"Alt Right" activist asks for Lenin Statue to be removed

[Flarelaine]

Actually it is objectively and demonstrably true.

Take the most prominent Confederate general, Robert E. Lee, who chose to fight for Virginia not to defend slavery, or even because he believed in secession, but because it was his home. From an excerpt from a biography about Lee:

-http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/

State's rights was more than just the political tug-of-war between the Federal and State governments, it was also the idea that Southerners considered themselves citizens of their state first and of the Union second. That is why many people chose to fight for the Confederacy, as Lee did.

That is a fucking non sequitur. Lee's decision does not illustrate whether states had more or less rights, just how he felt about it.

[Super Kami Dende]

Man are the alt-right and the antifa competing for the highest levels of retardation?

Sure looks like they do,and we don't have a clear winner yet

There is no Winner, the only loser is the rest of the normal people.

[Sama-81]

So what you mean by "in terms of statues and property rights" is that the poor right had their statue toppled, while they in-turn killed a person who disagreed with them...

OH THE CALAMITY, THAT POOR STATUE!

Is this post serious? Really? So everyone disagreeing with the statue being toppled belongs to the same extremist crowd, and automatically is allied with and shares the guilt of the guy running people over? That is just too stupid a reasoning to be taken anywhere near seriously, it really is. Not to mention that it is a bit...uncomfortable that you, drawing the reasoning to its conclusion, think it would be fine with people, for example, acting racist towards muslims after 9/11, since well poor them, they killed 3000 people or something that disagreed with them...

[Cooper]

That is a fucking non sequitur. Lee's decision does not illustrate whether states had more or less rights, just how he felt about it.

Read the whole chain. The original assertion was that not everybody who fought for the Confederacy did so to defend slavery; that some did so for state's rights.

To which the response was "This is objectively and demonstrably false. The Confederacy was more restrictive about the rights of its members states than the Union ever was."

It's actually not objectively and demonstrably false; it's arguable at best, since the Confederate Constitution was largely the same as the U.S. Constitution, and granted some new rights to member states while also removing some. What's not arguable is that some people did in fact fight for the Confederacy not out of loyalty to slavery, but out of loyalty to their state.

[-Nurot]

Is this post serious? Really? So everyone disagreeing with the statue being toppled belongs to the same extremist crowd, and automatically is allied with and shares the guilt of the guy running people over? That is just too stupid a reasoning to be taken anywhere near seriously, it really is. Not to mention that it is a bit...uncomfortable that you, drawing the reasoning to its conclusion, think it would be fine with people, for example, acting racist towards muslims after 9/11, since well poor them, they killed 3000 people or something that disagreed with them...

Is this post serious? It was billed as a pro-white rally. They were there chanting insults about race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion. People showed up for a pro-white rally, there just happened to be a statue there. The majority of the counter-protesters couldn't have given two shits about the statue. They were there to oppose white supremacy. While the majority of the people who went to an event billed as a "pro-white" rally, Surprise!, were either supporting white supremacists or were one. No they don't share the blame for running someone over, but they share the blame for their vile world views and stupidity that they were trying to spread that caused the entire mess. They were fostering hate, even you can't deny that.

Muslims aren't a race, but I like how, you jump in to defend white nationalists by claiming that i think it's okay to hate Muslims....... when the white nationalists actually hate Muslims.

Interesting defense trying to convince me somehow that I agree with white nationalists when I don't. That's some mental gymnastics there.

[Sama-81]

Is this post serious? It was billed as a pro-white rally. They were there chanting insults about race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion. People showed up for a pro-white rally, there just happened to be a statue there. The majority of the counter-protesters couldn't have given two shits about the statue. They were there to oppose white supremacy. While the majority of the people who went to an event billed as a "pro-white" rally, Surprise!, were either supporting white supremacists or were one. No they don't share the blame for running someone over, but they share the blame for their vile world views and stupidity that they were trying to spread that caused the entire mess. They were fostering hate, even you can't deny that.

Muslims aren't a race, but I like how, you jump in to defend white nationalists by claiming that i think it's okay to hate Muslims....... when the white nationalists actually hate Muslims.

Interesting defense trying to convince me somehow that I agree with white nationalists when I don't. That's some mental gymnastics there.

You tell me if it's serious or not, I asked you the same (remember?) and just took your reasoning further. You can't seriously believe that everyone not liking that statue being demolished, "the right" as you put it, have anything what-so-ever to do with the actual protesters (or the guy hitting people with his car). So why try to link the statue to them only? Why am I defending them, for finding the toppling of the statue idiotic, criminal, and way over the top? It's not like I in any way, shape or form, defend either the rally, or the car hitting people (of-fucking-course not).

That's where the analogies come in - going at it that way, which is a very popular move for extremists on either side (not saying you are one) one can simply, for example, add every muslim that protested Muhammad-drawings together, and let them all be responsible for the actions of any of them. Ie, basically all terrorists, and hundreds and hundreds of murders. Picking that example to show that using such false equivalences to vilify 'the right' as a whole ('the right' isn't a race either, btw), does more damage than good. Destroying the statue was criminal, and everyone involved have to be punished as severly as the law states they can be. I can say that while also finding the protest extremely distasteful, and wanting everyone involved committing crimes to be likewise punished.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Ah yes, tearing down statues, kinda like what happened in Europe in late medieval times.

I guess that's where the US is in it's developments as well.

When a troll falls short its so funny.

[Deleted]

When a troll falls short its so funny.

No trolling there though.

The US is a relatively young country so it makes sense that these developments are somewhat behind on the rest of the Western world that had these periods centuries ago.

[Sama-81]

When a troll falls short its so funny.

He actually has a valid point. The US is a great nation in many a way, but woefully immature when it comes to dealing with it's own, short history. Which is rather understandable though, given the circumstances, not least being so young a country.

[Flarelaine]

Read the whole chain. The original assertion was that not everybody who fought for the Confederacy did so to defend slavery; that some did so for state's rights.

"Not everybody" is correct. I agree there. But taking that to mean that the war itself was not about slavery is false. Every single declaration of secession whines about slaves.

[Celista]

I honestly doubt anyone would even care if it got torn down or removed.

Do they really think that 'antifa' and the (non-existent) 'alt-left' are communism lovers? They really are clueless.

They really do and they really are.

[alt-ithist]

As a bleeding heart democrat I would happily help them remove that piece a crap. I'm just surprise this is what they ask for and not a MLK statue or the Lincoln memorial statue as those two would definitely have cause to trigger them.

[Sama-81]

They really do and they really are.

Indeed. They are usually anarchists or a variation thereof, and to be perfectly honest, I think most of them doesn't even have the intellectual capacity to fully grasp as complicated a concept as communism. They're more akin to the 'skin heads of the left' than any sort of ideologues, after all. Just more fanatical and less homogenous a group. Well that's the case over here at least, things might be rather different in the US of course. You guys quite clearly don't have as bad a situation with ANTIFA-crazies and their political violence as for example we do, not least since nazi-wannabes seem to actually commit more political crimes than they do over there.

Edit: Oh, and over here, they most likely would have gotten pissed off at a Lenin-statue being taken down (not that we would have one in the first place). For good or for bad, the fanatical left wing-extremists tend to fully support each other in such matters. When it comes to camaraderie, they're rather impressive, unlike the right wing-extremists.

[Eliandal]

No trolling there though.

The US is a relatively young country so it makes sense that these developments are somewhat behind on the rest of the Western world that had these periods centuries ago.

I dunno . . . we're even younger technically - but when we had "statue issues" recently, instead of just pulling it down and defacing it in protest, it was covered up with a tarp until we figured out what should be done with it ;P

[Symphonic]

"Government private property" doesn't exist. Government property is by definition public.

So let's say you go to Area 51. That's government property. Are you free to go there? Or would you say it's more... private.

Anyway, I hope the alt-right never gets what it wants. All races and cultures should be important and valued, and white is not a culture. America is a culture. And America is diverse.

[GennGreymane]

SO long as no 1 gets run over over this statute.

[Mihalik]

government private property

Huh? I recommend you look up the meaning of "private property".

[Viconia]

It's as if they go this route to stick it to the leftie statue vandals.

"Look, we're pathetic too!"

[Cooper]

"Not everybody" is correct. I agree there. But taking that to mean that the war itself was not about slavery is false. Every single declaration of secession whines about slaves.

There's more to the lead-up to the American Civil War than the 1860 election. There were vast economic (even beyond slavery), cultural, and political differences between the North and the South that had been festering for 80 years. Slavery was an important factor, of course, but there was more to it than that. Even without slavery, there likely would have been a civil war sometime in the 19th century.

Remember that the North wasn't fighting to end slavery; it was fighting to preserve the Union, and the South was fighting to secede from the Union. Slavery was the immediate catalyst but it wasn't what the war was about. After all, there were four slave states that did not secede - nor were they included in the Emancipation Proclamation - and at the very end of the war the Confederacy itself was considering emancipation. Extremely restricted emancipation, but the Confederates were still willing to give up chattel slavery (on their own terms) rather than simply surrender and rejoin the Union.

Boiling the Civil War down to just slavery versus abolition is an oversimplification that does nobody any good.

[Dsc]

We (conservatives) did not start this fight. We WILL finish it.


edit:
Oh, Hey Lefties...

Almost every city has an MLK Blvd.
He was anti-gay marriage.

They'll be riotin' and thuggin' in 3... 2... 1...


[Infracted]