WISD0MTREE Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Caecus said: I refer to my statement above. And lol, French-Indian. I agree, people in this country need better primary education. Ok. 38 minutes ago, Caecus said: Thirdly, and this is super important, these names also serve to sanitize the southern secessionist cause. Seeing as how people can barely remember what year the war of 1812 started, people who are uninformed may (in their continued ignorance) look at these names and think to themselves that they must have been great people who have done significant things for our country. Little do they know, these people represent a fragmented identity of a section of a country built on the backs of forced servitude that actively fought in the nation's bloodiest war in order to retain the profits of owning another human being and is now being represented because there was a need for political correctness and national unity at the beginning of the 20th century; A political correctness that entirely ignored the trampled civil rights and murdering terrorists that tried to sanitize, justify, and restore a stratified hierarchy centered on the difference of skin color. Why not do what I already suggested? On 8/9/2017 at 1:29 AM, WISD0MTREE said: I do think adding plaques with more historical context would help society learn about the event/person. It solves the problem you presented above while not being totally politically correct in today's standards On 8/9/2017 at 9:01 PM, Caecus said: Political correctness is killing our nation. Libtards insisted that political correctness is good for our country, I don't believe so. What's PC can change over time. Just like how "retarded" is now an insult, but was historically a legitimate medical term, political correctness can change their standards. If you are trying to avoid political correctness in the modern world, use the modern world's standards. It's current year, afterall. Slightly off topic. I remember someone in my high school civics class had no idea what the Vietnam War was and asked "Is that the one we captured Egypt?" in a totally serious tone. I swear, some people deserve to get white phosphorus dropped on their house. Edited August 11, 2017 by WISD0MTREE Posted before done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said: I am a solid leftist liberal, and I really don't see any reason to tear down/rename the things. History really shouldn't be whitewashed. It's not really whitewashing anything. No one looks at a street sign or statue and actually learns anything. It's simply avoiding honoring traitors throughout the country. There are tons of texts and photos from that period. Are we seriously going to ignore Andersonville? There's something to be said for not honoring disreputable things, but that's why we don't have a national holiday celebrating either the beginning or the end of the Civil War. Passive acknowledgement, like having statues, is perfectly fine IMO; actively celebrating is different. 2 hours ago, Gabranth said: No the most Australians killed in any one conflict was World War 1 and we have memorials for that too, but that's besides the point. Point was we have memorials for things that wouldn't be considered memorial-worthy. Why pay respects to traitors and criminals? Because they were still Australians. Australians with an idea and a point that they tried to convey, yet unsuccessfully. The Confederates are no different, they tried to make a point and were overridden. (Plus killed an enormous amount of people) If the Geneva Conventions had existed at the time several of the Confederacy leaders would be serving very lengthy sentences for war crimes. Norway turned their biggest traitor's name into an insult. Regardless, renaming forts and streets serves no purpose either except to erase a legacy. We renamed a camp we have in South Korea to honor a military hero killed by North Koreans beating them to death. Sure, you could say that's a good thing but it is someone's legacy, and renaming it won't change anything but a street name or a fort name either. Fort Mattis and Pence St. have nice rings to them, I must admit, but even still it is important to understand the magnitude of the plans of the CSA, going so far as to name everything after themselves. I suppose if there were a time to rename anything it would be the reconstruction period, you know the kind of "denazification" they had in Germany, similar concept, but they didn't. Denazification is another aspect entirely, but the removal of Confederate monuments and mentions serves no purpose other than to erase the individual achievements of those Confederate leaders. Take that as you will. Their achievements are horrors done to loyal Americans. On the contrary, I think we should be celebrating the people who question the overreaching of the state. If you want to go by the "who started the war?" argument I'll just say that it isn't called "the War of Northern Aggression" for the meme. Regardless, the secession was perhaps the most blatant resurfacing of revolutionary American values, and anyone who dares question the Union and other powers that be should be commemorated. 250 years have gone by since the revolutionary war, there are still street names for Englishmen and memorials for English generals. Take them down too? It would've been appropriate before we established the special relationship, sure. We actually fought and lost a war to Vietnam and we're already friends with them. Germany basically has laws outlying Nazi shit from the past. There is no appeasement, only there would be outcry if there was a change without valid reason, and from where I stand, there is no valid reason. It's likely that fort Benning they named it after him simply because he was a general that had a great name, and likely no other name from Georgia holds the same weight. You could argue there are other reasons but I would say you're deluded. If they want to name a fort after a newer general, make a new fort. You can't take away someone's legacy like that simply because of your resentment for the Confederates. What would give you that idea? 49 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said: I'd say the same about monuments to any side in any war in the US's extended history. So many people think the French-Indian War was between the French and Indians. I'm not trying to claim that people have forgotten more about the Civil War, but people have forgotten history and its importance. Why remove an object to try to hide a part of history from public sight? Again, statues and street names are not history. It's all still covered in classes, textbooks and other things. Removing those would be whitewashing and risking a group forgetting the war. The statues and street names are in no way anything but glorifying traitors. If we do it, we might as well do it for all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 I would argue that the existence of a statue or street name isn't necessarily honoring anyone, it's just acknowledging them. Putting up the statue in the first place was a questionable decision, but tearing it down after the fact is just petty and unnecessary. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 12 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: I would argue that the existence of a statue or street name isn't necessarily honoring anyone, it's just acknowledging them. Putting up the statue in the first place was a questionable decision, but tearing it down after the fact is just petty and unnecessary. We could use the space and street naming for actual figures that didn't try betray the country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 11, 2017 Author Share Posted August 11, 2017 12 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said: Why not do what I already suggested? It solves the problem you presented above while not being totally politically correct in today's standards Yep! I agree. I just thought an annex of the three slaves Lee beat would really hit the message home. Or the war dead at Benning. I suppose a plaque could work, but I've learned to never underestimate people's ability to not get the point. 15 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said: What's PC can change over time. Just like how "retarded" is now an insult, but was historically a legitimate medical term, political correctness can change their standards. If you are trying to avoid political correctness in the modern world, use the modern world's standards. It's current year, afterall. Slightly off topic. I remember someone in my high school civics class had no idea what the Vietnam War was and asked "Is that the one we captured Egypt?" in a totally serious tone. I swear, some people deserve to get white phosphorus dropped on their house. Right. But I'm saying that PC is, regardless of the time frame of when it happened, inherently stupid. Just like how the verbatim equivalent of ignorance is used as an insult, regardless of what that word may be. In 1810, it was "cookynanny." In 1980, it was "stupid." In the modern era today, it is "Lightning." The point isn't that it changed over time, the point is that it still remains an insult, and it is the insult that is offensive. PC has always resulted in one thing: the objectification and commoditization of people. It's PC to not say "retarded," but still shit on people with mental illness and ignore the mental health crises in the same way it is PC to glorify confederate generals in the "spirit of reconciliation" while the entire country ignores mob lynchings and Jim Crow laws of the south. PC of these issues allow us to pretend to care about issues without having to address the root of the problem. Our changing views on what is currently PC has nothing to do with the fact that these statues and monuments were the embodiment of PC in the first place, and it's disgusting. Lol. Not DDT? Cause that would be more appropriate, I would imagine. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 58 minutes ago, Caecus said: Yep! I agree. I just thought an annex of the three slaves Lee beat would really hit the message home. Or the war dead at Benning. I suppose a plaque could work, but I've learned to never underestimate people's ability to not get the point. Right. But I'm saying that PC is, regardless of the time frame of when it happened, inherently stupid. Just like how the verbatim equivalent of ignorance is used as an insult, regardless of what that word may be. In 1810, it was "cookynanny." In 1980, it was "stupid." In the modern era today, it is "Lightning." The point isn't that it changed over time, the point is that it still remains an insult, and it is the insult that is offensive. PC has always resulted in one thing: the objectification and commoditization of people. It's PC to not say "retarded," but still shit on people with mental illness and ignore the mental health crises in the same way it is PC to glorify confederate generals in the "spirit of reconciliation" while the entire country ignores mob lynchings and Jim Crow laws of the south. PC of these issues allow us to pretend to care about issues without having to address the root of the problem. Our changing views on what is currently PC has nothing to do with the fact that these statues and monuments were the embodiment of PC in the first place, and it's disgusting. Not trying to be a dick, but what you're describing isn't really political correctness as English, especially, has been changing words in and out for centuries. What you're describing is called Dog Whistle Politics, invented and used by the GOP as a way to not say certain things, but used nouns with a clear meaning to those who understood them. Example for US usage via its Wikipedia entry: Quote The phrase "states' rights", although literally referring to powers of individual state governments in the United States, was described in 2007 by David Greenberg in Slate as "code words" for institutionalized segregation and racism.[20] In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing the Nixon's Southern Strategy, said:[21][22] You start out in 1954 by saying, "!@#$, !@#$, !@#$." By 1968, you can't say "!@#$" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "!@#$, !@#$." — Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist in an anonymous interview in 1981 Atwater was contrasting this with Ronald Reagan's campaign, which he felt "was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference." However, others like U.S. law professor and author of the 2014 book Dog Whistle Politics Ian Haney-López described Reagan as "blowing a dog whistle" when the candidate told stories about "Cadillac-driving 'welfare queens' and 'strapping young bucks' buying T-bone steaks with food stamps" while he was campaigning for the presidency.[23][24][25] He argues that such rhetoric pushes middle-class white Americans to vote against their economic self-interest in order to punish "undeserving minorities" who, they believe, are receiving too much public assistance at their expense. According to López, conservative middle-class whites, convinced by powerful economic interests that minorities are the enemy, supported politicians who promised to curb illegal immigration and crack down on crime but inadvertently also voted for policies that favor the extremely rich, such as slashing taxes for top income brackets, giving corporations more regulatory control over industry and financial markets, union busting, cutting pensions for future public employees, reducing funding for public schools, and retrenching the social welfare state. He argues that these same voters cannot link rising inequality which has impacted their lives to the policy agendas they support, which resulted in a massive transfer of wealth to the top 1% of the population since the 1980s.[26] Journalist Craig Unger wrote that President George W. Bush and Karl Rove used coded "dog-whistle" language in political campaigning, delivering one message to the overall electorate while at the same time delivering quite a different message to a targeted evangelical Christian political base.[27] William Safire, in Safire's Political Dictionary, offered the example of Bush's criticism during the 2004 presidential campaign of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision denying the U. S. citizenship of any African American. To most listeners the criticism seemed innocuous, Safire wrote, but "sharp-eared observers" understood the remark to be a pointed reminder that Supreme Court decisions can be reversed, and a signal that, if re-elected, Bush might nominate to the Supreme Court a justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade.[1] This view is echoed in a 2004 Los Angeles Timesarticle by Peter Wallsten.[28] During the 2008 Democratic primaries, several writers criticized Hillary Clinton's campaign's reliance on code words and innuendo seemingly designed to frame Barack Obama's race as problematic, saying Obama was characterized by the Clinton campaign and its prominent supporters as anti-white due to his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, as able to attract only black votes, as anti-patriotic, a drug user, possibly a drug seller, and married to an angry, ungrateful black woman.[29] Obama was accused of dog-whistling to African-American voters by using a blend of gestures, style and rhetoric, such as fist-bumps and walking with a "swagger — a rhythmic lope that says cool and confident and undeniably black", that carefully affirmed and underscored his black identity.[30] In 2012, journalist Soledad O'Brien used the phrase "dog whistle" to describe Tea Party Express representative Amy Kremer's accusation that President Barack Obama "does not love America".[31] During the United States presidential election, 2012, conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro accused the Obama campaign of anti-Semitic dog whistling after campaign staffer Julianna Smoot said in an email that Paul Ryan was "'making a pilgrimage' to Las Vegas to 'kiss the ring'" of Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson.[32] It was described as "a classic anti-Semitic dog whistle signaling voters that Ryan is in the thrall of the 'Israel Lobby'."[33] Also in that election cycle, Obama's campaign ran an ad that said Mitt Romney was "not one of us".[34] The ad, which Washington Post journalist Karen Tumulty said "echoes a slogan that has been used as a racial code over at least the past half-century",[35] ran in Ohio, a state that is only 0.52% Mormon.[36] During the 2014 Republican presidential primary in Mississippi, a scandal emerged with politicians accused of playing the race card by using such "code words" as "food stamps".[37][38][39][40] Senator Ted Cruz called for an investigation,[41] saying that "the ads they ran were racially-charged false attacks".[42] During the 2016 presidential election campaign, Donald Trump was accused of racist dog whistling.[43][44][45][46] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 11, 2017 Author Share Posted August 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said: See this blank space when I try to quote you? That's being dick enough. If you are too damn lazy to type out your reply normally, why should I go the extra mile and try to reply? 2 Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 I find it a lot better my way. I think I already said before if it bothers you that much ignore me. I didn't even mean just don't look at my posts you can have IPB hide my posts from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 11, 2017 Author Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said: I find it a lot better my way. I think I already said before if it bothers you that much ignore me. I didn't even mean just don't look at my posts you can have IPB hide my posts from you. It's hard to ignore you when you reply to my posts, even if that post isn't in reply to one of your posts. Besides, I don't know how to do that. Also, I can understand why you find your way better. All you have to do is quote, and then go to the specific section that you want to reply to and start typing. It means you don't have to scroll up and down to look at what you are replying to and then typing. It is objectively better and easier than having to quote someone and then typing in the box below. But the reason why we do it is because of a little something called common !@#$ing decency. By spending just a bit more effort, other people can save the effort of having to scroll up and down the !@#$ing forum for your damn post. For god's sake, even I give common decency to people like Lightning, and he doesn't know how to use a goddamn apostrophe! PC and Dog Whistle Politics are two different things. You are misunderstanding my analysis of what PC culture is. Edited August 11, 2017 by Caecus Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 If you alter colors too it's very easily read. If you choose not to use it that's fine. I'm not misunderstanding political correctness; it's more that what you describe is mostly dog whistling. If you are offended by that too, I have nothing to offer you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 11, 2017 Author Share Posted August 11, 2017 2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: If you alter colors too it's very easily read. If you choose not to use it that's fine. I'm not misunderstanding political correctness; it's more that what you describe is mostly dog whistling. If you are offended by that too, I have nothing to offer you. But replying is a !@#$ because, like I explained before in the last post, I have to scroll up and down the page to reply. Dog whistle politics involves using euphemisms that is understood by one particular electorate to mean a generally unpopular policy, I know. You again, misunderstood my analysis of PC culture. PC culture is the gentrification of verbatim with the intent of painting a pretty picture of inclusion without feeling the need (and subsequent guilt of inaction) of solving the inherent underlying social issues. I have described exactly that in my post. I can bold it for you so you can see where that is: 13 hours ago, Caecus said: Yep! I agree. I just thought an annex of the three slaves Lee beat would really hit the message home. Or the war dead at Benning. I suppose a plaque could work, but I've learned to never underestimate people's ability to not get the point. Right. But I'm saying that PC is, regardless of the time frame of when it happened, inherently stupid. Just like how the verbatim equivalent of ignorance is used as an insult, regardless of what that word may be. In 1810, it was "cookynanny." In 1980, it was "stupid." In the modern era today, it is "Lightning." The point isn't that it changed over time, the point is that it still remains an insult, and it is the insult that is offensive. PC has always resulted in one thing: the objectification and commoditization of people. It's PC to not say "retarded," but still shit on people with mental illness and ignore the mental health crises in the same way it is PC to glorify confederate generals in the "spirit of reconciliation" while the entire country ignores mob lynchings and Jim Crow laws of the south. PC of these issues allow us to pretend to care about issues without having to address the root of the problem. Our changing views on what is currently PC has nothing to do with the fact that these statues and monuments were the embodiment of PC in the first place, and it's disgusting. Lol. Not DDT? Cause that would be more appropriate, I would imagine. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Caecus said: But replying is a !@#$ because, like I explained before in the last post, I have to scroll up and down the page to reply. Why? I put responses color-coded and immediately after each claim. If you divided up the quotations is when it'd become tedious to go back and forth between posts Dog whistle politics involves using euphemisms that is understood by one particular electorate to mean a generally unpopular policy, I know. You again, misunderstood my analysis of PC culture. PC culture is the gentrification of verbatim with the intent of painting a pretty picture of inclusion without feeling the need (and subsequent guilt of inaction) of solving the inherent underlying social issues. I have described exactly that in my post. I can bold it for you so you can see where that is: No, I understood your claim. I just think you're wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 16 hours ago, Caecus said: See this blank space when I try to quote you? That's being dick enough. If you are too damn lazy to type out your reply normally, why should I go the extra mile and try to reply? Should have spoke up when he was doing it others such as myself... still, I'll speak up for you. 2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: Listen Milton you dumb fool. Let me show you what we have to do if we're dealing with you. I have to scroll up and copy your first line of text and put it in the quote box making: 2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: Why? I put responses color-coded and immediately after each claim. If you divided up the quotations is when it'd become tedious to go back and forth between posts Then I got to scroll up again and copy the second one: 2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: Why? I put responses color-coded and immediately after each claim. If you divided up the quotations is when it'd become tedious to go back and forth between posts No, I understood your claim. I just think you're wrong. Just two thankfully but you often have many more. On the other hand if I was to response to a normal person like when I did to Caecus I merely need to hit quote and as easy as can be I get. 16 hours ago, Caecus said: See this blank space when I try to quote you? That's being dick enough. If you are too damn lazy to type out your reply normally, why should I go the extra mile and try to reply? See how all of his text is there? He can then quote me and respond directly to what I said about his post. All very quick and easy. Show some damn common decency and act like a normal person already. Of course you know this already and keep doing it simply because you want to stop the other person from responding, that if they do you have won hence your responses of "get a better argument" and such. No. Go jump on a !@#$ arsehole. Screw you, you cowardly punk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) Now as for this thing. No they shouldn't be. This is just an extension of that movement to get monuments to people who had slaves or held (common views in their day) that are deemed unacceptable. Do that and there really is no end to it. It starts with guys like the Confederates and just endlessly grinds everything down from there. Someone said Washington for example, and do not think it'd not go there. The people wanting this are possessed, take Milton for a good example though he is quite a severe case. Edited August 11, 2017 by Rozalia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 6 hours ago, Rozalia said: See how all of his text is there? He can then quote me and respond directly to what I said about his post. My way is the same. The colored text shows what I'm responding to 6 hours ago, Rozalia said: Now as for this thing. No they shouldn't be. This is just an extension of that movement to get monuments to people who had slaves or held (common views in their day) that are deemed unacceptable. Do that and there really is no end to it. It starts with guys like the Confederates and just endlessly grinds everything down from there. Someone said Washington for example, and do not think it'd not go there. The people wanting this are possessed, take Milton for a good example though he is quite a severe case. A lot of people realize how pointless forums discussions are with people like you and opt out. At least the last sentence has the lie you argue with as if I'd said it so you appear to have safely and fully escaped from your captors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 How exactly are the Confederates traitors again, Milton? They were well within their rights to secede at the time. Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Not sure Affirmative action for everyone else people have reason to dislike in the world in terms of street names and monuments makes sense conceptually. There's a number of statues in the U.S. of Vladimir Lenin. Should they be removed if someone has a reason to feel as though this doesn't best fit their emotional well being? I thought it was kinda dopey back when them doofuses down in Virginia wanted that bust of Stalin removed from the D-Day memorial and I feel similarly about this. History is messy and censoring it won't erase it. I've spent a bunch of time in local civil war battlefields this summer, and believe it or not I haven't been overcome by the urge to start a plantation and engage in the buying and selling of other humans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Buorhann said: How exactly are the Confederates traitors again, Milton? They were well within their rights to secede at the time. As we discovered they actually were not. Working against the United States on behalf of an enemy is a traitor. Actively making war on the United States fits too. Either way, traitors. 30 minutes ago, Auctor said: Not sure Affirmative action for everyone else people have reason to dislike in the world in terms of street names and monuments makes sense conceptually. There's a number of statues in the U.S. of Vladimir Lenin. Should they be removed if someone has a reason to feel as though this doesn't best fit their emotional well being? Yes, removal of Lenin would be appropriate. It has nothing to do with emotions or forgetting history (again, if you feel you're learning anything from a street name or statue). it's pretty difficult to imagine such people having a lot of trouble even tying their shoes. It has nothing to do with erasing history. Its presence is not the determining factor or education regarding the person depicted or named. History is taught by historians properly providing an education about the individuals that were formerly depicted so there's no issue of not removing the statues currently honoring enemies of our country or their names being included in street names, especially when there are so many better candidates for that sort of thing. Stanislov Petrov was an officer at a Soviet facility used to detect missile launches from the West. His system first indicated the launch of a single missile and then five more. Believing this was due to system error he avoiding the USSR even considering launching a secondary strike onto the West, including the United States. During the Cuba Missile Crisis a submarine believed the USSR had already been struck by American missiles and only one member of the crew prevented the submarine from acting on this information by launching nuclear torpedoes. As a result the crisis was solved peacefully and a broader war prevented. His name was Vasili Arkhipov Boris Yeltsin was the first world leader to open the device and materials related to launching Russian missiles in 1995 when Russian systems detected the launch of a single missile. Believing this to be a ridiculous scenario he declined to retaliate and it was later revealed to have been an error in identifying what was sent up from Norway. Quote The Green Revolution refers to a set of research and development of technology transfer initiatives occurring between the 1930s and the late 1960s (with prequels in the work of the agrarian geneticist Nazareno Strampelli in the 1920s and 1930s), that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s. The initiatives resulted in the adoption of new technologies, including: ...new, high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of cereals, especially dwarf wheats and rices, in association with chemical fertilizers and agro-chemicals, and with controlled water-supply (usually involving irrigation) and new methods of cultivation, including mechanization. All of these together were seen as a 'package of practices' to supersede 'traditional' technology and to be adopted as a whole. The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the Green Revolution", who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers. The term "Green Revolution" was first used in 1968 by former US Agency for International Development (USAID) director William Gaud, who noted the spread of the new technologies: "These and other developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a new revolution. It is not a violent Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution." Quote Ernst Chain, Howard Florey and Edward Abraham succeeded in purifying the first penicillin, penicillin G, in 1942, but it did not become widely available outside the Allied military before 1945. Later, Norman Heatley developed the back extraction technique for efficiently purifying penicillin in bulk. The chemical structure of penicillin was first proposed by Abraham in 1942 and then later confirmed by Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin in 1945. Purified penicillin displayed potent antibacterial activity against a wide range of bacteria and had low toxicity in humans. Furthermore, its activity was not inhibited by biological constituents such as pus, unlike the synthetic sulfonamides. The discovery of such a powerful antibiotic was unprecedented, and the development of penicillin led to renewed interest in the search for antibiotic compounds with similar efficacy and safety. For their successful development of penicillin, which Fleming had accidentally discovered but could not develop himself, as a therapeutic drug, Chain and Florey shared the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine with Fleming. Quote Daniel Ellsberg is an American activist and former United States military analyst who, while employed by the RAND Corporation, precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of U.S. government decision-making in relation to the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers revealing how much of the Vietnam War effort was totally failing despite what the government was telling the citizens and others not of sufficient rank to know this. Ellsberg was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 along with other charges of theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years. Due to governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, and the defense by Leonard Boudin and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, Judge William Matthew Byrne Jr. dismissed all charges against Ellsberg on May 11, 1973. Ellsberg was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 2006. He is also known for having formulated an important example in decision theory, the Ellsberg paradox and for having voiced support for Wikileaks, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. The English physician Edward Jenner demonstrated the effectiveness of cowpox to protect humans from smallpox in 1796, after which various attempts were made to eliminate smallpox on a regional scale. In Russia in 1796, the first child to receive this treatment was bestowed the name "Vaccinov" by Catherine the Great, and was educated at the expense of the nation. The introduction of the vaccine to the New World took place in Trinity, Newfoundland in 1800 by Dr. John Clinch, boyhood friend and medical colleague of Jenner. As early as 1803, the Spanish Crown organized the Balmis expedition to transport the vaccine to the Spanish colonies in the Americas and the Philippines, and establish mass vaccination programs there. The U.S. Congress passed the Vaccine Act of 1813 to ensure that safe smallpox vaccine would be available to the American public. By about 1817, a very solid state vaccination program existed in the Dutch East Indies. In British India a program was launched to propagate smallpox vaccination, through Indian vaccinators, under the supervision of European officials.Nevertheless, British vaccination efforts in India, and in Burma in particular, were hampered by stubborn indigenous preference for inoculation and distrust of vaccination, despite tough legislation, improvements in the local efficacy of the vaccine and vaccine preservative, and education efforts. By 1832, the federal government of the United States established a smallpox vaccination program for Native Americans. In 1842, the United Kingdom banned inoculation, later progressing to mandatory vaccination. The British government introduced compulsory smallpox vaccination by an Act of Parliament in 1853. In the United States, from 1843 to 1855 first Massachusetts, and then other states required smallpox vaccination. Although some disliked these measures,coordinated efforts against smallpox went on, and the disease continued to diminish in the wealthy countries. In Northern Europe a number of countries had eliminated smallpox by 1900, and by 1914, the incidence in most industrialized countries had decreased to comparatively low levels. Vaccination continued in industrialized countries, until the mid to late 1970s as protection against reintroduction. Australia and New Zealand are two notable exceptions; neither experienced endemic smallpox and never vaccinated widely, relying instead on protection by distance and strict quarantines Ultimately resulted in the eradication of infection among humanity aside from a sample stored under heavy security within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and VEKTOR by the USSR; both with the intention of keeping samples under heavy security and stored in case smallpox ever emerges again to give more time to trying to remove it again. It having been eliminated worldwide was previously thought impossible, but was the eventual result of Edward Jenner's early work. Off the top of my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 On 8/10/2017 at 9:49 PM, ComradeMilton said: Again, statues and street names are not history. That's where you're wrong, kiddo. On 8/10/2017 at 10:06 PM, Caecus said: Yep! I agree. I just thought an annex of the three slaves Lee beat would really hit the message home. Or the war dead at Benning. I suppose a plaque could work, but I've learned to never underestimate people's ability to not get the point. Right. But I'm saying that PC is, regardless of the time frame of when it happened, inherently stupid. Just like how the verbatim equivalent of ignorance is used as an insult, regardless of what that word may be. In 1810, it was "cookynanny." In 1980, it was "stupid." In the modern era today, it is "Lightning." The point isn't that it changed over time, the point is that it still remains an insult, and it is the insult that is offensive. PC has always resulted in one thing: the objectification and commoditization of people. It's PC to not say "retarded," but still shit on people with mental illness and ignore the mental health crises in the same way it is PC to glorify confederate generals in the "spirit of reconciliation" while the entire country ignores mob lynchings and Jim Crow laws of the south. PC of these issues allow us to pretend to care about issues without having to address the root of the problem. Our changing views on what is currently PC has nothing to do with the fact that these statues and monuments were the embodiment of PC in the first place, and it's disgusting. Lol. Not DDT? Cause that would be more appropriate, I would imagine. {will respond later if accidentally post} {will respond later if accidentally post} Agent Orange would help prevent their genes from efficiently passing on, so that could work. Although, I hear napalm works wonders at that age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 12 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said: That's where you're wrong, kiddo. {will respond later if accidentally post} {will respond later if accidentally post} Agent Orange would help prevent their genes from efficiently passing on, so that could work. Although, I hear napalm works wonders at that age. So teaching history of .... something is found by looking at the Statue of Liberty? Wall Street history is contained in a meaningful way by knowing a street that was used so much it became slang? These are all pretty dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fukataka Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 9 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: So teaching history of .... something is found by looking at the Statue of Liberty? Wall Street history is contained in a meaningful way by knowing a street that was used so much it became slang? These are all pretty dumb. Well duh, its a piece of history and its an icon of New York City and so is Wall Street. What's NYC without them? On 12/08/2017 at 11:56 AM, ComradeMilton said: A lot of people realize how pointless forums discussions are with people like you and opt out. At least the last sentence has the lie you argue with as if I'd said it so you appear to have safely and fully escaped from your captors. I do believe that the people were talking about you, Milton. It's hard when you use text thats hard on the eyes and replying to quotes so that its hard for people to just straight out reply to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Fukataka said: Well duh, its a piece of history and its an icon of New York City and so is Wall Street. What's NYC without them? I do believe that the people were talking about you, Milton. It's hard when you use text thats hard on the eyes and replying to quotes so that its hard for people to just straight out reply to. Pointless to argue with a carrot. Comrade Milton failed to understand the point of my posts here, which was a simple statement that SJW's are hypocrites by only targeting subjective popular misconceptions and not fully exposing all racist actions done here in the US. Instead of being objective in their pursuits, they only go after ones which Alt-Right nutjobs will be offended by. So better just to block him or avoid direct glances in his direction in case the dumb goes airborne and you catch it. 1 Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thalmor Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Fukataka said: I do believe that the people were talking about you, Milton. It's hard when you use text thats hard on the eyes and replying to quotes so that its hard for people to just straight out reply to. 2 ComradeMilton, why do you act autistic with how you respond to people? How come you have to embed a colored text in the quote instead of just replying normally like I am with this post? I remember one time you colored the text perfectly in a way that made the text invisible and thus impossible to read unless you selected it with the mouse like you were about to copy-paste it. Why do you pick asinine ways to reply/respond to people? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 7 hours ago, Fukataka said: Well duh, its a piece of history and its an icon of New York City and so is Wall Street. What's NYC without them? NYC still, Did it stop when the WTC collapsed? No? So what would it be without the Statue of Liberty it's still New York. If you want to actually learn meaningful history related to these things you're better off grabbing some books, maybe a documentary or two; whatever. They actually have the history part everyone seems to think emanates from statues and slang for some reason. I do believe that the people were talking about you, Milton. It's hard when you use text thats hard on the eyes and replying to quotes so that its hard for people to just straight out reply to. Perhaps they should be clearer if they'd like a response, 5 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said: Pointless to argue with a carrot. Comrade Milton failed to understand the point of my posts here, which was a simple statement that SJW's are hypocrites by only targeting subjective popular misconceptions and not fully exposing all racist actions done here in the US. You didn't mention SJWs at all. Weren't you the one ranting about political correctness until you noticed it began with a Republican? Instead of being objective in their pursuits, they only go after ones which Alt-Right nutjobs will be offended by. So better just to block him or avoid direct glances in his direction in case the dumb goes airborne and you catch it. Feel free. 4 hours ago, Thalmor said: ComradeMilton, why do you act autistic with how you respond to people? Probably because I doubt people spend enough time to even bother to read my posts? IDK. People make hateful, inaccurate posts with limited, if any citations. I respond because leaving it to silence seems to imply that everyone playing is a racist hatemonger and I prefer to at least have someone oppose that. How come you have to embed a colored text in the quote instead of just replying normally like I am with this post? I remember one time you colored the text perfectly in a way that made the text invisible and thus impossible to read unless you selected it with the mouse like you were about to copy-paste it. That was just during a war. The way I respond to posts is a lot easier than the alternatives. Why do you pick asinine ways to reply/respond to people? Often because the posts or people begin by being asinine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 14, 2017 Author Share Posted August 14, 2017 The events in Charlottesville should close this argument. The statue of Robert E. Lee now promotes violence and extremism. It is a rallying sign for neo-Nazis and racial supremacy groups. Liberals have kowtowed to terrorism long enough. These terrorists should be deported back to Hungary. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.