Texas man explodes with rage at Confederate monument protestors

[PoliTalker]

Hello Oneuli,

I think the calculation here is that these people cannot be made to change -- that the kind of person who thinks it's a good idea to erect a monument to white supremacist traitors along a road named after MLK is almost certain to be irredeemable. So, the point isn't to win over those monsters. Instead, it's to make the sense of the community clear to others -- that this kind of thing is not generally accepted. That can give comfort and solidarity to racial minorities who might otherwise feel intimidated by such a racist display, and it will alert younger people, whose minds aren't yet made up, that celebrating the confederates isn't just some uncontroversial bit of heritage, but rather an aggressive gesture that will be perceived very negatively by many people. That will make it more likely they'll really think it through, rather than just passively absorbing such racism.

In other words, shaming the terrible people behind the monument isn't meant to help them. It's meant to help others who are worthy of help, including the minorities targeted by their display, and the young people the monument is meant to recruit into the confederate hate cult.

Please consider running for public office in 2020?

Your unique perspective should be more widely heard than the handful of people who visit this chat room. Your country needs you.

[Fentoine Lum]

Many things should be judged, and even shamed publicly. Our refusal to do so has weakened American society over the years.

Ultimately the power structure can only do that which, and it will pursue whatever, we the people stand down and abide.

[Oneuli]

Hello Oneuli,



Please consider running for public office in 2020?

Your unique perspective should be more widely heard than the handful of people who visit this chat room. Your country needs you.

Thanks. I'm a terrible public speaker, so that isn't going to happen. I've thought about getting involved in a behind-the-scenes capacity. The problem is my professional experience and academic training, in finance, would probably not win me over many friends on the left, despite my liberal outlook. In the present context, I'd be dismissed as a "Wall Street Democrat," or something like that, even though I think my inside perspective would be useful for designing Wall Street reform.

[SmarterthanYou]

It was entire universal.

this is like saying that the entire country voted for trump. it can't be either/or.

every german must have supported the holocaust.

every russian must have supported stalins takeover.

it's like you're totally ignorant about an oppressed minority.

[Minister of Truth]

this is like saying that the entire country voted for trump. it can't be either/or.

every german must have supported the holocaust.

every russian must have supported stalins takeover.

it's like you're totally ignorant about an oppressed minority.

Every citizen of the CSA took part in secession. There were secessionist conventions held in all of the states that became part of the CSA. Those conventions expressed a strong belief in the institution of slavery. By the same token, every American universally takes part in the principles of the Declaration and the structure of the Constitution.

This is different from the forcible introduction of Marxism into Russia by men like Lenin and Stalin. I'm typically more inclined to blame the German people for what the Nazis did.

Citizens of the CSA were not previously oppressed, and neither were they a minority. To claim otherwise is a stupid lie.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Oneuli,

Thanks. I'm a terrible public speaker, so that isn't going to happen. I've thought about getting involved in a behind-the-scenes capacity. The problem is my professional experience and academic training, in finance, would probably not win me over many friends on the left, despite my liberal outlook. In the present context, I'd be dismissed as a "Wall Street Democrat," or something like that, even though I think my inside perspective would be useful for designing Wall Street reform.

I think you should pursue it. Maybe as a speech writer / issue researcher / public outreach. I worked on the Obama presidential campaigns. Very rewarding and I definitely felt like I made a difference, brought in more votes. I should have campaigned for Bernie. I was a little tied up with too much going on then, so I now wish I had made it more of a priority. I may get involved again for 2020.

[Flash]

Uh, yeah, we really don't. People have been taught to not judge bad habits.

I can judge something without attempting to shame a person for his decision. All the Trump supporters would try to shame Hillary voters and Clinton supporters would try to shame Trump voters. I don't think you would change any minds, both sides are convinced the other has made an immoral decision, and it would create destructive actions.

[Fentoine Lum]

I can judge something without attempting to shame a person for his decision. All the Trump supporters would try to shame Hillary voters and Clinton supporters would try to shame Trump voters. I don't think you would change any minds, both sides are convinced the other has made an immoral decision, and it would create destructive actions.

Leave them all behind unto themselves and move on.

[Flash]

In other words, shaming the terrible people behind the monument isn't meant to help them. It's meant to help others who are worthy of help, including the minorities targeted by their display, and the young people the monument is meant to recruit into the confederate hate cult.

That may be the purpose, but it only creates hateful conflict. Should we also shame those who want to deny free speech to those putting up the monument?

I still think ignoring it is better than calling attention to it--the less publicity the better. Most people don't even know what it is.

[Oneuli]

That may be the purpose, but it only creates hateful conflict.

I think the monument created the hateful conflict. The question is whether the field should be ceded to the racists without a fight (knowing full well that such uncontested racism will influence the culture in a way that will cause such attitudes to seep into the minds of young people unquestioned). I'd say no. I think there's value in making it clear that the bigots behind that monument are pariahs in the minds of decent people everywhere.

Should we also shame those who want to deny free speech to those putting up the monument?

Who wants to deny them free speech?

I still think ignoring it is better than calling attention to it--the less publicity the better. Most people don't even know what it is.

I don't see a reason to believe that ignoring it will be better than standing up to it. The issue here isn't whether they should have free speech or not. The issue is whether those who disagree with them should self-censor, so as not to upbraid the tender sensibilities of the racists. I'm fine with both sides speaking their minds, and let the better ideas win out. I don't think we should create a protective bubble around racists so they don't have to hear anyone who disagrees with them.

[Fentoine Lum]

That may be the purpose, but it only creates hateful conflict. Should we also shame those who want to deny free speech to those putting up the monument?

I still think ignoring it is better than calling attention to it--the less publicity the better. Most people don't even know what it is.

Most white people? Not sure we'd have any controversy if "most people" didn't even know what it was all about.

[Fentoine Lum]

I think the monument created the hateful conflict. The question is whether the field should be ceded to the racists without a fight (knowing full well that such uncontested racism will influence the culture in a way that will cause such attitudes to seep into the minds of young people unquestioned). I'd say no. I think there's value in making it clear that the bigots behind that monument are pariahs in the minds of decent people everywhere.



Who wants to deny them free speech?



I don't see a reason to believe that ignoring it will be better than standing up to it. The issue here isn't whether they should have free speech or not. The issue is whether those who disagree with them should self-censor, so as not to upbraid the tender sensibilities of the racists. I'm fine with both sides speaking their minds, and let the better ideas win out. I don't think we should create a protective bubble around racists so they don't have to hear anyone who disagrees with them.

And boy howdy does america vomit up sensitive snowflake racists so averse to the upbraiding of their tender sensibilities.

[Oneuli]

And boy howdy does america vomit up sensitive snowflake racists so averse to the upbraiding of their tender sensibilities.

Yep. It's bizarre. Basically, the message is "It's OK for me to celebrate people who betrayed this country and murdered its soldiers in order to try to expand a system where they could rape and kill black people to their heart's content, but it's not OK for you to point out the problems with me doing so, because that would hurt my feelings." Bizarre stuff.

[Fentoine Lum]

Yep. It's bizarre. Basically, the message is "It's OK for me to celebrate people who betrayed this country and murdered its soldiers in order to try to expand a system where they could rape and kill black people to their heart's content, but it's not OK for you to point out the problems with me doing so, because that would hurt my feelings." Bizarre stuff.

Safe spaces at a premium.

[Minister of Truth]

I can judge something without attempting to shame a person for his decision. All the Trump supporters would try to shame Hillary voters and Clinton supporters would try to shame Trump voters. I don't think you would change any minds, both sides are convinced the other has made an immoral decision, and it would create destructive actions.

Frankly, both sides should be ashamed in that debate.