There can be many purposes... some are even erected by members of the family in honour of their loved ones, without any political attribution at all. Kind of like a park bench.
In honor being the key phrase. Advocating taking down these statues isn't trying to erase history. Quite the opposite. It is trying to make everyone reckon with the fact that these men were not honorable and do not deserve glorification. They committed horrendous wrongs even by the standards of their day. Let me go full Godwin for a second which I think is allowed because Neo Nazis are protesting to keep the statues as well: the commandants of concentration camps loved their families, and their families loved them. Do you think it would be appropriate for the descendants of Rudolf Hoss to even put up a park bench in Auschwitz? Would it matter if they said it wasn't political? It is telling that the only argument being made is that this a slippery slope. Arguing that one statue shouldn't be taken down because you don't think another one should be isn't very persuasive, especially when it is asked why specific statues should remain and there isn't a reply.
What horrendous wrongs did they do by the standards of their day? And who are we talking about? All of them? And it's not the only argument being made... there are some statues that some online blowhards are calling to be removed that have one or two bad acts behind them, but are the founders of your fucking country. It's not like there is one and only one official stance about what statue should be taken down and why... there are countless positions being talked about and discussed by many people. What is really telling is that you're cherry picking one stance that offends you and feeds your "outrage", and trying to pass it off as the only position.
The horrendous wrongs by the standards of their day was about confederates. The slippery slope argument is the only argument that ToyToy is making. I shouldn't say only argument I guess. I should say main argument. And the only people who have brought up taking down statues of Founding Fathers on the board are those who don't like that people want to take down statues of confederates i.e men who tried to destroy what the Founding Fathers created. What stance am I cherry picking to feed my "outrage?"
With the amount of counter-protesters there, the white supremacists would be suicidal to try to start anything. Looks like they're outnumbered literally thousands to one. That being said, it only takes one bad actor....
This live feed is better. All things considered, its been pretty tame. Some strange behavior from some anti-fascist groups, but otherwise nowhere near Charlottesville and there havent been any reports of violence. I dont even think the Fascist crowd is there is anymore.
I wasnt, but I think it was generally anticipated. On the other hand if Roger Goodell made an an appearance...
You might want to try the police scanner, it's more interesting then the feeds. Counter protester with a gun, some sort of liquid attack needing an ambulance, 4 paddy wagons called in, police van surrounded.
Seems that what's happened have simmered down for the time being. Boston doesn't need more awful shit happening to it. Seems the police and security are taking things seriously.
https://qz.com/1062007/market-power...y-problem-in-the-economy-new-research-argues/ In other news, water wet, sky blue, fuck a doodle doo.... This reinforces an idea I saw floated here (by Juice?) that 1980 was a dramatically pivotal year, arguably more so than 2007 (when clouds became internet things and not poofy sky rain holders and biracial Hawaiians ran for president).
A little. But I'm suspicious of the timing of North Korea shit. Whenever Russia shit comes out, the norks always do something to escalate the situation. It's distracts the news cycle while the news anchors get war boners. The other issue is that north koreas missile systems aren't reliable enough yet to shoot off an H bomb and not have it go off over themselves. In my opinion, this is a bunch of chest puffing. They know that if war were to actually break out, North Korea would be finished. They don't want to all die.
I think it's got to do with funding... one major source of revenue for the Norks is payment to not develop nukes, and if the coffers are running dry, he might be upping his game to get a new payout.
As much as I don't want to see the US get dragged into another war, it's gotten to the point where military options need to be seriously considered. NK seems to be developing nukes with the sole purpose of holding others ransom. You can't negotiate with them under reasonable circumstances whatsoever. Would they use them? Maybe not, but it's likely enough that the risks of postponing a conflict need to weighed in comparison.