Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Guess which religion is funding all the -isms you so hate?  That's what I mean by getting to the root of the problem.

I wouldn't blame it on religion. Republicans seized on it to unite people in hate. Next.

13 minutes ago, eclipse said:

As for deplatforming the big guys, that's still a sticky issue.  I'm all for kicking Alex Jones since he was telling his followers to harass grieving parents (which IMO falls under inciting violence). 

Many have, and many have advocated for dog whistle hate. Again, what's the issue?

13 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I'm also for keeping Trump's tweets around and corrected, because he's a goddamn embarrassment, and we need to learn from it.

I never disagreed here. Twitter itself isn't removing him because he's president. Once he's no longer president he's gone from it while his tweets are preserved. Leader of the free world needs transparency, and his transparency leaves him mocked.

Quote

What I'm not for is silencing individuals solely for their views - let them be a pain in the ass first, then kick them for ToS violations. 

I literally said this. You're not reading my points. That's not deplatforming. A platform is something that raises a voice above another, hence a platform and not a voice. Those people don't have a platform, they're another user.

Quote

Furthermore, it doesn't take into account stuff like leadership changes - so if one president is a homophobic ass and another isn't, deplatforming the ass means that the new one may not be able to turn the brand around.

I can't parse this.

Quote

As for various mod decisions, you're speaking with no context.  I have more of it, and know why things panned out the way they did, plus a bunch of other shit that I'm not going to make public.  There are some things that happened in back that would make your hair stand on end.

All I'm hearing is that you guys sat on your hands allowing a virulent racist to spew his garbage. I'm a mod for two larger communities, there's no context to excuse the inaction, I just got behind the firing of a racist ass admin in a bigger community than this, as one of the other admins, and I'm not shying away from my faults or the lack of inaction in the scenario. it's insulting since this forum has the appearance of refusing to do the bare fucking minimum to stand up for anti-racism causes. When Logan Paul has become more enlightened on racism and acknowledging past racism and privilege than this forum, you've got a problem.

13 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Lastly, when I tell you that you'll understand when you're older, I mean it.  Think of how much your views have changed over time.  Think of how much more they'll change as you live your life.

I'm sure you'll understand why I'm going off about all this when you're older. Trust me.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, Lord Raven said:

I'm sure you'll understand why I'm going off about all this when you're older. Trust me.

Doesn't work in reverse, since I'm older than you.  Nice try, though.

2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

All I'm hearing is that you guys sat on your hands allowing a virulent racist to spew his garbage. I'm a mod, there's no context, I just got behind the firing of a racist ass admin in a bigger community than this, as one of the other admins, and I'm not shying away from my faults or the lack of inaction in the scenario, since this forum has the appearance of refusing to do the bare fucking minimum to stand up for anti-racism causes. When Logan Paul has become more enlightened on racism and acknowledge past racism than this forum, you've got a problem.

Believe what you want.  But I'm not going to advocate silencing you because you're speaking from ignorance.

3 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I can't parse this.

You haven't seen a company's philosophy change with the leadership, ever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eclipse said:

Doesn't work in reverse, since I'm older than you.  Nice try, though.

It doesn't work at all. You'll understand when you're older. Mentally at least, since a mod is intent on criticizing instead of trying to add anything of substance. Your arguments are generally weak and you're talking down to me because you prefer to talk down rather than engage. You've had a history of doing this and I've had a history of fighting back against the attitude.

You said to talk to racists, if you think I'm ignorant then you're not following your own philosophy. I had to argue with racists four years ago, all they did was leave because they couldn't handle it. If bigotry was rooted in logic then it would be easy to destroy.

2 hours ago, eclipse said:

Believe what you want.  But I'm not going to advocate silencing you because you're speaking from ignorance.

I'm arguing against your ignorance, too, but in a different place. Don't take shots at me like a 12 year old, though. I am in disbelief it took years to ban Life. The fact that it wasn't simple is an indictment on you guys and how little this forum actually cares about racism.

In fact, if you had dropped it (deplatform!) Instead of insisting on getting the last word, this discussion would be over and it would run out of oxygen. But you insist on arguing that someone who said that transpeople are no better than eunuchs deserved to continue to post for years.

EDIT: he said they were subhuman because they were eunuchs. Lol

2 hours ago, eclipse said:

You haven't seen a company's philosophy change with the leadership, ever?

No, your communication skills are genuinely awful so I don't know what point you're making. I thought your communication would improve with age but it seems to have regressed, so maybe you won't understand anything when you're older.

Or better yet, you'll understand if you're darker. 🙂

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eclipse said:

You haven't seen a company's philosophy change with the leadership, ever?

Responding to your original point on this, with this clarification: If you deplatform @realDonaldTrump on Twitter for saying racist shit, you've deplatformed @realDonaldTrump, not the office of the presidency.

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Meanwhile, I think fighting racism doesn't mean that merely shutting them up will help.

Nobody saying this has ever addressed the evidence that deplatforming does help reduce racism elsewhere, which has been linked here. Nobody here who has said "well actually, deplatforming doesn't work" has provided evidence beyond "well if you think about likely outcomes..."

There's a reason no self-respecting user—or former user—on this site takes this board seriously.

This board isn't taken seriously because it's extremely rarely an honest exchange of ideas and evidence and rationales, and instead it's one or both sides simply repeating their own points. And despite the pinned thread on these boards I'm not convinced anyone has read it in years.

This board isn't taken seriously because when anyone makes a normative argument people frame it as "well I don't think we should control how people act" rather than actually having a discussion.

This board isn't taken seriously because it has a history of allowing ragingly insane bad-faith actors a privileged platform and has never actually grappled with it (at least not publicly, which is the important part), or the effects it's had on the users who were forced to tolerate them for years while just being told we didn't know the context.

eclipse you have absolutely been talking down to raven this entire time rather than responding to any of his substantive points (addendum: you did in your most second-most recent post). It's a bad look for these boards when the only mods willing to post in SD take responding to the people there less seriously than if they were responding to a mafia game. "Your views will develop as you get older" is true, obviously, but it's an absurd argument to make to even a child, let alone a grown adult. If you're so much wiser than the rest of us, use that wisdom to make a decent argument rather than talking down to us as if we're merely children who don't understand how the world works.

I used to think the serious discussion board was a useful containment zone to keep all this bullshit away from the rest of the forums, but as I've gotten older I have gotten wiser, and realized this is just a blight on everyone who posts here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, euklyd said:

Nobody saying this has ever addressed the evidence that deplatforming does help reduce racism elsewhere, which has been linked here. Nobody here who has said "well actually, deplatforming doesn't work" has provided evidence beyond "well if you think about likely outcomes..."

There's a reason no self-respecting user—or former user—on this site takes this board seriously.

This board isn't taken seriously because it's extremely rarely an honest exchange of ideas and evidence and rationales, and instead it's one or both sides simply repeating their own points. And despite the pinned thread on these boards I'm not convinced anyone has read it in years.

This board isn't taken seriously because when anyone makes a normative argument people frame it as "well I don't think we should control how people act" rather than actually having a discussion.

So what's the discussion? If deplatforming does or does not work? Because even that article does mention that little research has actually been done on this. But okay, I'm willing to look into this topic more to see what the outcomes are.

Whatever you conclude on this, what if the person does truly believe that it should not be done even if it does help? Is there even a discussion to be had at that point?

You're right that it would become repetition of talking points at that stage, then. What else is there to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

So what's the discussion? If deplatforming does or does not work? Because even that article does mention that little research has actually been done on this. But okay, I'm willing to look into this topic more to see what the outcomes are.

Whatever you conclude on this, what if the person does truly believe that it should not be done even if it does help? Is there even a discussion to be had at that point?

You're right that it would become repetition of talking points at that stage, then. What else is there to say?

Those are fine responses! They're also not what occurred in this thread.

"I don't think deplatforming helps"
"Well, according to the research that has been done, it does"
<silence>

If someone believes that it should not be done regardless, then they should make that case, but not without addressing the people who responded to their earlier points. You acknowledge the evidence that it does work, and you make the case for why even if it does, it shouldn't happen. You dig into why it's more important that nobody be deplatformed, and you engage with the rebuttals to that. Eventually, you will likely come to a true impasse of ideals, e.g., "I value all people having an unrestricted platform to speak from more than I value corporations having the ability to control their platforms," and at that point there may simply be nothing left to say. That's a discussion to be had, but its endpoint is several layers deeper than anything we've seen here.

It requires genuine effort to engage in a longform discussion, and that is not happening in this thread. It's not even repetition of talking points--that was several pages ago.

 

Quote

Because even that article does mention that little research has actually been done on this.

AFAICT raven only posted the first Google result, here's another: https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/8/8/20759995/8chan-deplatforming-extremism-white-house-censorship

Edited by euklyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

So what's the discussion? If deplatforming does or does not work? Because even that article does mention that little research has actually been done on this. But okay, I'm willing to look into this topic more to see what the outcomes are.

Whatever you conclude on this, what if the person does truly believe that it should not be done even if it does help? Is there even a discussion to be had at that point?

You're right that it would become repetition of talking points at that stage, then. What else is there to say?

I think it's been repetition for the last page or so, but the tl;dr for me is I don't trust anybody to be making the ruling on what is and isn't acceptable to say on a monopolistic public square, unless it's inciting violence.

20 years ago, gay rights were controversial,and trans rights were unheard of.  If that debate was today, and the people in charge of Facebook, Twitter, etc decided that being gay was immoral and deplatformed anybody who advocated for those rights, it would have been well within their power.  What is hateful is highly subjective, and traditionals might decide me being married to my wife is hateful to the idea of traditional marriage, and people like me should be banned from Facebook and Twitter, because there are impressionable children on those sites.  As a matter of principle, I am against deplatforming of anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rezzy said:

I think it's been repetition for the last page or so, but the tl;dr for me is I don't trust anybody to be making the ruling on what is and isn't acceptable to say on a monopolistic public square, unless it's inciting violence.

20 years ago, gay rights were controversial,and trans rights were unheard of.  If that debate was today, and the people in charge of Facebook, Twitter, etc decided that being gay was immoral and deplatformed anybody who advocated for those rights, it would have been well within their power.  What is hateful is highly subjective, and traditionals might decide me being married to my wife is hateful to the idea of traditional marriage, and people like me should be banned from Facebook and Twitter, because there are impressionable children on those sites.  As a matter of principle, I am against deplatforming of anybody.

Those things were deplatformed and it eventually became realized through other platforms willing to give it a platform that they should have rights. Eventually the logical argument won, free speech and free enterprise were kept, and eventually homophobes will be deplatformed for inviting hate on private platforms.

I don't see the inconsistencies in our arguments. They were given a different platform after being deplatformed, they protested, and they continued to win and win and win. Homophobia and transphobia have gone down over time because the -phobes have gradually been told to fuck off (because they don't care the absurdity of their viewpoints even when explained through a religious lens) and been told to fuck off by the public (which consists of private citizens and corporations). Because the more open minded parts of the public realize that their rhetoric incites hatred, violence, and discrimination, which are antithetical to democracy.

To treat social media companies as a monopoly or an oligarchy is really inaccurate considering the actions of Twitter and Facebook over the past month have been polar opposite. Especially since the latter is fine with all the hate speech.

But, I mean, the fact that reddit had allowed these communities to fester and eventually kill more than a couple people shows it as a public safety & health issue... Especially when mass killings are linked with media anxiety and hate.

Don't fall into the paradox of intolerance.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

I wouldn't blame it on religion. Republicans seized on it to unite people in hate. Next.

IIRC, the Pope has even publicly shown support for something like Black Lives Matter. I definitely agree that one particular religion isn't the root of the problem, bad actors from within that religion and outside of it have just continuously picked groups to assault and preyed on religious people by making them think they're victims and with bullshit like "Religious Liberty".

On the subject of deplatforming folks from Social Media sites, I think it should ultimately be up to the private company in question to decide what they do and the avenue of feedback being their own audience's support/discontent for their actions and lack of it. As it's already been mentioned, the bolded is pretty much in line with how Conservatives typically want things to go but in the context of Social Media, they display opposite behavior and many don't seem to have much of a problem with the Government jumping in to try regulate "anti-conservative bias". That's just their usual hypocrisy and Trump's crusade against Twitter in particular is a more accurate example of the 1st Amendment being attacked than some idiot like Alex Jones being banned or Candace Owens being suspended which is the typical shit you see them cry "MUH 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS" for. In such instances, it is often because the Conservatives go into or approach areas like inciting violence or discrimination of specific groups which is often regulated in Terms of Service/Company policies... as I may have said before on this thread, a KFC employee is held to higher standards than our President when it comes to social behavior and the "unfairness" the Conservatives see in such figures being banned isn't exactly helped when politicians on their side just toss vague arguments like "you're attacking our values" in the context of racism/bigotry. In several cases their solution appears to be to just keep saying that something never happened and a good example of this is the use of the Southern Strategy by the Republican party which some in the GOP have publicly apologized for but many would prefer to just make the claim that there is no such thing and follow it up with claims that the Democratic party is basically doing slavery via the social safety nets and programs that assist the poor.

"Let the racists speak as they wish and people will see who the racists are" doesn't exactly work because that's just one interpretation as to why someone is seeing some outrageous bullshit post from say, Alex Jones on the platform. I would argue that a more common interpretation is that such behavior is more acceptable than it may have been previously and that's pretty much what we're seeing with the rise in public racist tirades after Trump got into office. That's not just me talking out of my ass here either, white supremacists and far-right nuts celebrated Trump's victory and touted their bigotry and racism (which they portray as the "truth") being validated as his win while downplaying the 3 million vote discrepancy as "Mexifornia votes". 

"I don't trust anybody to be making the ruling on what is and isn't acceptable" is a strange thing to say because they've already made that decision and publish it on their Terms of Service and you agree to it when you join. It then comes down to enforcing that and If they find that someone violated their ToS and choose to deplatform someone, it is their decision and they should be prepared to defend it and if they fail, reverse it and eat the shit they've received as a result. It's super easy to jump into a conversation like this and interpret things as it being "people wanting to deplatform others because they disagree" but it's more about removing bad actors with a history of lying and arguing in bad faith. A good example of this is Fox News and one their prime-time "Opinion" show hosts, Tucker Carlson. If you watch him on a Politicon debate and compare it with many of the segments in his show, you'll see that on the latter, the dude has a habit of pandering to white fear and attacking people in ways that could lead to libel lawsuits. In that instance as well as a lawsuit related to how their coverage in COVID-19 is essentially a public health risk, they basically argued that the 1st Amendment protects their right to lie and that "it's a commentary show so he doesn't have to check the facts". Fox News and Tucker Carlson are bad actors when it comes to their coverage of politics and they have to be held accountable in some fashion... the government can't and shouldn't, the audience they cultivated won't, Advertisers occasionally do when they pull their ads from shows like Tucker's, Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Twitter can and SHOULD threaten Fox News that they'll be removed off their platform if they're not careful with the shit they put in there because Fox News has made it clear that they have no problem with being a source of disinformation.

Quote

Platform manipulation and spam: You may not use Twitter’s services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people’s experience on Twitter. Learn more.

Deplatforming works and removing users that violate the Terms of Service is something Twitter SHOULD do regardless of who it is, be it the President or Politicians. The US is too fucked up at the moment and a disagreement will put labels on you that you don't even identify with or care about and this is largely in part due to bad actors like Tucker Carlson.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, whaddya know, I didn't even have to find the jpeg, it was still in my attachments from the last few times I had to post this

DHbvA72XcAA7ZLN.thumb.jpg.3ee3a1d8eea96032310b677be7544eed.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, Karl Popper also wrote:

Quote

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

I don't think that actually jives with what you are trying to imply.

Not that it really has anything to do with tolerance or respect for bad ideas in my view. I can understand why people like Alex Jones are removed for repeatedly saying things that are indistinguishable from physical threats or why Richard Spencer may be removed for promoting violence in the form of genocide against Jews. In fact, these would be punished more severely in other countries that have more strict hate speech laws than the United States. It's more that I don't trust these companies to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong because they are poor at it and have removed many people who are simply not intolerant.

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

"I don't trust anybody to be making the ruling on what is and isn't acceptable" is a strange thing to say because they've already made that decision and publish it on their Terms of Service and you agree to it when you join. It then comes down to enforcing that and If they find that someone violated their ToS and choose to deplatform someone, it is their decision and they should be prepared to defend it and if they fail, reverse it and eat the shit they've received as a result. It's super easy to jump into a conversation like this and interpret things as it being "people wanting to deplatform others because they disagree" but it's more about removing bad actors with a history of lying and arguing in bad faith. A good example of this is Fox News and one their prime-time "Opinion" show hosts, Tucker Carlson. If you watch him on a Politicon debate and compare it with many of the segments in his show, you'll see that on the latter, the dude has a habit of pandering to white fear and attacking people in ways that could lead to libel lawsuits. In that instance as well as a lawsuit related to how their coverage in COVID-19 is essentially a public health risk, they basically argued that the 1st Amendment protects their right to lie and that "it's a commentary show so he doesn't have to check the facts". Fox News and Tucker Carlson are bad actors when it comes to their coverage of politics and they have to be held accountable in some fashion... the government can't and shouldn't, the audience they cultivated won't, Advertisers occasionally do when they pull their ads from shows like Tucker's, Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Twitter can and SHOULD threaten Fox News that they'll be removed off their platform if they're not careful with the shit they put in there because Fox News has made it clear that they have no problem with being a source of disinformation.

They may have terms of service, but this is only a justification for why they would ban people. If they wanted to, they could ban you just because they don't like you and you have no recourse. It's their website, and that's how it currently works.

I understand that it is sad that conservatives seem to take issue with this particularly facet when the "they are a private company, they can regulate themselves" is a right-wing argument, but terms of service is little more than a vague idea of what they may do.

Or: if you want an actual example - think about how many times Trump has broken Twitter's terms of service and has had immunity from it.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

And yet, Karl Popper also wrote:

I don't think that actually jives with what you are trying to imply.

Not that it really has anything to do with tolerance or respect for bad ideas in my view. I can understand why people like Alex Jones are removed for repeatedly saying things that are indistinguishable from physical threats or why Richard Spencer may be removed for promoting violence in the form of genocide against Jews. In fact, these would be punished more severely in other countries that have more strict hate speech laws than the United States. It's more that I don't trust these companies to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong because they are poor at it and have removed many people who are simply not intolerant.

Popper died before the internet took off. Rational arguments and public opinion are not keeping white supremacists in check on Twitter and Facebook. You might not trust those companies to handle these issues, and that's fair since they're downright untrustworthy for a lot of reasons. However, you have to pick between three ways to stop intolerant speech and the organization of hate groups:

  • The company moderates its platform and removes racist shitheads
  • The government tries to regulate the platform in some way
  • People boycott/move to an alternative in such numbers that effectively kills the platform's influence

Of these, the first is the simplest and most realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, eclipse said:

Doesn't work in reverse, since I'm older than you.  Nice try, though.

Believe what you want.  But I'm not going to advocate silencing you because you're speaking from ignorance.

You haven't seen a company's philosophy change with the leadership, ever?

 

How old are you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

They may have terms of service, but this is only a justification for why they would ban people. If they wanted to, they could ban you just because they don't like you and you have no recourse. It's their website, and that's how it currently works.

I understand that it is sad that conservatives seem to take issue with this particularly facet when the "they are a private company, they can regulate themselves" is a right-wing argument, but terms of service is little more than a vague idea of what they may do.

Or: if you want an actual example - think about how many times Trump has broken Twitter's terms of service and has had immunity from it.

I'm aware and I wasn't trying to argue that big tech companies should be trusted but instead pointing out that they have a rule set which they're supposed to operate with and when they fuck up, they should get shit for it just like the government and any other company if they deserve it. As Johann just pointed out...

1 hour ago, Johann said:

Popper died before the internet took off. Rational arguments and public opinion are not keeping white supremacists in check on Twitter and Facebook. You might not trust those companies to handle these issues, and that's fair since they're downright untrustworthy for a lot of reasons. However, you have to pick between three ways to stop intolerant speech and the organization of hate groups:

  • The company moderates its platform and removes racist shitheads
  • The government tries to regulate the platform in some way
  • People boycott/move to an alternative in such numbers that effectively kills the platform's influence

Of these, the first is the simplest and most realistic.

It's not about trusting the tech company, it's more about pushing them to be consistent with their rules and supposed values as well as taking out the garbage from Conservatives and crazy far-left morons that deserve it. Again, Conservatives only hate option #1 here because they're being affected and that's partly due to damage they've brought upon themselves... just recall Ben Shapiro's tantrum on BBC that started from Andrew Neil referring to the Abortion policies that Conservatives in the US support as "taking us back to the dark ages", that illustrates just how some folks in the US are so convinced that they're in right that dissent from someone in their own camp but in a different country is immediately seen as the "enemy".

 

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bad news sluts eclipse wants to take a break from modding and i'm the only guy who is willing to monitor this thread in her absence so you'd better watch your fucking mouths

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2020 at 2:25 PM, Excellen Browning said:

This is christian nationalist narrative and complete  courseworK

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

In other news, the statue of Theodore Roosevelt in front of New York's Museum of Natural History is due to come down soon. Blame the accusations of racism from an era long gone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Armchair General said:

In other news, the statue of Theodore Roosevelt in front of New York's Museum of Natural History is due to come down soon. Blame the accusations of racism from an era long gone.

86a1763852cd321b77ab94d1aa88c3da.jpg

Is this not the statue in question? I can kind of understand this one being taken down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Dai said:

86a1763852cd321b77ab94d1aa88c3da.jpg

Is this not the statue in question? I can kind of understand this one being taken down.

I don't really see why, considering that there were Native Americans in the Rough Riders and he was the first President to invite an African-American (Booker T. Washington) to the White House as an guest of honor...Although it did piss off the Southerners.

Edited by Armchair General
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah this isn't sjwism gone mad this is absolutely Sick White Guy Flanked By Other Not White Guys To Show How Cool He Is

 

i won't speak a word against ted roosy himself, but the statue is in pretty poor taste

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TR did once say letting Spain keep the Philippines after the Spanish-American War was "like leaving Arizona to the Apaches"- meaning a stupid idea. Thats probably just the tip of an iceberg on Native Americans for him. And don't forget his "Gentleman's Agreement" with Japan- wherein Japan promised to stop immigration to the US. And, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine- the Big Stick Policy, was belittling of Latin America- he encouraged the ripping of Panama from Colombia for the sake of that Canal.

 

Ultimately, I would say that for his time however, TR was "on the right side of history". Not perfect, but unlike the regressive force called the Confederacy decades prior- "the wrong side of history", TR, at least in economic and environmental policy, was a step in the direction towards "progress".

Edited by Interdimensional Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Ms. Futter made clear that the museum’s decision was based on the statue itself — namely its “hierarchical composition”—- and not on Roosevelt himself, whom the museum continues to honor as “a pioneering conservationist.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/arts/design/roosevelt-statue-to-be-removed-from-museum-of-natural-history.html

For context, TR is not being canceled. The statue just sucks, as Ike said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, euklyd said:

For context, TR is not being canceled. The statue just sucks, as Ike said. 

op nailed it

 

14 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

TR, at least in economic and environmental policy, was a step in the direction towards "progress".

yes, he was, and he should be remembered with monuments that aren't him on a sick horse flanked by the minorities he wasn't really championing but was more on the side of than his peers, themselves depicted stereotypically

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

Well, nobody is perfect  back then. Even George Washington owned slaves and released them upon his death, but I don't think it's worth starting a riot to tear down a statue of him.

 

Just now, Integrity said:

yes, he was, and he should be remembered with monuments that aren't him on a sick horse flanked by the minorities he wasn't really championing but was more on the side of than his peers, themselves depicted stereotypically

Oh, I'd say TR should in general stay. Not the above statue of him at the Museum of Natural History, it's totally racist and should be removed. But this one:

Spoiler

5af0a0571e979.image.jpg?resize=1200,800

Yes, it should stay. Because it has no racist imagery, and is built on an empty little island in the Potomac, surrounded by little except nature. As its context emphasizes the environmental aspect of Theodore Roosevelt, I think it's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...