>If you want to claim it's patently absurd, you're going to have to make a case for it. Make the case that hip-hop is more damaging than a statue of Robert E.

>If you want to claim it's patently absurd, you're going to have to make a case for it. Make the case that hip-hop is more damaging than a statue of Robert E. Lee? Exactly how would anyone make such a case? The answer is that no one can prove it one way or the other. That and the fact that the statement even suggests that's a debate we ought to be having is exactly what makes it absurd. Both can be problems. How does an intractable debate about which is worse help anyone?