[Macros]

I said governator for presinator knowing full well he was born in Austria and can not be president.

to clarify, I do not think "just a bit of harmless fun" Ahnauld would be a good president. considerably better than tangerine man, but not a good president.

Whilst the point on more extreme idealists possibly coming into politics is valid, there's still going to be too much money floating about forth the usual sycophants and stand dirty politicians to disappear entirely

[Malankazooie]

The president of the United States.

[worry]

I thought it was a joke when I saw the photo pop up in my fb feed, but nope. He really did it.

[Malankazooie]

His state of mind has been called into question by a former GOP senator. Which pretty much goes hand in hand with that pic. So yeah, sleep well knowing this person is the president.

[Aptorian]

Come on, people. Don't be this petty. I get you don't like the guy but that picture doesn't tell you anything. And staring at the sun doesn't tell you anything.

Here's some footage of this "horrible" moment (It's at the very start):



You don't go fucking blind from doing what he's doing here. It's no different than squinting at the sun on any other day. The entire rest of the US that weren't complete pussies were doing the same he did.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 22 August 2017 - 06:39 AM

[worry]

It's neither here nor there, but it's the moment 4 minutes in, after he takes the glasses back off. And it probably should have gone in the Phoenix Inn thread.

That said, when you're right, you're right, and I gotta admit you've changed my mind. We're in 100% agreement that all self-identifying tough guy non-pussies should stare up at the sun as often as they want, eclipse or not.

[Gorefest]

So what are people's views on all these historical statues being torn down? I find it a morally very troublesome situation. Just because the people who try to stop the tearing down of the general Lee statue in Charlottesville are neo-nazis whose reasons for protecting the statue are morally reprehensive, that to me doesn't make the other side suddenly correct and justified in their intentions. Should we be tearing down historical statues because the people depicted who were seen as heroes in their time are now considered morally flawed by current-day standards? Should we not instead provide better information with the statue to educate people, instead of destroying cultural heritage?

Intuitively I would full-heartedly support the tearing down of a statue of Saddam Hussain or Adolf Hitler. But when I try to think about this objectively I have to ask myself: how far does one go back with this? What is the point where historical validity trumps moral ambiguity? Should we tear down Nelson's column in London? Nelson was an outspoken supporter of slavery and actively opposed Wilberforce in Parliament in his drive to abolish slavery. We cry outrage when ISIS destroy historical monuments in Iraq and Syria, but their motivation is similar: destroy historical artifacts that they find morally objectional (polytheistic world views).

I appreciate that people change their icons over time in line with the beliefs and morals of the age. For instance, I had no issue with Lovecraft's bust not being used anymore as an award for fantasy literature. It would have been different if they had recalled all the busts from previous years and destroyed them, though. That somehow feels wrong and I cannot pinpoint why that would irk me. I guess it is because the bust change is a forward-looking effort whereas a bust destruction feels like an attempt to wipe out history. So my gut instinct says: educate, don't destroy. Stick a plaque on the statue that explains the moral ambiguity and places the statue in its historical context.

Any thoughts?

[Silencer]

Go back a page or two and you'll find this has already been discussed at length.

But I think there are a few cliffs notes mixed with my personal perspective I can provide:

- the limit, as far as time, seems obvious to me. As far back as it actively has meaning for those who suffer under what is being idolised. So for example, no one alive today has strong opinions on Caesar. So that's safe. But the Civil War and WW2 are very near to modern memory and experience, so they're fair game.
- there is a difference between destroying a statue and moving it to a museum. Most statues are relocated or are destroyed because they are reproductions of things already featured in museums.
- there is a big difference between a statue made about someone who had opinions on slavery, and a statue made to honour that person *because* of their opinions on slavery. Functionally these generals are not being honored with statues because they're great leaders or heroes - they're being honored because they fought to maintain slavery. That's a very big factor differentiating someone who owned slaves who has a statue for their non-slavery-perpetuating achievements.
- again, there's a difference between a statue in public where it regularly reminds people of recent history, and a statue in a museum where it can have historical context applied. (most of the Civil War statues in question were erected long after the war, in the Jim Crow era - often specifically as a statement against civil rights of black Americans.
- a lot of what was wrong about ISIS destroying the statues and ruins that they did, are that those are the *only* remnants of that period. Much of that period is poorly preserved and we have a comparatively tiny amount of written sources to use. We don't even have the volume of materials that we have from ancient Greece or Rome - so destroying *those* buildings and statues is actively damaging our ability to study that history. Comparatively, there is a plethora of written and well-preserved material from the civil war. Thus individual statues are less crucial to our record of that period. So where the sites in Syria and Iraq are comparable to the parthenon or the coliseum, the civil war sites are not all that unique and are well documented and preserved in museums.

Basically that's my take on it. There is a whole lot of discussion on the previous pages however. It mostly boils down to: 'preserving history' isn't actually what these statues do, and for a large number of living people those statues are symbols of very real, very recent oppression. Ergo any historic value they do have is secondary to people being reminded of persecution. And again, statues being in public don't have that much value as items that tell you about history - and it's more about the time the statue was erected than the time the events on the statue took place. So placing them in a museum increases the historical value by providing context, and removing them does little to diminish that value in and of itself.

[Gorefest]

Silencer, on 22 August 2017 - 11:14 AM, said:

Go back a page or two and you'll find this has already been discussed at length.

Ah, my apologies. I did check the previous page but I didn't go further back as I thought it was already going into earlier dates. My bad. I'll go and have a read.

[Malankazooie]

Alternative Goose, on 22 August 2017 - 06:38 AM, said:

Come on, people. Don't be this petty. I get you don't like the guy but that picture doesn't tell you anything. And staring at the sun doesn't tell you anything.

Here's some footage of this "horrible" moment (It's at the very start):

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=PqGDCfPjiec

You don't go fucking blind from doing what he's doing here. It's no different than squinting at the sun on any other day. The entire rest of the US that weren't complete pussies were doing the same he did.

You're probably right, but missing from your counter argument is that his staff told him not to look directly at the sun and he did it anyway. He has to still prove that no one can tell him what to do, even at the expense of melted eyeballs.

[Gorefest]

Melted eyeballs never bothered Muad'Dib.

[Malankazooie]

[Aptorian]

Malankazooie, on 22 August 2017 - 11:32 AM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 22 August 2017 - 06:38 AM, said:

Come on, people. Don't be this petty. I get you don't like the guy but that picture doesn't tell you anything. And staring at the sun doesn't tell you anything.

Here's some footage of this "horrible" moment (It's at the very start):

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=PqGDCfPjiec

You don't go fucking blind from doing what he's doing here. It's no different than squinting at the sun on any other day. The entire rest of the US that weren't complete pussies were doing the same he did.

You're probably right, but missing from your counter argument is that his staff told him not to look directly at the sun and he did it anyway. He has to still prove that no one can tell him what to do, even at the expense of melted eyeballs.

He's not just standing there, slack jawed staring open eyed into the big ball in the sky for a minute. He snuck some glances up at the sky. We all do that every day when we step outside and want to orientate ourselves.

He was out on a balcony having fun with his family and coworkers. He's playing with the crowd. The whole thing is a light hearted, stress free day at the work place. Don't attribute some childish flaw in a man who is just having fun.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 22 August 2017 - 11:47 AM

[Malankazooie]

It would be great if the ONLY "childish flaw" he had was looking with naked eyes at the sun.

[Abyss]

How about any notion of him setting any kind of example, at all, for anyone who isn't a neo nazi, extreme rightist, or general idiot?

...or did that go out the window back around 'grab her by the pussy'?

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 22 August 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:

How about any notion of him setting any kind of example, at all, for anyone who isn't a neo nazi, extreme rightist, or general idiot?

...or did that go out the window back around 'grab her by the pussy'?

I think it was out the window even longer ago, probably around the time he talked about his own daughters legs and chest....sooo late 90's?

[amphibian]

Down South, on 22 August 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

Which was on Howard Stern so it was obvious he was having a go.

Why would anybody sexualize their own daughter on a nationally broadcast radio show? Stern asked if he could call Ivanka a piece of ass, Donald said yes, Stern asked if her breasts had implants, Donald said they were natural and went on to describe her physical beauty.

This is weird and wrong shit. It's always been that way, not because it's being rediscovered.

Trump is an evil man and he frequently does dumb shit because he's not that smart and because he believes in paragon white supremacist stuff too.

[Abyss]

'grab her by the pussy' wasn't on Stern.
Neither was 'some of those neo-nazis are fine people'.

[Macros]

To put this in context BK.
If you were on Stern (in later life obviously to make the age more relevant) would you talk about your daughter like that?
I sincerely, sincerely hope not.

The man is a moron, a bigot, and many other various unpleasant things. How he got any votes after all the shit he has done and was exposed on him is still a mystery to me. Regardless of the drawn the swamp/ something has to change rhetoric, the man is a documented sexist egomaniacal prick. Who likely should be in jail for tax fraud, and has filled for bankruptcy on like 4 occasions, what sold him remotely?

[Macros]

My problem is really with the whole 2 party system bullshit, with proper PR and an open card like most democratic countries he would have been nothing more than an amusing footnote in the elections.