Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

halfmanhalfbronco

Lenin Statue to be removed

Recommended Posts

People on the right calling this a "win".

The irony?  I thought we were against censorship?  Or something.  Not sure how this is a win.  Also not sure what the hell a Lenin statue was doing here anyways, but that is besides the point.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-mayor-murray-calls-for-removal-of-confederate-monument-lenin-statue/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seattle's mayor is an authoritarian dick. Both those monuments are on PRIVATE property and are not funded by the state. I can't stand @Akkula's hero Lenin either but I don't support this effort to remove private property. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

People on the right calling this a "win".

The irony?  I thought we were against censorship?  Or something.  Not sure how this is a win.  Also not sure what the hell a Lenin statue was doing here anyways, but that is besides the point.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-mayor-murray-calls-for-removal-of-confederate-monument-lenin-statue/

A Lenin statue? WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the reason given in the article for supporting the Lenin statue. He never would have allowed an opponent's statue to stand. +++++ you Vladamir. I hope it sells for a good price.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh the irony of this statement 

Quote

State Sen. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle, weighed in on the debate on the Lenin statue, saying that it shouldn’t be removed. Carlyle, whose family left Poland in 1924 after attacks on Jewish villages, called the statue a testament to the defeat of a “murderous, painful regime.” 

“Art can be offensive and painful, but it can also bring us alive with curiosity, wonder, knowledge. Installing a political statue of a man and regime that would never allow installation of political statues of opponents is a symbolic representation of the victory of democracy and freedom over oppression,” he wrote on his blog. “And of the role of art itself.”

 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It's beautiful isn't it?

Very!

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Seattle's mayor is an authoritarian dick. Both those monuments are on PRIVATE property and are not funded by the state. I can't stand @Akkula's hero Lenin either but I don't support this effort to remove private property. 

I agree in principle, but if your neighbor erected a statue of Hitler killing people, or some other vile and offensive image, it might be appropriate to have it removed.

That said, in this instance it seems like government overreach.

 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boise fan said:

I agree in principle, but if your neighbor erected a statue of Hitler killing people, or some other vile and offensive image, it might be appropriate to have it removed.

That said, in this instance it seems like government overreach.

 

Flip your neighbor off and call him/her an asshat then. What is on your neighbor's property should be their own to do as they please as long as it isn't physically harming you or your property. Now if this neighbor knowingly moved into a neighborhood with covenants and restrictions and is violating them, it's a different conversation. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Flip your neighbor off and call him/her an asshat then. What is on your neighbor's property should be their own to do as they please as long as it isn't physically harming you or your property. Now if this neighbor knowingly moved into a neighborhood with covenants and restrictions and is violating them, it's a different conversation. 

You can't imagine something offensive enough to warrant removal?  I'm not talking political necessarily - say it were obscene, or in extremely bad taste.  Like an aborted fetus, or a graphic sex act, or murder, etc.  Surely there must be something you could imagine that would be offensive enough to warrant removal.  Even from private property. 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boise fan said:

You can't imagine something offensive enough to warrant removal?  I'm not talking political necessarily - say it were obscene, or in extremely bad taste.  Like an aborted fetus, or a graphic sex act, or murder, etc.  Surely there must be something you could imagine that would be offensive enough to warrant removal.  Even from private property. 

No I can't. Even if something offends me, what right do I have to take someone else's right away? I am not a god or an emperor. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

No I can't. Even if something offends me, what right do I have to take someone else's right away? I am not a god or an emperor. 

Wow, that's amazing restraint.  I can imagine some limited examples where things would be highly inappropriate and would go beyond a private person's rights.  Like say a graphic sex scene on a front lawn beside an elementary school, or some kind of hate mongering statue that would be extremely inflammatory.  Say some really nasty Nazi rhetoric beside a synagogue or other Jewish institution.  Like that.

It would have to be extreme.  But I can certainly imagine a few instances where it would be in the public's best interests for the government to intervene.

The article linked in this thread is nowhere near that level. 

I'd pay good money to see you go chain yourself to that Lenin statue to stop the bulldozers though!  :D

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

Wow, that's amazing restraint.  I can imagine some limited examples where things would be highly inappropriate and would go beyond a private person's rights.  Like say a graphic sex scene on a front lawn beside an elementary school, or some kind of hate mongering statue that would be extremely inflammatory.  Say some really nasty Nazi rhetoric beside a synagogue or other Jewish institution.  Like that.

It would have to be extreme.  But I can certainly imagine a few instances where it would be in the public's best interests for the government to intervene.

The article linked in this thread is nowhere near that level. 

I'd pay good money to see you go chain yourself to that Lenin statue to stop the bulldozers though!  :D

I have this thing within that prevents me from valuing my feelings more than the rights of others, even if those rights are contrary to my moral beliefs. This is not to say that I withhold my expressed opinion. For instance, I find polygamy morally reprehensible and will actively voice my disgust but yet I also believe if consenting adults freely choose to practice it, I have no authority to prevent them from doing so and am also opposed to the government banning it. 

With regard to the Lenin statue, I fully support the private owner's right to display it on their own property. I've actually been there and seen it in person. Although I found it ridiculous, it never crossed my mind to tear it down. Lastly, if I did live in Fremont, I likely would demonstrate against the forced removal of the statue.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

Wow, that's amazing restraint.  I can imagine some limited examples where things would be highly inappropriate and would go beyond a private person's rights.  Like say a graphic sex scene on a front lawn beside an elementary school,

Pretty sure there are laws preventing such things within a particular distance from schools.

43 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

or some kind of hate mongering statue that would be extremely inflammatory.  Say some really nasty Nazi rhetoric beside a synagogue or other Jewish institution.  Like that.

No laws there. Do you really care though? Is it the Jews who need to be protected from exposure to the existence of Nazi ideas? Really?

43 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

It would have to be extreme.  But I can certainly imagine a few instances where it would be in the public's best interests for the government to intervene.

We know. We just want to know whose government, Trump's? The government is only benevolent when it suits your own ideas I guess.

The public's best interest is to not have that interest decided for them from up above.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

We know. We just want to know whose government, Trump's? The government is only benevolent when it suits your own ideas I guess.

The public's best interest is to not have that interest decided for them from up above.

That's the thing about authoritarianism. Some folks might be very enthusiastic to empower the government with subjective moral authority while their team is in charge ... but what happens when the opposition assumes control? Then things aren't so fun anymore. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The public's best interest is to not have that interest decided for them from up above.

That sounds naive - government makes policy.  Saying the public's best interest is not have that interest decided by government is the opposite of what actually happens. 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boise fan said:

That sounds naive - government makes policy.  Saying the public's best interest is not have that interest decided by government is the opposite of what actually happens. 

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch and public views are not always just. As for me, I prefer a constitutional republic wherein the whims of society are kept in check by laws that are designed to protect the inalienable rights of the individual against a frantic majority. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Seattle's mayor is an authoritarian dick. Both those monuments are on PRIVATE property and are not funded by the state. I can't stand @Akkula's hero Lenin either but I don't support this effort to remove private property. 

This. 

Private property is significantly different than public property. I'd be fine with the owners of said property removing the statue the way that Duke just got rid of their Robert E. Lee statue on their own, but not forced removal by the state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...