[pjc50]

The statues are not arbitrary and many of them have been objected to for years.

Similarly, US police have been routinely murdering people for years. What social media has done is allow the creation of a "headless" protest movement that can outrun attempts to take it down.

In both cases, some people have leapt in and gone too far because they enjoy the chaos, but don't let that obscure the real issues.

No, the problem of social media is reactionary movements arising against entirely fake problems, like "pizzagate".

[umvi]

> The statues are not arbitrary and many of them have been objected to for years.

Christopher Columbus and Francis Scott Key aren't arbitrary? It's not like they were removed by a democratic process. The majority had no say. A loud minority decided they needed to come down for arbitrary reasons and did it without permission. Anyone challenging them would be browbeaten by the loud minority mobs on social media and cancelled (employers pressured to fire them, etc.). Loud minorities have effectively been making entire corporations cower and kowtow on social media during recent weeks.

[augustt]

Columbus has been a point of contention for a while now. Regardless, corporations are not saying BLM because some tiny segment of the country thinks that. A majority of America supports the movement, and that's being reflected by PR now.

The last line of defense for conservatives is "well actually there's a silent majority that thinks otherwise" and "actually most people don't care, they're just virtue signaling". And this works well when the Fox+ apparatus are the ones creating boogeymen out of minor things like CHAZ.

[umvi]

> Columbus has been a point of contention for a while now

That's a given, but it's arbitrary in that he's not generally recognized as a "symbol of slavery" like Confederate flags or statues are, so it's just minorities taking advantage of turmoil to bypass the democratic process and impose their will on everyone.

On a side note, I personally think it's wrong to retroactively "cancel" historical figures because we now judge their actions to modern morals. It's better to recognize they were victims of their time and not judge them as harshly - "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" and all.

Most of the founding fathers had slaves, but let's face it, most of us would have had slaves as well had we been born in their shoes. If we really decide it's a good idea to hold historical figures to modern standards, and cancel them if they fail the test, prepare for people in 2525 to retroactively cancel us and all of our heroes because we don't live up to the lofty (unknown) morals of 2525.

> Regardless, corporations are not saying BLM because some tiny segment of the country thinks that.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about meaningless virtue signalling that corporations attempt to try to ingratiate the small, but extremely loud, mobs on social media (think GitHub changing master branch name). It's a corporation's worst PR nightmare to be harangued by the mob on social media.

[triceratops]

> he's not generally recognized as a "symbol of slavery"

He's not recognized as a symbol of plantation slavery because it didn't exist at the time. But he enslaved the native population of Hispaniola and was incredibly inhumane and cruel to them. So much so that the Spanish crown "canceled" him. Crazy, right?[1] He also never set foot on the US mainland. There aren't really any good reasons to have statues of the guy around.

> Most of the founding fathers had slaves

Is anyone taking down statues of Jefferson, Washington, Adams and co? You're drawing a false equivalence between them and Confederate leaders.

Confederate leaders engaged in high treason, and took up arms against their countrymen to defend their right to own other human beings. They deserve to be "canceled". There was already a public hearing about all of this 160 years ago. It was called the Civil War and they lost. The only reason these people weren't tried and executed for treason is because the Union saw fit to offer generous terms in order to end the conflict quicker and save lives (note how it never occurred to the Confederates that they too could save the lives of their own people, if only they gave up on their determination to own other human beings).

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Accusatio...

[dragonwriter]

> The only reason these people weren't tried and executed for treason is because the Union saw fit to offer generous terms in order to end the conflict quicker and save lives.

On the other hand, they were (at least those vary many who had sworn oaths to the federal Constitution that were broken in rebellion) permanently barred by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (not coincidentally the same one that expressly imposed due process and equal protection constraints on the States) from public service, federal or state, unless rehabilitated by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress. It seems silly to honor and celebrate people whose acts against the country were so extreme as to warrant the creation of such a bar in response.

[rorykoehler]

I think you're arguing in good faith however we should normalise destroying what are essentially idols. It needs to go way way deeper than pulling down a statue though. Right through the education system. In order to not cancel historical figures we can be more honest about them. Add the current events and their background to the curriculum and discuss why they happened, AFTER, you have taught the children the history through the lens of the white colonialist (as is currently done in school). That would be a far greater educational experience than anything on offer today anywhere.

[pjc50]

The confederate statues were erected many years after the war they had lost, specifically to promote white supremacy. Lee wasn't ""cancelled"", he surrendered, and was shown considerably more mercy than the 20th century showed to the surrendering Nazis.

Putting up a statue of Lee was whatever the opposite of virtue signalling is - vice signalling?

[google234123]

I'm not sure what the point of is of bringing up how Lee was treated at the end of the civil war. It's hard to say how handling things different at that time would have actually gone.

[syshum]

>>BLM because some tiny segment of the country thinks that. A majority of America supports the movement, and that's being reflected by PR now.

A majority of the nation supports the Statement "Black Lives matter" a Majority of the nation supports reforming the police and holding them accountable. And a majority of the nation supports ending systemic racism in our laws and institutions

BLM as movement / organization however has many many positions that are not supported by the majority, the organizers are self described Social Marxists, the BLM Foundation web site speaks of breaking down the nuclear family, and with in the movement is also an undertone of socialism even communism none of which is supported by the Majority of the nation

[stronglikedan]

> And a majority of the nation supports ending systemic racism in our laws and institutions

I'd wager that a majority of the nation knows there's no "systemic" racism in our laws and institutions, but does support ending the institutional problems that affect everyone who enters the justice system.

[syshum]

I dont know that I agree there is no racism in the laws. The War on Drugs is littered with laws that seem to have no other explanation that targeted racism. The most well known example is the Sentencing disparity between Crack and Cocaine.

I would agree that not everything that is claimed to be racism based is in fact racism based, alot of it is Class based as well. But to say there is NO racism in the law is also an position that is not supported by the historical record

[umvi]

> I would agree that not everything that is claimed to be racism based is in fact racism based

It's hotly debated topic. Sometimes, statistics clearly show that some system has a racial bias. But often it's misleading because the variable the system is _actually_ selecting might be poverty, not race. The racial bias only appears due to the fact that <race> is disproportionately impoverished.

[127]

Yes, the majority of corporations supports virtue signalling at zero cost and making money.

[GaryNumanVevo]

Implying that these statues were put up were done so by a democratic process?

[rayiner]

> Christopher Columbus

I’ve been calling for the cancellation of Columbus since at least 2015. In part because he was a genocidal maniac. But mainly because it would give us an excuse to turn Columbus Circle in DC into a proper intersection.

[stronglikedan]

Grant is most certainly arbitrary.

[google234123]

Your statement that US police have been routinely murdering people for years is exaggerated.