5 ms·

I don't feel a particularly strong inclination to agree or to disagree with your ideals as you lay them out in this statement. but when the standard of how to

I don't feel a particularly strong inclination to agree or to disagree with your ideals as you lay them out in this statement. but when the standard of how to judge your comment is based on practicality and not ideals, what is your _actual_ position? because you know it will take another hundred years to clear just the confederate statues.

akerl_ 5y ago
We’ve switched to practicality :) I think my position is: let’s start knocking down monuments for people who are bigots. There’s a lot of them, so it’ll take a while, but we have plenty of viable ways to remember people in context besides monuments. Eventually either somebody smarter than me finds a way to build a monument that includes context, or we just eventually run out of them.
- Veen 5y ago
  The problem is that you’re going to piss off an awful lot of people, the vast majority of people. That is impractical if you want your broader political project to succeed. Churchill is a great example of this. Tearing down statues of Churchill will set the majority of the UK population against you, even if they broadly agree with your other political goals. It’s incredibly polarising and does nothing to help the people who are actually hurt by bigotry today. That’s the problem with political purity; sometimes you have to hold your nose and accept things you don’t like; otherwise you’ll achieve nothing.
- isityouyesitsme 5y ago
  there may be a huge disconnect here. I haven't switched. I've grounded my original example in practicality. All people are awful. Give it 50 years, and you will discover things about people you hold in high esteem that you wish were not true. my example with MLK was to demonstrate that it cannot be a binary decision whether or not to celebrate the accomplishments of racists. and if you say I am wrong, I'll ask again what you intend to do with the amazing, inspiring,,.. but womanizing MLK.

akerl_ 5y ago

We’ve switched to practicality :) I think my position is: let’s start knocking down monuments for people who are bigots. There’s a lot of them, so it’ll take a while, but we have plenty of viable ways to remember people in context besides monuments. Eventually either somebody smarter than me finds a way to build a monument that includes context, or we just eventually run out of them.

Veen 5y ago
The problem is that you’re going to piss off an awful lot of people, the vast majority of people. That is impractical if you want your broader political project to succeed. Churchill is a great example of this. Tearing down statues of Churchill will set the majority of the UK population against you, even if they broadly agree with your other political goals. It’s incredibly polarising and does nothing to help the people who are actually hurt by bigotry today. That’s the problem with political purity; sometimes you have to hold your nose and accept things you don’t like; otherwise you’ll achieve nothing.
isityouyesitsme 5y ago
there may be a huge disconnect here. I haven't switched. I've grounded my original example in practicality. All people are awful. Give it 50 years, and you will discover things about people you hold in high esteem that you wish were not true. my example with MLK was to demonstrate that it cannot be a binary decision whether or not to celebrate the accomplishments of racists. and if you say I am wrong, I'll ask again what you intend to do with the amazing, inspiring,,.. but womanizing MLK.