, there are discussions like this. White people viscerally rejected Harriet Tubman the 20 bill. The woman who freed slaves risking her own life but Goerge Washington and all his boys are everywhere, think about it. If it doesn't make you think a little bit, then this exchange was just about "winning" to someone you don't know on tumblr rather than see the depth of the wounds on african-american culture, it shows in what you're willing to say to someone you don't even know and can't judge properly, hence the quote. The rest of my time is worth more than that, I'm not engaging on that level, peace

[whitepeopletwitter]

[amarretto-cowboy]

Fun fact: Auschwitz still stands. The Anti-Semitic street signs also remain as a reminder.

Also… This is literally every civilization on the planet.

Think Hindus like seeing the Taj Mahal?

Think Ndwandwe like seeing statues of Shaka Zulu?

[bestieboomdrive]

“signs also remain as a reminder.”

White Libertarians love to “remind us” about the Holocaust. They just don’t think of it as a cautionary tale.

Fun Fact: Tons of Nazi Statues, and Architecture were happily destroyed by mobs and the government after WW2, because statues and structures that glorify the holocaust aren’t the same as installations meant to educate about the horrors of genocide.

You Fucking Idiot.

[chilled-welsh-sam]

I love how many people are going “buh the statues serve as a reminder” in the notes like no my dude they are memorials made post war during the heights of the civil rights movements by racists who wanted to keep black people opressed.

[walkingmusical]

As a history graduate, I can confirm that I have never once used a statue to study history.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Which in no way disproves the point, just like Welsh’s post doesn’t. The statues still serve as a reminder whether or not they were intended to, and whether or not you studied them in history class.

[magister-christophe]

I don’t know how you can’t see the dishonesty behind what you’re saying.

In the correct context constructs can be used to memorialize events in an appropriate way - Auschwitz used as a location of mourning and education, to remind people specifically of the atrocity of the holocaust, for example.

In the correct context, a statue of Hitler could be used to educate people on the wild fervor and idolization people had, or can have, towards dangerous political leaders. Without context, a statue of Hitler would just be a monument to Hitler.

Most of these statues scattered about the US have absolutely no context attached to them. The intent was to be monuments built to commemorate the efforts of people to victimize others, and without the correct context to say otherwise, that’s exactly what they are and always will be.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I don’t know how you can’t see the dishonesty behind what you’re saying.

>In the correct context constructs can be used to memorialize events in an appropriate way - Auschwitz used as a location of mourning and education, to remind people specifically of the atrocity of the holocaust, for example.

Okay, I’m not reading any more of your post. You’re already moving the goalposts. The clear implication was “if I don’t use these statues as a history graduate, they’re historically worthless”.

Which is false, and has nothing to do with the argument that the statues are kept around as reminders to the general public. It’s not even the first time I’ve rolled my eyes at that argument*. I also have issues with the idea of angry mobs tearing down statues, especially when they regularly went after the wrong statues. They attacked statues of black soldiers, abolitionists, even put graffiti on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.

If you want a statue removed, there are civil processes. Even if one thinks distaste for such statues is justified, that doesn’t justify the way people try to take said statues down.

A lot of people like OP justify the emotion, but gloss over the actions people choose to take because of it.

I don’t care what ad hoc nonsense you just came up with to imply the debate is about ‘appropriate’ places and ways to learn history. These folks hate the statues’ existence. They aren’t dumping the statues in front of museums, they’re going Boston Tea Party. If it was feasible, I think they’d melt the statues down on the spot.

This is BLM UK, mind you. The vandals spread over here. Someone tried to burn down Market House in Fayettesville, apparently because a small part of it was used as a slave market over a century ago and was kept as a historical exhibit. That’s about as “appropriate” as it gets.

The building was occupied, incidentally. The arsonist put lives at risk.

I pointed this out, and one of these folks blocked me.

I know you feel compelled to defend your Team, but maybe take the L every once in a while? *The last time involved a ‘history major’ who said America shouldn’t have statues of slave owners. I asked about statues of Caesar. He spewed mockery that didn’t answer the question, and blocked me.

[magister-christophe]

Individual instances of destruction that you disagree with aren’t relevant. No one here has said “every removal or destruction of property by force is justified” so I don’t know why you’re bringing these examples into it. You said something about goal post moving?

This isn’t about “defending a team”, the only team I’m on is one of intellectual honesty, which is evidently a foreign concept to you. This is a discussion about whether or not monuments (in general) should be protected based on the claim that they’re “reminders” of past events.

You said “The statues still serve as a reminder whether or not they were intended to”. This is the point you’re saying “isn’t disproven”. I’m not moving any goal posts, what I’ve said is directly on topic*.

Just saying any statue or monument “is a reminder” and leaving it at that is weasley as fuck, because aside from being worthlessly vague, the important part is what exactly they’re reminding people of. That’s what the value of reminders is derived from.

You make a list of groceries to remind you what you need. You write an event on a calendar to remind you to go. You know what’d be a shitty reminder? Just the word “reminder” written on a piece of paper.

So I made this crazy assumption that, by “the statues are still a reminder”, you aren’t claiming they’re a reminder of how wonderful the immortalized person or event was; that something like Auschwitz still standing is not a reminder of a better fuckin time, and argued from there. Is that a fair assumption to make? If not then stop being weasley about it and clarify what exactly you mean by “reminder”.

So my question is, how would you know what a statue reminds people of without context? Or what if, more importantly, the context directly contradicts that interpretation? If a monument had only existed - like the infamous Robert Lee memorials, sitting on a literal high horse - as a reminder of how wonderful and loved and honored a seditious slave-owning racist is by the people around you, why should we value this reminder?

*The topic since the very beginning of this post has been the context in which monuments remind people of past events. Every comment made on this thread is directly related to this. You need to scrub the word “goalpost” from your vocabulary.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>Individual instances of destruction that you disagree with aren’t relevant. No one here has said “every removal or destruction of property by force is justified” so I don’t know why you’re bringing these examples into it. You said something about goal post moving?

BLMers repeatedly said or implied their angry mobs removing statues was a fundamentally good idea, and refused to address the fact that many of the targeted statues were actually good people. 

I did not say or imply that BLMers endorsed all forceful property destruction/removal.

Yes, I did say you were moving goalposts, because you are.

Which I why I’m not wasting a second more of my time.

[magister-christophe]

You ignored literally everything to do with the actual discussion on this post and instead responded to the one thing that wasn’t relevant. Bravo.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I responded to the first thing I saw and declared I was running away from the debate, because rebutting your posts in detail is frustrating. I literally did not read the rest of your post, because I know I would end up wasting type typing a full response. 

And I physically should not be doing that. I already have shoulder, arm, and hand problems.

[anubianpagan]

Tbh if you can’t see the value of statues, monuments, and relics of the past as important, you’re already beyond help.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

No, they have to be the Correct Relics, and interpreted in the Correct Way.

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

If you want to get statues out of the public eye, do so in the proper way. They can be removed and placed in a museum or something for historical context. The problem is these idiots aren’t content with that, they want to destroy. They’re so foaming at the mouth mad that they even attack the statues of people who were fighting for the Union.

[silverlessly]

Given the history of the United States, I think people have the right to throw down some statues. They really do and if you disagree, you don’t care about fairness across social groups, simply useful compleceny.

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

“The only fair thing to do is to destroy property” Or maybe you’re just a psychopath.

[silverlessly]

Destroying property showcasing slave owners <<<<<<<< Everything slave owners did, and we both know it, that’s the part that goes unsaid. If you want to talk about actual psychopathy, investigate there, investigate slavery and the men on the statues. People’s reaction to it is in fact the opposite of psychpathy. That’s fairness. I said what I said

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

That excuse rings severely hollow, when they even go after the statues of people who fought in the Union and others like George Washington who opposed slavery. You really think they give a shit about the context? They want to smash for the sake of smashing, and you’re defending them!

[silverlessly]

Oh I’m sure black people remember the founding fathers era. 3/5 humans.

I’m sure George Washington had no more historically realistic reason to oppose slavery, such as economical ones that would mean the slaves would become consumers of the very job machines were developped to do faster as well as taxpayers. Mind you, the law still treating them like subhumans, but…I thought they were free men now? Strange disparity. Abject legal conditions, but still paying up. I’m sure he was a hype woke king

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

You know, this is why it’s important to teach history in school. The 3/5 human act was to prevent slave owners from forcing their slaves to vote in favor of keeping slavery. Slavery was very limited and mainly agriculture. Contrary to the myth, slaves weren’t widespread all over the US in all aspects of creation.

[silverlessly]

>Still had no legal rights whatsoever, no legal protection, no civil rights, no property rights. They could, you know, have made them free citizens instead. It was once again a purely political and economical move, not a social one. That's ironically the reason why descendants are mad when we circle back. Even after the age of suffering, the nation didn't see them as equal but as pawns in their economical agendas while they could get killed by lynching for looking at a white woman. Absolutely no rights to live like a human, but yippi, you get 3/5 a vote.

[whitepeopletwitter]

[amarretto-cowboy]

Fun fact: Auschwitz still stands. The Anti-Semitic street signs also remain as a reminder.

Also… This is literally every civilization on the planet.

Think Hindus like seeing the Taj Mahal?

Think Ndwandwe like seeing statues of Shaka Zulu?

[bestieboomdrive]

“signs also remain as a reminder.”

White Libertarians love to “remind us” about the Holocaust. They just don’t think of it as a cautionary tale.

Fun Fact: Tons of Nazi Statues, and Architecture were happily destroyed by mobs and the government after WW2, because statues and structures that glorify the holocaust aren’t the same as installations meant to educate about the horrors of genocide.

You Fucking Idiot.

[chilled-welsh-sam]

I love how many people are going “buh the statues serve as a reminder” in the notes like no my dude they are memorials made post war during the heights of the civil rights movements by racists who wanted to keep black people opressed.

[walkingmusical]

As a history graduate, I can confirm that I have never once used a statue to study history.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Which in no way disproves the point, just like Welsh’s post doesn’t. The statues still serve as a reminder whether or not they were intended to, and whether or not you studied them in history class.

[magister-christophe]

I don’t know how you can’t see the dishonesty behind what you’re saying.

In the correct context constructs can be used to memorialize events in an appropriate way - Auschwitz used as a location of mourning and education, to remind people specifically of the atrocity of the holocaust, for example.

In the correct context, a statue of Hitler could be used to educate people on the wild fervor and idolization people had, or can have, towards dangerous political leaders. Without context, a statue of Hitler would just be a monument to Hitler.

Most of these statues scattered about the US have absolutely no context attached to them. The intent was to be monuments built to commemorate the efforts of people to victimize others, and without the correct context to say otherwise, that’s exactly what they are and always will be.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I don’t know how you can’t see the dishonesty behind what you’re saying.

>In the correct context constructs can be used to memorialize events in an appropriate way - Auschwitz used as a location of mourning and education, to remind people specifically of the atrocity of the holocaust, for example.

Okay, I’m not reading any more of your post. You’re already moving the goalposts. The clear implication was “if I don’t use these statues as a history graduate, they’re historically worthless”.

Which is false, and has nothing to do with the argument that the statues are kept around as reminders to the general public. It’s not even the first time I’ve rolled my eyes at that argument*. I also have issues with the idea of angry mobs tearing down statues, especially when they regularly went after the wrong statues. They attacked statues of black soldiers, abolitionists, even put graffiti on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.

If you want a statue removed, there are civil processes. Even if one thinks distaste for such statues is justified, that doesn’t justify the way people try to take said statues down.

A lot of people like OP justify the emotion, but gloss over the actions people choose to take because of it.

I don’t care what ad hoc nonsense you just came up with to imply the debate is about ‘appropriate’ places and ways to learn history. These folks hate the statues’ existence. They aren’t dumping the statues in front of museums, they’re going Boston Tea Party. If it was feasible, I think they’d melt the statues down on the spot.

This is BLM UK, mind you. The vandals spread over here. Someone tried to burn down Market House in Fayettesville, apparently because a small part of it was used as a slave market over a century ago and was kept as a historical exhibit. That’s about as “appropriate” as it gets.

The building was occupied, incidentally. The arsonist put lives at risk.

I pointed this out, and one of these folks blocked me.

I know you feel compelled to defend your Team, but maybe take the L every once in a while? *The last time involved a ‘history major’ who said America shouldn’t have statues of slave owners. I asked about statues of Caesar. He spewed mockery that didn’t answer the question, and blocked me.

[magister-christophe]

Individual instances of destruction that you disagree with aren’t relevant. No one here has said “every removal or destruction of property by force is justified” so I don’t know why you’re bringing these examples into it. You said something about goal post moving?

This isn’t about “defending a team”, the only team I’m on is one of intellectual honesty, which is evidently a foreign concept to you. This is a discussion about whether or not monuments (in general) should be protected based on the claim that they’re “reminders” of past events.

You said “The statues still serve as a reminder whether or not they were intended to”. This is the point you’re saying “isn’t disproven”. I’m not moving any goal posts, what I’ve said is directly on topic*.

Just saying any statue or monument “is a reminder” and leaving it at that is weasley as fuck, because aside from being worthlessly vague, the important part is what exactly they’re reminding people of. That’s what the value of reminders is derived from.

You make a list of groceries to remind you what you need. You write an event on a calendar to remind you to go. You know what’d be a shitty reminder? Just the word “reminder” written on a piece of paper.

So I made this crazy assumption that, by “the statues are still a reminder”, you aren’t claiming they’re a reminder of how wonderful the immortalized person or event was; that something like Auschwitz still standing is not a reminder of a better fuckin time, and argued from there. Is that a fair assumption to make? If not then stop being weasley about it and clarify what exactly you mean by “reminder”.

So my question is, how would you know what a statue reminds people of without context? Or what if, more importantly, the context directly contradicts that interpretation? If a monument had only existed - like the infamous Robert Lee memorials, sitting on a literal high horse - as a reminder of how wonderful and loved and honored a seditious slave-owning racist is by the people around you, why should we value this reminder?

*The topic since the very beginning of this post has been the context in which monuments remind people of past events. Every comment made on this thread is directly related to this. You need to scrub the word “goalpost” from your vocabulary.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>Individual instances of destruction that you disagree with aren’t relevant. No one here has said “every removal or destruction of property by force is justified” so I don’t know why you’re bringing these examples into it. You said something about goal post moving?

BLMers repeatedly said or implied their angry mobs removing statues was a fundamentally good idea, and refused to address the fact that many of the targeted statues were actually good people. 

I did not say or imply that BLMers endorsed all forceful property destruction/removal.

Yes, I did say you were moving goalposts, because you are.

Which I why I’m not wasting a second more of my time.

[magister-christophe]

You ignored literally everything to do with the actual discussion on this post and instead responded to the one thing that wasn’t relevant. Bravo.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I responded to the first thing I saw and declared I was running away from the debate, because rebutting your posts in detail is frustrating. I literally did not read the rest of your post, because I know I would end up wasting type typing a full response. 

And I physically should not be doing that. I already have shoulder, arm, and hand problems.

[anubianpagan]

Tbh if you can’t see the value of statues, monuments, and relics of the past as important, you’re already beyond help.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

No, they have to be the Correct Relics, and interpreted in the Correct Way.

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

If you want to get statues out of the public eye, do so in the proper way. They can be removed and placed in a museum or something for historical context. The problem is these idiots aren’t content with that, they want to destroy. They’re so foaming at the mouth mad that they even attack the statues of people who were fighting for the Union.

[silverlessly]

Given the history of the United States, I think people have the right to throw down some statues. They really do and if you disagree, you don’t care about fairness across social groups, simply useful compleceny.

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

“The only fair thing to do is to destroy property” Or maybe you’re just a psychopath.

[silverlessly]

Destroying property showcasing slave owners <<<<<<<< Everything slave owners did, and we both know it, that’s the part that goes unsaid. If you want to talk about actual psychopathy, investigate there, investigate slavery and the men on the statues. People’s reaction to it is in fact the opposite of psychpathy. That’s fairness. I said what I said

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

That excuse rings severely hollow, when they even go after the statues of people who fought in the Union and others like George Washington who opposed slavery. You really think they give a shit about the context? They want to smash for the sake of smashing, and you’re defending them!

[silverlessly]

Oh I'm sure black people remember the founding fathers era. 3/5 humans.

I'm sure George Washington had no more historically realistic reason to oppose slavery, such as economical ones that would mean the slaves would become consumers of the very job machines were developped to do faster as well as taxpayers. Mind you, the law still treating them like subhumans, but...I thought they were free men now? Strange disparity. Abject legal conditions, but still paying up. I'm sure he was a hype woke king

[whitepeopletwitter]

[amarretto-cowboy]

Fun fact: Auschwitz still stands. The Anti-Semitic street signs also remain as a reminder.

Also… This is literally every civilization on the planet.

Think Hindus like seeing the Taj Mahal?

Think Ndwandwe like seeing statues of Shaka Zulu?

[bestieboomdrive]

“signs also remain as a reminder.”

White Libertarians love to “remind us” about the Holocaust. They just don’t think of it as a cautionary tale.

Fun Fact: Tons of Nazi Statues, and Architecture were happily destroyed by mobs and the government after WW2, because statues and structures that glorify the holocaust aren’t the same as installations meant to educate about the horrors of genocide.

You Fucking Idiot.

[chilled-welsh-sam]

I love how many people are going “buh the statues serve as a reminder” in the notes like no my dude they are memorials made post war during the heights of the civil rights movements by racists who wanted to keep black people opressed.

[walkingmusical]

As a history graduate, I can confirm that I have never once used a statue to study history.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Which in no way disproves the point, just like Welsh’s post doesn’t. The statues still serve as a reminder whether or not they were intended to, and whether or not you studied them in history class.

[magister-christophe]

I don’t know how you can’t see the dishonesty behind what you’re saying.

In the correct context constructs can be used to memorialize events in an appropriate way - Auschwitz used as a location of mourning and education, to remind people specifically of the atrocity of the holocaust, for example.

In the correct context, a statue of Hitler could be used to educate people on the wild fervor and idolization people had, or can have, towards dangerous political leaders. Without context, a statue of Hitler would just be a monument to Hitler.

Most of these statues scattered about the US have absolutely no context attached to them. The intent was to be monuments built to commemorate the efforts of people to victimize others, and without the correct context to say otherwise, that’s exactly what they are and always will be.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I don’t know how you can’t see the dishonesty behind what you’re saying.

>In the correct context constructs can be used to memorialize events in an appropriate way - Auschwitz used as a location of mourning and education, to remind people specifically of the atrocity of the holocaust, for example.

Okay, I’m not reading any more of your post. You’re already moving the goalposts. The clear implication was “if I don’t use these statues as a history graduate, they’re historically worthless”.

Which is false, and has nothing to do with the argument that the statues are kept around as reminders to the general public. It’s not even the first time I’ve rolled my eyes at that argument*. I also have issues with the idea of angry mobs tearing down statues, especially when they regularly went after the wrong statues. They attacked statues of black soldiers, abolitionists, even put graffiti on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.

If you want a statue removed, there are civil processes. Even if one thinks distaste for such statues is justified, that doesn’t justify the way people try to take said statues down.

A lot of people like OP justify the emotion, but gloss over the actions people choose to take because of it.

I don’t care what ad hoc nonsense you just came up with to imply the debate is about ‘appropriate’ places and ways to learn history. These folks hate the statues’ existence. They aren’t dumping the statues in front of museums, they’re going Boston Tea Party. If it was feasible, I think they’d melt the statues down on the spot.

This is BLM UK, mind you. The vandals spread over here. Someone tried to burn down Market House in Fayettesville, apparently because a small part of it was used as a slave market over a century ago and was kept as a historical exhibit. That’s about as “appropriate” as it gets.

The building was occupied, incidentally. The arsonist put lives at risk.

I pointed this out, and one of these folks blocked me.

I know you feel compelled to defend your Team, but maybe take the L every once in a while? *The last time involved a ‘history major’ who said America shouldn’t have statues of slave owners. I asked about statues of Caesar. He spewed mockery that didn’t answer the question, and blocked me.

[magister-christophe]

Individual instances of destruction that you disagree with aren’t relevant. No one here has said “every removal or destruction of property by force is justified” so I don’t know why you’re bringing these examples into it. You said something about goal post moving?

This isn’t about “defending a team”, the only team I’m on is one of intellectual honesty, which is evidently a foreign concept to you. This is a discussion about whether or not monuments (in general) should be protected based on the claim that they’re “reminders” of past events.

You said “The statues still serve as a reminder whether or not they were intended to”. This is the point you’re saying “isn’t disproven”. I’m not moving any goal posts, what I’ve said is directly on topic*.

Just saying any statue or monument “is a reminder” and leaving it at that is weasley as fuck, because aside from being worthlessly vague, the important part is what exactly they’re reminding people of. That’s what the value of reminders is derived from.

You make a list of groceries to remind you what you need. You write an event on a calendar to remind you to go. You know what’d be a shitty reminder? Just the word “reminder” written on a piece of paper.

So I made this crazy assumption that, by “the statues are still a reminder”, you aren’t claiming they’re a reminder of how wonderful the immortalized person or event was; that something like Auschwitz still standing is not a reminder of a better fuckin time, and argued from there. Is that a fair assumption to make? If not then stop being weasley about it and clarify what exactly you mean by “reminder”.

So my question is, how would you know what a statue reminds people of without context? Or what if, more importantly, the context directly contradicts that interpretation? If a monument had only existed - like the infamous Robert Lee memorials, sitting on a literal high horse - as a reminder of how wonderful and loved and honored a seditious slave-owning racist is by the people around you, why should we value this reminder?

*The topic since the very beginning of this post has been the context in which monuments remind people of past events. Every comment made on this thread is directly related to this. You need to scrub the word “goalpost” from your vocabulary.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>Individual instances of destruction that you disagree with aren’t relevant. No one here has said “every removal or destruction of property by force is justified” so I don’t know why you’re bringing these examples into it. You said something about goal post moving?

BLMers repeatedly said or implied their angry mobs removing statues was a fundamentally good idea, and refused to address the fact that many of the targeted statues were actually good people. 

I did not say or imply that BLMers endorsed all forceful property destruction/removal.

Yes, I did say you were moving goalposts, because you are.

Which I why I’m not wasting a second more of my time.

[magister-christophe]

You ignored literally everything to do with the actual discussion on this post and instead responded to the one thing that wasn’t relevant. Bravo.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I responded to the first thing I saw and declared I was running away from the debate, because rebutting your posts in detail is frustrating. I literally did not read the rest of your post, because I know I would end up wasting type typing a full response. 

And I physically should not be doing that. I already have shoulder, arm, and hand problems.

[anubianpagan]

Tbh if you can’t see the value of statues, monuments, and relics of the past as important, you’re already beyond help.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

No, they have to be the Correct Relics, and interpreted in the Correct Way.

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

If you want to get statues out of the public eye, do so in the proper way. They can be removed and placed in a museum or something for historical context. The problem is these idiots aren’t content with that, they want to destroy. They’re so foaming at the mouth mad that they even attack the statues of people who were fighting for the Union.

[silverlessly]

Given the history of the United States, I think people have the right to throw down some statues. They really do and if you disagree, you don’t care about fairness across social groups, simply useful compleceny.

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

“The only fair thing to do is to destroy property” Or maybe you’re just a psychopath.

[silverlessly]

Destroying property showcasing slave owners <<<<<<<< Everything slave owners did, and we both know it, that's the part that goes unsaid. If you want to talk about actual psychopathy, investigate there, investigate slavery and the men on the statues. People's reaction to it is in fact the opposite of psychpathy. That's fairness. I said what I said

[whitepeopletwitter]

[amarretto-cowboy]

Fun fact: Auschwitz still stands. The Anti-Semitic street signs also remain as a reminder.

Also… This is literally every civilization on the planet.

Think Hindus like seeing the Taj Mahal?

Think Ndwandwe like seeing statues of Shaka Zulu?

[bestieboomdrive]

“signs also remain as a reminder.”

White Libertarians love to “remind us” about the Holocaust. They just don’t think of it as a cautionary tale.

Fun Fact: Tons of Nazi Statues, and Architecture were happily destroyed by mobs and the government after WW2, because statues and structures that glorify the holocaust aren’t the same as installations meant to educate about the horrors of genocide.

You Fucking Idiot.

[chilled-welsh-sam]

I love how many people are going “buh the statues serve as a reminder” in the notes like no my dude they are memorials made post war during the heights of the civil rights movements by racists who wanted to keep black people opressed.

[walkingmusical]

As a history graduate, I can confirm that I have never once used a statue to study history.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Which in no way disproves the point, just like Welsh’s post doesn’t. The statues still serve as a reminder whether or not they were intended to, and whether or not you studied them in history class.

[magister-christophe]

I don’t know how you can’t see the dishonesty behind what you’re saying.

In the correct context constructs can be used to memorialize events in an appropriate way - Auschwitz used as a location of mourning and education, to remind people specifically of the atrocity of the holocaust, for example.

In the correct context, a statue of Hitler could be used to educate people on the wild fervor and idolization people had, or can have, towards dangerous political leaders. Without context, a statue of Hitler would just be a monument to Hitler.

Most of these statues scattered about the US have absolutely no context attached to them. The intent was to be monuments built to commemorate the efforts of people to victimize others, and without the correct context to say otherwise, that’s exactly what they are and always will be.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I don’t know how you can’t see the dishonesty behind what you’re saying.

>In the correct context constructs can be used to memorialize events in an appropriate way - Auschwitz used as a location of mourning and education, to remind people specifically of the atrocity of the holocaust, for example.

Okay, I’m not reading any more of your post. You’re already moving the goalposts. The clear implication was “if I don’t use these statues as a history graduate, they’re historically worthless”.

Which is false, and has nothing to do with the argument that the statues are kept around as reminders to the general public. It’s not even the first time I’ve rolled my eyes at that argument*. I also have issues with the idea of angry mobs tearing down statues, especially when they regularly went after the wrong statues. They attacked statues of black soldiers, abolitionists, even put graffiti on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.

If you want a statue removed, there are civil processes. Even if one thinks distaste for such statues is justified, that doesn’t justify the way people try to take said statues down.

A lot of people like OP justify the emotion, but gloss over the actions people choose to take because of it.

I don’t care what ad hoc nonsense you just came up with to imply the debate is about ‘appropriate’ places and ways to learn history. These folks hate the statues’ existence. They aren’t dumping the statues in front of museums, they’re going Boston Tea Party. If it was feasible, I think they’d melt the statues down on the spot.

This is BLM UK, mind you. The vandals spread over here. Someone tried to burn down Market House in Fayettesville, apparently because a small part of it was used as a slave market over a century ago and was kept as a historical exhibit. That’s about as “appropriate” as it gets.

The building was occupied, incidentally. The arsonist put lives at risk.

I pointed this out, and one of these folks blocked me.

I know you feel compelled to defend your Team, but maybe take the L every once in a while? *The last time involved a ‘history major’ who said America shouldn’t have statues of slave owners. I asked about statues of Caesar. He spewed mockery that didn’t answer the question, and blocked me.

[magister-christophe]

Individual instances of destruction that you disagree with aren’t relevant. No one here has said “every removal or destruction of property by force is justified” so I don’t know why you’re bringing these examples into it. You said something about goal post moving?

This isn’t about “defending a team”, the only team I’m on is one of intellectual honesty, which is evidently a foreign concept to you. This is a discussion about whether or not monuments (in general) should be protected based on the claim that they’re “reminders” of past events.

You said “The statues still serve as a reminder whether or not they were intended to”. This is the point you’re saying “isn’t disproven”. I’m not moving any goal posts, what I’ve said is directly on topic*.

Just saying any statue or monument “is a reminder” and leaving it at that is weasley as fuck, because aside from being worthlessly vague, the important part is what exactly they’re reminding people of. That’s what the value of reminders is derived from.

You make a list of groceries to remind you what you need. You write an event on a calendar to remind you to go. You know what’d be a shitty reminder? Just the word “reminder” written on a piece of paper.

So I made this crazy assumption that, by “the statues are still a reminder”, you aren’t claiming they’re a reminder of how wonderful the immortalized person or event was; that something like Auschwitz still standing is not a reminder of a better fuckin time, and argued from there. Is that a fair assumption to make? If not then stop being weasley about it and clarify what exactly you mean by “reminder”.

So my question is, how would you know what a statue reminds people of without context? Or what if, more importantly, the context directly contradicts that interpretation? If a monument had only existed - like the infamous Robert Lee memorials, sitting on a literal high horse - as a reminder of how wonderful and loved and honored a seditious slave-owning racist is by the people around you, why should we value this reminder?

*The topic since the very beginning of this post has been the context in which monuments remind people of past events. Every comment made on this thread is directly related to this. You need to scrub the word “goalpost” from your vocabulary.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>Individual instances of destruction that you disagree with aren’t relevant. No one here has said “every removal or destruction of property by force is justified” so I don’t know why you’re bringing these examples into it. You said something about goal post moving?

BLMers repeatedly said or implied their angry mobs removing statues was a fundamentally good idea, and refused to address the fact that many of the targeted statues were actually good people. 

I did not say or imply that BLMers endorsed all forceful property destruction/removal.

Yes, I did say you were moving goalposts, because you are.

Which I why I’m not wasting a second more of my time.

[magister-christophe]

You ignored literally everything to do with the actual discussion on this post and instead responded to the one thing that wasn’t relevant. Bravo.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I responded to the first thing I saw and declared I was running away from the debate, because rebutting your posts in detail is frustrating. I literally did not read the rest of your post, because I know I would end up wasting type typing a full response. 

And I physically should not be doing that. I already have shoulder, arm, and hand problems.

[anubianpagan]

Tbh if you can’t see the value of statues, monuments, and relics of the past as important, you’re already beyond help.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

No, they have to be the Correct Relics, and interpreted in the Correct Way.

[politicaldiscoursejunkie]

If you want to get statues out of the public eye, do so in the proper way. They can be removed and placed in a museum or something for historical context. The problem is these idiots aren’t content with that, they want to destroy. They’re so foaming at the mouth mad that they even attack the statues of people who were fighting for the Union.

[silverlessly]

Given the history of the United States, I think people have the right to throw down some statues. They really do and if you disagree, you don't care about fairness across social groups, simply useful compleceny.

[yournewapartment]

Just wanted to share this from Diet Prada on Instagram...

Resources and Donations:

https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/

Our mission is to advance the civil and human rights for Asian Americans and to build and promote a fair and equitable society for all.

https://www.asianamericanadvocacyfund.org/

Asian American Advocacy Fund

The Asian American Advocacy Fund is a 501(c)4 nonprofit dedicated to building a progressive Asian American base in Georgia and fighting for

http://cpacs.org/

CPACS – Social Services

https://www.asianmhc.org/about-us

About Us — Asian Mental Health Collective

About Us — Asian Mental Health Collective

https://secure.qgiv.com/for/apfund/mobile

Asian Pacific Fund

Asian Pacific Fund

https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/support-georgias-asian-american-community/

Make A Gift

Donate to Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta

https://www.napawf.org/donate

Donate — NAPAWF

Donate — NAPAWF

https://www.apalanet.org/

APALA

TAKE ACTION Support Asian American Communities Facing Violence In the aftermath of the racist, sexist, and targeted killing of six Asian wom