Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down." Agreed! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The American Orthinological Society, which is a posh name for twitchers or bird spotters are renaming hundreds of birds in America if they have been named after people with a racist past or are deemed offensive. Isn't it strange that the birds themselves don't have a clue what they are called. What's going on here guys. It's all over the news " Theyre just interested in their next seed  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's all over the news " Is it why they renamed Twitter, to distance themselves from racist birds ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's all over the news Is it why they renamed Twitter, to distance themselves from racist birds ?" crows and black birds maybe | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I hope they don't mess with Tom's favourite. The Robin Redbreast. " Does your favourite bird have links with Robben Island, where Nelson Mandela was imprisoned ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's all over the news Is it why they renamed Twitter, to distance themselves from racist birds ?" No, that’s because it’s run by an attention seeking, spoiled child with too much money, who seems to have a chubby for the letter X. Hence it’s now called X- formally known as twitter…so well worth the money spent on that rebranding | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not all about racism but birds names from colonialism, named after racist people and all inclusive named. I hope they don't mess with Tom's favourite. The Robin Redbreast. I am sure that someone will take offence at that. Tom is anti racism by the way" What about anti transphobia? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down." Plenty of Gandhi’s statues have been pulled down, most recently in Davis, California. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down. Plenty of Gandhi’s statues have been pulled down, most recently in Davis, California." To be fair Ghandhi is well overated. He only made one film | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not all about racism but birds names from colonialism, named after racist people and all inclusive named. I hope they don't mess with Tom's favourite. The Robin Redbreast. I am sure that someone will take offence at that. Tom is anti racism by the way What about anti transphobia?" Now there is another topic and debate all of its own.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A good thing is happening." No more blackbirds? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A good thing is happening. No more blackbirds? " nope they will be called dark birds from now on  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's all plain daft. The perpetually outraged must have hit the bottom of the barrel in their search for all things they find offensive. It'll be mamals, marsupials and rodents next. Then the spiders and other creeping things. There are some fantastic bird names out their and we could lose them all. Horned screamer Fluffy backed tit babler Blue footed booby Himalayan snowcock Rough faced shag Little bustard Red rumped bush tyrant Ruddy pigeon Flying steamer duck And my personal favourite; The satanic goatsucker Yes, Racism is a terrible thing. But (insert pronoun here) bringing the creatures of the world into their little universe of shock and outrage is taking it too far in my opinion. Don't forget folks! BLM; Birds Lives Matter! " Are they planning to change the name of any of these birds? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The American Orthinological Society, which is a posh name for twitchers or bird spotters are renaming hundreds of birds in America if they have been named after people with a racist past or are deemed offensive. Isn't it strange that the birds themselves don't have a clue what they are called. What's going on here guys. It's all over the news " Birds might be very bothered about what we call them. We just might be very bad at giving them a forum to air their grievances. How would you like to be called a great tit? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The American Orthinological Society, which is a posh name for twitchers or bird spotters are renaming hundreds of birds in America if they have been named after people with a racist past or are deemed offensive. Isn't it strange that the birds themselves don't have a clue what they are called. What's going on here guys. It's all over the news Birds might be very bothered about what we call them. We just might be very bad at giving them a forum to air their grievances. How would you like to be called a great tit? " I get called that alot, mostly by my mrs!!!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's all plain daft. The perpetually outraged must have hit the bottom of the barrel in their search for all things they find offensive. It'll be mamals, marsupials and rodents next. Then the spiders and other creeping things. There are some fantastic bird names out their and we could lose them all. Horned screamer Fluffy backed tit babler Blue footed booby Himalayan snowcock Rough faced shag Little bustard Red rumped bush tyrant Ruddy pigeon Flying steamer duck And my personal favourite; The satanic goatsucker Yes, Racism is a terrible thing. But (insert pronoun here) bringing the creatures of the world into their little universe of shock and outrage is taking it too far in my opinion. Don't forget folks! BLM; Birds Lives Matter! Are they planning to change the name of any of these birds?" Who knows. But once it starts the snowflakes will be going through the encyclopedia of birds both alive and extinct to find anything they can get offended by. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's all plain daft. The perpetually outraged must have hit the bottom of the barrel in their search for all things they find offensive. It'll be mamals, marsupials and rodents next. Then the spiders and other creeping things. There are some fantastic bird names out their and we could lose them all. Horned screamer Fluffy backed tit babler Blue footed booby Himalayan snowcock Rough faced shag Little bustard Red rumped bush tyrant Ruddy pigeon Flying steamer duck And my personal favourite; The satanic goatsucker Yes, Racism is a terrible thing. But (insert pronoun here) bringing the creatures of the world into their little universe of shock and outrage is taking it too far in my opinion. Don't forget folks! BLM; Birds Lives Matter! Are they planning to change the name of any of these birds? Who knows. But once it starts the snowflakes will be going through the encyclopedia of birds both alive and extinct to find anything they can get offended by." Ahhh I see, you’re just making something up to get annoyed about then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I often wonder if these are token gestures. I fully support any effort to remove racism from society, but sometimes I wonder if the plan is to remove all reference so that it can be pretended it isn't there. None the less, they are taking action on it at least which is something and I may be being too cynical about their motives." It’s just a bit of window dressing, does nothing to tackle the big race issues in the US. I lived in New York for 5 years and travelled a lot in the US, and the level of open racism and homophobia that I heard / witnessed was a real eye-opener compared to here. Renaming a bird is so inconsequential… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I often wonder if these are token gestures. I fully support any effort to remove racism from society, but sometimes I wonder if the plan is to remove all reference so that it can be pretended it isn't there. None the less, they are taking action on it at least which is something and I may be being too cynical about their motives. It’s just a bit of window dressing, does nothing to tackle the big race issues in the US. I lived in New York for 5 years and travelled a lot in the US, and the level of open racism and homophobia that I heard / witnessed was a real eye-opener compared to here. Renaming a bird is so inconsequential… " ...from little acorns grow great oaks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I often wonder if these are token gestures. I fully support any effort to remove racism from society, but sometimes I wonder if the plan is to remove all reference so that it can be pretended it isn't there. None the less, they are taking action on it at least which is something and I may be being too cynical about their motives. It’s just a bit of window dressing, does nothing to tackle the big race issues in the US. I lived in New York for 5 years and travelled a lot in the US, and the level of open racism and homophobia that I heard / witnessed was a real eye-opener compared to here. Renaming a bird is so inconsequential… ...from little acorns grow great oaks. " Exactly this, it sends a message. It’s no coincidence the incidence of racist attacks went up after Brexit, some of the campaign material was borderline racist (if we are being kind) and that emboldened a section of society who had before been keeping their views to themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I often wonder if these are token gestures. I fully support any effort to remove racism from society, but sometimes I wonder if the plan is to remove all reference so that it can be pretended it isn't there. None the less, they are taking action on it at least which is something and I may be being too cynical about their motives. It’s just a bit of window dressing, does nothing to tackle the big race issues in the US. I lived in New York for 5 years and travelled a lot in the US, and the level of open racism and homophobia that I heard / witnessed was a real eye-opener compared to here. Renaming a bird is so inconsequential… ...from little acorns grow great oaks. " They are renaming all trees next | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I often wonder if these are token gestures. I fully support any effort to remove racism from society, but sometimes I wonder if the plan is to remove all reference so that it can be pretended it isn't there. None the less, they are taking action on it at least which is something and I may be being too cynical about their motives. It’s just a bit of window dressing, does nothing to tackle the big race issues in the US. I lived in New York for 5 years and travelled a lot in the US, and the level of open racism and homophobia that I heard / witnessed was a real eye-opener compared to here. Renaming a bird is so inconsequential… ...from little acorns grow great oaks. Exactly this, it sends a message. It’s no coincidence the incidence of racist attacks went up after Brexit, some of the campaign material was borderline racist (if we are being kind) and that emboldened a section of society who had before been keeping their views to themselves." Please don't mention the B word or Batty will appear | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't get a statue of Einstein then. Easy. Gbat " Einstein statues are already there in a few places around the world. Should we take them all down just because the current generation lost the capability to look at historic events from a historic perspective? Does his contribution to physics mean nothing because of his racism? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s called getting rid of racism and that’s a good thing "How? They rename some bird and a bunch of rednecks in Alabama change their ideology? Sorry but the two are not linked. And I don’t see how a name can be racist. Only people can be racist. Jim Davidson was quite a racist comedian in the 70s. Does that mean everyone called Jim is racist? It’s preposterous! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s called getting rid of racism and that’s a good thing
How? They rename some bird and a bunch of rednecks in Alabama change their ideology?
Sorry but the two are not linked. And I don’t see how a name can be racist. Only people can be racist. Jim Davidson was quite a racist comedian in the 70s. Does that mean everyone called Jim is racist? It’s preposterous! "Not sure if you're genuinely misunderstanding or being intentionally disingenuous, but to give the benefit of the doubt: Nobody is suggesting that any names are inherently racist. In the case of the AOS' renaming strategy, the handful of "problematic" names are literally named AFTER racists, they're named IN HONOUR of racists/sl@vers/etc. The name "Jimmy Saville" isn't inherently problematic - there are millions of people called James in the world and I suspect millions of Saville families too. But something like "The Sir James Saville Children's Hospital" is obviously deeply problematic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't get a statue of Einstein then. Easy. Gbat Einstein statues are already there in a few places around the world. Should we take them all down just because the current generation lost the capability to look at historic events from a historic perspective? Does his contribution to physics mean nothing because of his racism?" I think this depends on how the people in those places feel. If a significant proportion of them want it taken down, then yes, it should be taken down. It won't diminish his contribution to physics in any way. Public art isn't just for public display at all costs is it? We can use Jimmy Savile as an easy example because nobody tries to justify his behaviour. Jimmy Savile is nobodies hero, therefore there are no longer any Jimmy Savile statues (or similar) on public display. If Einstein is still a hero, keep the statue, but if more people think he's a baddy, why keep it? Relativity is still relativity regardless of his politics, but we can choose whether we think he's a hero or not. I don't see why this is difficult in most cases, but I do accept that some monsters are still heroes to some people. In my opinion, if Einstein was racist, this didn't mean he was a sl@ve trader and we should compare apples to apples not apples to oranges. Gbat Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are we going to call blackbirds now "Blackbirds. How is that connected to this thread? Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are we going to call blackbirds now "I don't think America have blackbirds, they're a Eurasian thrush I believe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think America have blackbirds, they're a Eurasian thrush I believe." They have their own. They’re simple folk. Bluebird. Blackbird. Greybird. Beigebird. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are we going to call blackbirds now
I don't think America have blackbirds, they're a Eurasian thrush I believe."None racist so we’re all good | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think America have blackbirds, they're a Eurasian thrush I believe. They have their own. They’re simple folk. Bluebird. Blackbird. Greybird. Beigebird. " And a swan is a white bird I like their system | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah, from doing some further reading it turns out that the Americans have been naming birds inappropriately or after horrible people for a long time. Fair play. " That dam Adolf hitler bird | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think America have blackbirds, they're a Eurasian thrush I believe. They have their own. They’re simple folk. Bluebird. Blackbird. Greybird. Beigebird. And a swan is a white bird I like their system "Yes but the confusion when one of those black swans rocked up was horrible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think America have blackbirds, they're a Eurasian thrush I believe. They have their own. They’re simple folk. Bluebird. Blackbird. Greybird. Beigebird. And a swan is a white bird I like their system
Yes but the confusion when one of those black swans rocked up was horrible. "some hillbilly probably shot it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That dam Adolf hitler bird " "Townsend’s warbler, named after John Kirk Townsend, who røbbed Indigenous graves of skulls in the 1800s" Not far off! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't get a statue of Einstein then. Easy. Gbat Einstein statues are already there in a few places around the world. Should we take them all down just because the current generation lost the capability to look at historic events from a historic perspective? Does his contribution to physics mean nothing because of his racism? I think this depends on how the people in those places feel. If a significant proportion of them want it taken down, then yes, it should be taken down. It won't diminish his contribution to physics in any way. Public art isn't just for public display at all costs is it? We can use Jimmy Savile as an easy example because nobody tries to justify his behaviour. Jimmy Savile is nobodies hero, therefore there are no longer any Jimmy Savile statues (or similar) on public display. If Einstein is still a hero, keep the statue, but if more people think he's a baddy, why keep it? Relativity is still relativity regardless of his politics, but we can choose whether we think he's a hero or not. I don't see why this is difficult in most cases, but I do accept that some monsters are still heroes to some people. In my opinion, if Einstein was racist, this didn't mean he was a sl@ve trader and we should compare apples to apples not apples to oranges. Gbat Gbat " Sl*ve traders are just racists with the power, money and necessity to do so. Anyway, there are two different angles to it - one is moral angle and the other is legal. Legally speaking, we are in a democracy and if majority of the people believe that Einstein's statues have to be removed and has to be shamed for his racism, it's fine. But do you think it's morally the right direction to go? Tomorrow at another time, if a society starts loving Hitler and majority wants his statue, would you be fighting against it or would you say "If the society wants his statue, why not?" This witch-hunt on people who lived more than a century back is severely harmful for the society and reeks of self-centredness. It shows that people have lost their nuance in thinking. We shouldn't stop honouring Einstein's achievements for his racism that was prevalent during that time. We shouldn't stop praising Bach because of his misogyny at a time when most men were misogyinists. We can alway criticise them though for these aspects though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This witch-hunt on people who lived more than a century back is severely harmful for the society and reeks of self-centredness. It shows that people have lost their nuance in thinking. " I disagree. Even the use of the term witch hunt is wrong. Witches weren't real and witch hunts were a bad thing. No longer idolising bad people is good. Lots of nuanced thinking going on in this thread. "We shouldn't stop honouring Einstein's achievements for his racism that was prevalent during that time. We shouldn't stop praising Bach because of his misogyny at a time when most men were misogyinists. We can alway criticise them though for these aspects though." Correct. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This witch-hunt on people who lived more than a century back is severely harmful for the society and reeks of self-centredness. It shows that people have lost their nuance in thinking. I disagree. Even the use of the term witch hunt is wrong. Witches weren't real and witch hunts were a bad thing. No longer idolising bad people is good. Lots of nuanced thinking going on in this thread. We shouldn't stop honouring Einstein's achievements for his racism that was prevalent during that time. We shouldn't stop praising Bach because of his misogyny at a time when most men were misogyinists. We can alway criticise them though for these aspects though. Correct. Gbat " Sorry to jump on your post (this is the Mrs) just wondering why you sign off every comment when it’s clear who wrote it as your user name is on display? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry to jump on your post (this is the Mrs) just wondering why you sign off every comment when it’s clear who wrote it as your user name is on display?" It's a hang over from writing letters and reports I suppose. It certainly makes it easier to identify me when people use the quote function. Why do you quote everything rather than just the bit you want to talk about? Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s called getting rid of racism and that’s a good thing
How? They rename some bird and a bunch of rednecks in Alabama change their ideology?
Sorry but the two are not linked. And I don’t see how a name can be racist. Only people can be racist. Jim Davidson was quite a racist comedian in the 70s. Does that mean everyone called Jim is racist? It’s preposterous!
Not sure if you're genuinely misunderstanding or being intentionally disingenuous, but to give the benefit of the doubt: Nobody is suggesting that any names are inherently racist. In the case of the AOS' renaming strategy, the handful of "problematic" names are literally named AFTER racists, they're named IN HONOUR of racists/sl@vers/etc.
The name "Jimmy Saville" isn't inherently problematic - there are millions of people called James in the world and I suspect millions of Saville families too. But something like "The Sir James Saville Children's Hospital" is obviously deeply problematic."Not sure if you're genuinely misunderstanding what I was saying or being intentionally disingenuous… I responded to someone who claimed this renaming was “getting rid of racism”. And asked how changing a birds name changed the attitude of a bunch of red necks. The rednecks wouldn’t even know the birds names. Changing a name from “the Idi Amin bird” to “the Nelson Mandela bird” I would understand. But I’m guessing the one being changed are less obvious? But perhaps still offensive to some? But even the change above isn’t going to make Billy-Bob Redneck sit back and think, “you know what, black people are nice after all.” I’m all in favour of trying to educate and change behaviour, I just don’t think this will achieve that. Not saying it should or shouldn’t be done. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry to jump on your post (this is the Mrs) just wondering why you sign off every comment when it’s clear who wrote it as your user name is on display? It's a hang over from writing letters and reports I suppose. It certainly makes it easier to identify me when people use the quote function. Why do you quote everything rather than just the bit you want to talk about? Gbat " To be fair to Batty he states his opinions and gives his insight to the reasons why. Now Batty lives in Spain, allegedly, and for all we know, he might be messaging from Peru. One thing is certain. He knows lots about the Police and the Security services There is more to Batty than meets the eye ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry to jump on your post (this is the Mrs) just wondering why you sign off every comment when it’s clear who wrote it as your user name is on display? It's a hang over from writing letters and reports I suppose. It certainly makes it easier to identify me when people use the quote function. Why do you quote everything rather than just the bit you want to talk about? Gbat To be fair to Batty he states his opinions and gives his insight to the reasons why. Now Batty lives in Spain, allegedly, and for all we know, he might be messaging from Peru. One thing is certain. He knows lots about the Police and the Security services There is more to Batty than meets the eye ..." That’s handy to know on the forum, quite helpful lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The name "Jimmy Saville" isn't inherently problematic - there are millions of people called James in the world and I suspect millions of Saville families too. But something like "The Sir James Saville Children's Hospital" is obviously deeply problematic. " The hospital in Leeds (where he volunteered as a porter) is called St James and lots of people call it Jimmy's | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Things should be reviewed through a modern lens, whoever said that if we name something or put a statue up then it has to be forever?" I look forward to the immediate cancellation of those two bastions of racism, sexism, homophobia & transphobia amongst other things- Religion & rap music…neither have any place in modern society  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s not aimed at Billy-Bob unless the bird was originally named The RedNecked Fuckwitt. " So it’s aimed at racist bird watchers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s called getting rid of racism and that’s a good thing "Would you explain how that is a) racist in the first instance and b) getting rid of it by renaming something? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Things should be reviewed through a modern lens, whoever said that if we name something or put a statue up then it has to be forever? I look forward to the immediate cancellation of those two bastions of racism, sexism, homophobia & transphobia amongst other things- Religion & rap music…neither have any place in modern society "That’s a very valid point. I don’t hear anyone screaming for the bible to be rewritten. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Things should be reviewed through a modern lens, whoever said that if we name something or put a statue up then it has to be forever? I look forward to the immediate cancellation of those two bastions of racism, sexism, homophobia & transphobia amongst other things- Religion & rap music…neither have any place in modern society
That’s a very valid point. I don’t hear anyone screaming for the bible to be rewritten. "Too late... Pay attention.. It has been in some places | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So does that mean that Muff sparrows and Boobies will now become something else? " No but the blackbird is fucked | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t hear anyone screaming for the bible to be rewritten. " Again? There isn’t even a consensus among modern Bibles. Let alone all the stuff chopped out, added, rewritten after it was translated and compiled from the source texts….. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I disagree. Even the use of the term witch hunt is wrong. Witches weren't real and witch hunts were a bad thing. No longer idolising bad people is good. Lots of nuanced thinking going on in this thread. " Witch hunt - a campaign directed against a person or group holding views considered unorthodox or a threat to society. In this case we go far beyond that and judge someone who lived more than a century back. Worshipping any human being as though they were perfect is wrong. Everyone has done their share of bad things. But we can always admire and honour someone for their achievements. Isaac Newton was found to have invested in a company that did sl@ve trading at that time. And... we have his statue in Cambridge. Should we take it down? Spoiler alert - If we judge the people who lived more than a century back by today's standards, not a single soul will come out as a good person. We might as well take down all the statues in the country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s called getting rid of racism and that’s a good thing "It's Tokenism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Things should be reviewed through a modern lens, whoever said that if we name something or put a statue up then it has to be forever? I look forward to the immediate cancellation of those two bastions of racism, sexism, homophobia & transphobia amongst other things- Religion & rap music…neither have any place in modern society
That’s a very valid point. I don’t hear anyone screaming for the bible to be rewritten.
Too late... Pay attention.. It has been in some places"It actually has been in lots of places, and at least 54 books and documents submitted for inclusion originally were not included and banned under the sentence of death. Also a big chunk was removed a few decades ago. Plus the loss in translation from Greek to Latin and ultimately just about every language in the world makes it very diluted from the original submissions to the Council of Nicea and the original oral versions of the stories that were first told in Aramaic decades before they were ever written down in Greek. But most people probably knew I meant rewritten now. So maybe keep your condescending attitude to yourself?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is more to Batty than meets the eye ..." FFS! Now it’s all over the news!!! Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No but the blackbird is fucked " We don’t allow that here | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thinking this is “getting rid of racism” is some of the dumbest thoughts ever, like renaming these birds will do anything for actual racism, as if the local racists all use these bird names to justify the way they think This is just liberal virtue signalling " You don’t think that sending a message that we no longer celebrate racists contributes to making people realise racism isn’t acceptable? People aren’t born racist, they are conditioned into racism, and it’s not going to be one thing that puts an end to that, it’s going to be lots of things over a long period of time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down." It isn't "getting rid of racism", but rather "removing celebration of (some) famous racists"... which is a good thing. Cal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down. It isn't "getting rid of racism", but rather "removing celebration of (some) famous racists"... which is a good thing. Cal" Nobody is celebrating a racist when they call a bird by its name. If people want to connect whoever the racist was who named a few birds (assuming there is actually one and it's not just click bait) that's fine. It's a reminder of how not to be. You can't airbrush out history as and when fashion dictates. It's like knocking down dachau or auschwitz because nazism was bad. People visit those places as a reminder of never be like it again. Keep the names, teach the relevant history and learn from past mistakes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down. It isn't "getting rid of racism", but rather "removing celebration of (some) famous racists"... which is a good thing. Cal Nobody is celebrating a racist when they call a bird by its name. If people want to connect whoever the racist was who named a few birds (assuming there is actually one and it's not just click bait) that's fine. It's a reminder of how not to be. You can't airbrush out history as and when fashion dictates. It's like knocking down dachau or auschwitz because nazism was bad. People visit those places as a reminder of never be like it again. Keep the names, teach the relevant history and learn from past mistakes. " Completely incomparable, as you know. The birds were named after prominent people at the time who we probably wouldn't choose to honour in the same way now, so we change the name. Why not? They've also said it's to make the names more relevant to the birds' characteristic, so helping people to understand the species better. It's nothing like bulldozing Auschwitz and I think it's a lazy argument to pretend it is, but that's just my view. I doubt most of us on this thread even know who the birds are named after (me included - I'd never heard of Duchess Anna of Rivoli; her poor ancestors must be up in arms at the injustice!) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down. It isn't "getting rid of racism", but rather "removing celebration of (some) famous racists"... which is a good thing. Cal Nobody is celebrating a racist when they call a bird by its name. If people want to connect whoever the racist was who named a few birds (assuming there is actually one and it's not just click bait) that's fine. It's a reminder of how not to be. You can't airbrush out history as and when fashion dictates. It's like knocking down dachau or auschwitz because nazism was bad. People visit those places as a reminder of never be like it again. Keep the names, teach the relevant history and learn from past mistakes. " I may be a little thick but can you explain how not knocking down a concentration camp is the same as changing the name of a bird that was called after a racist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This story had passed me by (as so many of the ones that reach Essex seem to), but before we get too outraged, seems it's part of a wider move to give birds names that "describe the bird, its habitat, its range, or something else about the species convey more information about the bird than a person’s name". Can't be bad. Doesn't seem it's motivated by removing problematic names, though that's an added bonus I guess. I don't really understand the problem with getting rid of names that are offensive to some people. Should we deliberately cause offence to a community if we can avoid it with a simple change? The world is not set in Victorian aspic. Lots of things/places were renamed by Westerners (eg Ayers Rock), and have since changed back. At what point should we decide no further name changes are allowed. 1860? 1975? 2000? But who knew there were so many John Kirk Townsend fans on Fab... " I think I jumped the gun on this. The news is clearly misleading.
While dishonouring historical figures, taking down statues, stripping titles, etc. are a problem we are definitely facing in the modern society, I think the bird names being changed has nothing to do with that. The names are changed for some other reason. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It isn't "getting rid of racism", but rather "removing celebration of (some) famous racists"... which is a good thing." This! Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What about the Song Thrush. Or is it just women that can get Thrush?!! Lol" You need to educate yourself! Anyone can get thrush, and it's usually a fungal mouth infection. But the song thrush isn't named after an anti hero. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pardon me for being thick So, for example, Scott's Oriole, named for General Winfield Scott (apparently a racist, which I wouldn't dispute), will be renamed? Presumably, anyone and everything with the name 'Scott' will also have to be renamed to avoid being associated with said dead bloke from over 200 years ago, who most people will have never even heard of, lest someone decides to be offended? What time is the next spaceship off the planet?.. "You are indeed pardoned and can cancel the space ship. I think you might have missed some of the subtleties here. They are changing the names of some birds, a happy spin off being that birds that were named after racists will also get a name change. It doesn't mean there is any "shame" attached to the name and nobody else needs to to worry. I think more people would like to be thought of as the failed explorer Captain Scott and would be happy to keep their name. (But I think if the person was called Adolf Hitler, they would indeed change their name). As a segue, are you trying to be more offended by the name change than than the people who might be offended by the birds naming history? Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pardon me for being thick So, for example, Scott's Oriole, named for General Winfield Scott (apparently a racist, which I wouldn't dispute), will be renamed? Presumably, anyone and everything with the name 'Scott' will also have to be renamed to avoid being associated with said dead bloke from over 200 years ago, who most people will have never even heard of, lest someone decides to be offended? What time is the next spaceship off the planet?..
You are indeed pardoned and can cancel the space ship.
I think you might have missed some of the subtleties here. They are changing the names of some birds, a happy spin off being that birds that were named after racists will also get a name change.
It doesn't mean there is any "shame" attached to the name and nobody else needs to to worry.
I think more people would like to be thought of as the failed explorer Captain Scott and would be happy to keep their name. (But I think if the person was called Adolf Hitler, they would indeed change their name).
As a segue, are you trying to be more offended by the name change than than the people who might be offended by the birds naming history?
Gbat "If a new bird is discovered in Alicante then it should be called the GBAT | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh I see. Pardon me for being thick but I really couldn't fathom what the fuck this is all about. So, for example, Scott's Oriole, named for General Winfield Scott (apparently a racist, which I wouldn't dispute), will be renamed? Presumably, anyone and everything with the name 'Scott' will also have to be renamed to avoid being associated with said dead bloke from over 200 years ago, who most people will have never even heard of, lest someone decides to be offended? What time is the next spaceship off the planet?.. "No, Victor. Not anyone named Scott. Only birds named after people (I've no idea if thar bird is included in the American Ornithological Society's plans). But I'd flip your point. You're right, this is some "dead bloke from over 200 years ago, who most people will have never even heard of", so what's the issue of re-naming a bird currently named after him, especially if what he represents is offensive to some people? Are names never allowed to change? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pardon me for being thick So, for example, Scott's Oriole, named for General Winfield Scott (apparently a racist, which I wouldn't dispute), will be renamed? Presumably, anyone and everything with the name 'Scott' will also have to be renamed to avoid being associated with said dead bloke from over 200 years ago, who most people will have never even heard of, lest someone decides to be offended? What time is the next spaceship off the planet?..
You are indeed pardoned and can cancel the space ship.
I think you might have missed some of the subtleties here. They are changing the names of some birds, a happy spin off being that birds that were named after racists will also get a name change.
It doesn't mean there is any "shame" attached to the name and nobody else needs to to worry.
I think more people would like to be thought of as the failed explorer Captain Scott and would be happy to keep their name. (But I think if the person was called Adolf Hitler, they would indeed change their name).
As a segue, are you trying to be more offended by the name change than than the people who might be offended by the birds naming history?
Gbat "How do you know that anyone named Scott is not in fact named for the late racist General? Just abolish all names that have been used by any racists, if you can name them all?. Better than that, just number everyone or give them a reference. You know, like the Nazis did in the concentration camps.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pardon me for being thick So, for example, Scott's Oriole, named for General Winfield Scott (apparently a racist, which I wouldn't dispute), will be renamed? Presumably, anyone and everything with the name 'Scott' will also have to be renamed to avoid being associated with said dead bloke from over 200 years ago, who most people will have never even heard of, lest someone decides to be offended? What time is the next spaceship off the planet?..
You are indeed pardoned and can cancel the space ship.
I think you might have missed some of the subtleties here. They are changing the names of some birds, a happy spin off being that birds that were named after racists will also get a name change.
It doesn't mean there is any "shame" attached to the name and nobody else needs to to worry.
I think more people would like to be thought of as the failed explorer Captain Scott and would be happy to keep their name. (But I think if the person was called Adolf Hitler, they would indeed change their name).
As a segue, are you trying to be more offended by the name change than than the people who might be offended by the birds naming history?
Gbat
How do you know that anyone named Scott is not in fact named for the late racist General? Just abolish all names that have been used by any racists, if you can name them all?. Better than that, just number everyone or give them a reference. You know, like the Nazis did in the concentration camps...."Just to be clear, you are comparing changing the names of some birds to what the Nazis did in concentration camps? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care?" Fixed it for you. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat " No you didn't, you altered it for some juvenile reason. So, why do they care? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pardon me for being thick So, for example, Scott's Oriole, named for General Winfield Scott (apparently a racist, which I wouldn't dispute), will be renamed? Presumably, anyone and everything with the name 'Scott' will also have to be renamed to avoid being associated with said dead bloke from over 200 years ago, who most people will have never even heard of, lest someone decides to be offended? What time is the next spaceship off the planet?..
You are indeed pardoned and can cancel the space ship.
I think you might have missed some of the subtleties here. They are changing the names of some birds, a happy spin off being that birds that were named after racists will also get a name change.
It doesn't mean there is any "shame" attached to the name and nobody else needs to to worry.
I think more people would like to be thought of as the failed explorer Captain Scott and would be happy to keep their name. (But I think if the person was called Adolf Hitler, they would indeed change their name).
As a segue, are you trying to be more offended by the name change than than the people who might be offended by the birds naming history?
Gbat
How do you know that anyone named Scott is not in fact named for the late racist General? Just abolish all names that have been used by any racists, if you can name them all?. Better than that, just number everyone or give them a reference. You know, like the Nazis did in the concentration camps....
Just to be clear, you are comparing changing the names of some birds to what the Nazis did in concentration camps?"I'm pointing out where this kind of mindset can ultimately lead.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat No you didn't, you altered it for some juvenile reason. So, why do they care?" I altered it to make a light hearted quip, alluding that I thought your question was the wrong question and in fact I personally think you (and others) should be looking at this from a different perspective. Sorry you missed that. To answer your question, here's a quote you could have found yourself. It was the first item that Google threw up from my search. “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said Colleen Handel, president of the AOS, in a statement. But of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. What name will people use going forward? That's my answer to your question. What's the answer to the question I posed? Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm pointing out where this kind of mindset can ultimately lead.." You can't change history but you can choose your heroes. I'm hoping that mindset ultimately leads us somewhere good. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat No you didn't, you altered it for some juvenile reason. So, why do they care? I altered it to make a light hearted quip, alluding that I thought your question was the wrong question and in fact I personally think you (and others) should be looking at this from a different perspective. Sorry you missed that. To answer your question, here's a quote you could have found yourself. It was the first item that Google threw up from my search. “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said Colleen Handel, president of the AOS, in a statement. But of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. What name will people use going forward? That's my answer to your question. What's the answer to the question I posed? Gbat " I've no idea. I don't care what birds are called. So I'm curious why they even care in the first place | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat No you didn't, you altered it for some juvenile reason. So, why do they care? I altered it to make a light hearted quip, alluding that I thought your question was the wrong question and in fact I personally think you (and others) should be looking at this from a different perspective. Sorry you missed that. To answer your question, here's a quote you could have found yourself. It was the first item that Google threw up from my search. “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said Colleen Handel, president of the AOS, in a statement. But of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. What name will people use going forward? That's my answer to your question. What's the answer to the question I posed? Gbat I've no idea. I don't care what birds are called. So I'm curious why they even care in the first place" They’re the American Ornithological Society, birds are their entire reason for existing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat No you didn't, you altered it for some juvenile reason. So, why do they care? I altered it to make a light hearted quip, alluding that I thought your question was the wrong question and in fact I personally think you (and others) should be looking at this from a different perspective. Sorry you missed that. To answer your question, here's a quote you could have found yourself. It was the first item that Google threw up from my search. “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said Colleen Handel, president of the AOS, in a statement. But of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. What name will people use going forward? That's my answer to your question. What's the answer to the question I posed? Gbat I've no idea. I don't care what birds are called. So I'm curious why they even care in the first place They’re the American Ornithological Society, birds are their entire reason for existing." But why do they care about changing the birds names? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's my answer to your question. What's the answer to the question I posed? Gbat I've no idea. I don't care what birds are called. So I'm curious why they even care in the first place" They are the American Ornithological Society. Of course they care about bird names. They are a society that studies/loves/probably eats some birds. They care about the names so they want to change them. You don't care, but care enough to join this debate. What skin have you got in this game? Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But why do they care about changing the birds names?" Did you read what they said? I actually quoted their why. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But why do they care about changing the birds names? Did you read what they said? I actually quoted their why. Gbat " Would have thought they'd have more productive things to do to justify their salaries tbh | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would have thought they'd have more productive things to do to justify their salaries tbh" Sounds like you thought wrong then. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat No you didn't, you altered it for some juvenile reason. So, why do they care? I altered it to make a light hearted quip, alluding that I thought your question was the wrong question and in fact I personally think you (and others) should be looking at this from a different perspective. Sorry you missed that. To answer your question, here's a quote you could have found yourself. It was the first item that Google threw up from my search. “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said Colleen Handel, president of the AOS, in a statement. But of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. What name will people use going forward? That's my answer to your question. What's the answer to the question I posed? Gbat I've no idea. I don't care what birds are called. So I'm curious why they even care in the first place They’re the American Ornithological Society, birds are their entire reason for existing. But why do they care about changing the birds names?" They've said they're changing the birds' names, as well as no longer honouring people who probably don't deserve the honour, "to help people understand the species: names that describe the bird, its habitat, its range, or something else about the species that conveys more information about the bird than a person’s name". Seems a reasonable enough thing for the American equivalent of the RSBP to worry about. I assume the same organisation - or a predecessor - named the birds in the first place so up to them if they decide it's time for a change! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat " No. You fixed it for you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat No you didn't, you altered it for some juvenile reason. So, why do they care? I altered it to make a light hearted quip, alluding that I thought your question was the wrong question and in fact I personally think you (and others) should be looking at this from a different perspective. Sorry you missed that. To answer your question, here's a quote you could have found yourself. It was the first item that Google threw up from my search. “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said Colleen Handel, president of the AOS, in a statement. But of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. What name will people use going forward? That's my answer to your question. What's the answer to the question I posed? Gbat I've no idea. I don't care what birds are called. So I'm curious why they even care in the first place They’re the American Ornithological Society, birds are their entire reason for existing. But why do they care about changing the birds names? They've said they're changing the birds' names, as well as no longer honouring people who probably don't deserve the honour, "to help people understand the species: names that describe the bird, its habitat, its range, or something else about the species that conveys more information about the bird than a person’s name". Seems a reasonable enough thing for the American equivalent of the RSBP to worry about. I assume the same organisation - or a predecessor - named the birds in the first place so up to them if they decide it's time for a change!" Sounds like a load of nonsense tbh, as if it's going to help people understand more about the bird. I don't think anybody is buying that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sounds like a load of nonsense tbh, as if it's going to help people understand more about the bird. I don't think anybody is buying that" I guess they don't agree with you. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat No you didn't, you altered it for some juvenile reason. So, why do they care? I altered it to make a light hearted quip, alluding that I thought your question was the wrong question and in fact I personally think you (and others) should be looking at this from a different perspective. Sorry you missed that. To answer your question, here's a quote you could have found yourself. It was the first item that Google threw up from my search. “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said Colleen Handel, president of the AOS, in a statement. But of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. What name will people use going forward? That's my answer to your question. What's the answer to the question I posed? Gbat I've no idea. I don't care what birds are called. So I'm curious why they even care in the first place They’re the American Ornithological Society, birds are their entire reason for existing. But why do they care about changing the birds names? They've said they're changing the birds' names, as well as no longer honouring people who probably don't deserve the honour, "to help people understand the species: names that describe the bird, its habitat, its range, or something else about the species that conveys more information about the bird than a person’s name". Seems a reasonable enough thing for the American equivalent of the RSBP to worry about. I assume the same organisation - or a predecessor - named the birds in the first place so up to them if they decide it's time for a change! Sounds like a load of nonsense tbh, as if it's going to help people understand more about the bird. I don't think anybody is buying that" I've no idea, but I'll take their word for it. I'm not a birdwatcher. But I can't see why people care so much that a few random, questionable historical figures will no longer have a bird named after them. Why not make a change if it's (a) helpful and (b) removes offence for some? Things change names all the time. I've asked this before and no-one has answered, but at what point in time did we fix names never to be changed again? "It's always Ayers Rock to me, dammit!" I imagine the native Americans has names for most of these birds before they were renamed in the 19th century; perhaps we could revert to those? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat No. You fixed it for you. " Yeah, we've covered this already. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I imagine the native Americans has names for most of these birds before they were renamed in the 19th century; perhaps we could revert to those?" They are only changing English language names at this time as that's the language the AOS works in. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I imagine the native Americans has names for most of these birds before they were renamed in the 19th century; perhaps we could revert to those? They are only changing English language names at this time as that's the language the AOS works in. Gbat " I was being ironic, GBAT. People seem very protective of these names, but perhaps less so of any that might have preceded them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat No you didn't, you altered it for some juvenile reason. So, why do they care? I altered it to make a light hearted quip, alluding that I thought your question was the wrong question and in fact I personally think you (and others) should be looking at this from a different perspective. Sorry you missed that. To answer your question, here's a quote you could have found yourself. It was the first item that Google threw up from my search. “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said Colleen Handel, president of the AOS, in a statement. But of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. What name will people use going forward? That's my answer to your question. What's the answer to the question I posed? Gbat I've no idea. I don't care what birds are called. So I'm curious why they even care in the first place They’re the American Ornithological Society, birds are their entire reason for existing. But why do they care about changing the birds names? They've said they're changing the birds' names, as well as no longer honouring people who probably don't deserve the honour, "to help people understand the species: names that describe the bird, its habitat, its range, or something else about the species that conveys more information about the bird than a person’s name". Seems a reasonable enough thing for the American equivalent of the RSBP to worry about. I assume the same organisation - or a predecessor - named the birds in the first place so up to them if they decide it's time for a change! Sounds like a load of nonsense tbh, as if it's going to help people understand more about the bird. I don't think anybody is buying that I've no idea, but I'll take their word for it. I'm not a birdwatcher. But I can't see why people care so much that a few random, questionable historical figures will no longer have a bird named after them. Why not make a change if it's (a) helpful and (b) removes offence for some? Things change names all the time. I've asked this before and no-one has answered, but at what point in time did we fix names never to be changed again? "It's always Ayers Rock to me, dammit!" I imagine the native Americans has names for most of these birds before they were renamed in the 19th century; perhaps we could revert to those?" I can't see why people care so much to bother changing them in the first place. Works both ways doesn't it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat No you didn't, you altered it for some juvenile reason. So, why do they care? I altered it to make a light hearted quip, alluding that I thought your question was the wrong question and in fact I personally think you (and others) should be looking at this from a different perspective. Sorry you missed that. To answer your question, here's a quote you could have found yourself. It was the first item that Google threw up from my search. “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said Colleen Handel, president of the AOS, in a statement. But of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. What name will people use going forward? That's my answer to your question. What's the answer to the question I posed? Gbat I've no idea. I don't care what birds are called. So I'm curious why they even care in the first place They’re the American Ornithological Society, birds are their entire reason for existing. But why do they care about changing the birds names? They've said they're changing the birds' names, as well as no longer honouring people who probably don't deserve the honour, "to help people understand the species: names that describe the bird, its habitat, its range, or something else about the species that conveys more information about the bird than a person’s name". Seems a reasonable enough thing for the American equivalent of the RSBP to worry about. I assume the same organisation - or a predecessor - named the birds in the first place so up to them if they decide it's time for a change! Sounds like a load of nonsense tbh, as if it's going to help people understand more about the bird. I don't think anybody is buying that I've no idea, but I'll take their word for it. I'm not a birdwatcher. But I can't see why people care so much that a few random, questionable historical figures will no longer have a bird named after them. Why not make a change if it's (a) helpful and (b) removes offence for some? Things change names all the time. I've asked this before and no-one has answered, but at what point in time did we fix names never to be changed again? "It's always Ayers Rock to me, dammit!" I imagine the native Americans has names for most of these birds before they were renamed in the 19th century; perhaps we could revert to those? I can't see why people care so much to bother changing them in the first place. " Lucky you're not in charge then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat No you didn't, you altered it for some juvenile reason. So, why do they care? I altered it to make a light hearted quip, alluding that I thought your question was the wrong question and in fact I personally think you (and others) should be looking at this from a different perspective. Sorry you missed that. To answer your question, here's a quote you could have found yourself. It was the first item that Google threw up from my search. “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said Colleen Handel, president of the AOS, in a statement. But of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. What name will people use going forward? That's my answer to your question. What's the answer to the question I posed? Gbat I've no idea. I don't care what birds are called. So I'm curious why they even care in the first place They’re the American Ornithological Society, birds are their entire reason for existing. But why do they care about changing the birds names? They've said they're changing the birds' names, as well as no longer honouring people who probably don't deserve the honour, "to help people understand the species: names that describe the bird, its habitat, its range, or something else about the species that conveys more information about the bird than a person’s name". Seems a reasonable enough thing for the American equivalent of the RSBP to worry about. I assume the same organisation - or a predecessor - named the birds in the first place so up to them if they decide it's time for a change! Sounds like a load of nonsense tbh, as if it's going to help people understand more about the bird. I don't think anybody is buying that I've no idea, but I'll take their word for it. I'm not a birdwatcher. But I can't see why people care so much that a few random, questionable historical figures will no longer have a bird named after them. Why not make a change if it's (a) helpful and (b) removes offence for some? Things change names all the time. I've asked this before and no-one has answered, but at what point in time did we fix names never to be changed again? "It's always Ayers Rock to me, dammit!" I imagine the native Americans has names for most of these birds before they were renamed in the 19th century; perhaps we could revert to those? I can't see why people care so much to bother changing them in the first place. Lucky you're not in charge then." Heaven forbid. The birds name mightn't actually change. The horror | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The question I would have to ask anyone who is against this, is why do you care? Fixed it for you. Gbat No you didn't, you altered it for some juvenile reason. So, why do they care? I altered it to make a light hearted quip, alluding that I thought your question was the wrong question and in fact I personally think you (and others) should be looking at this from a different perspective. Sorry you missed that. To answer your question, here's a quote you could have found yourself. It was the first item that Google threw up from my search. “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today,” said Colleen Handel, president of the AOS, in a statement. But of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. What name will people use going forward? That's my answer to your question. What's the answer to the question I posed? Gbat I've no idea. I don't care what birds are called. So I'm curious why they even care in the first place They’re the American Ornithological Society, birds are their entire reason for existing. But why do they care about changing the birds names? They've said they're changing the birds' names, as well as no longer honouring people who probably don't deserve the honour, "to help people understand the species: names that describe the bird, its habitat, its range, or something else about the species that conveys more information about the bird than a person’s name". Seems a reasonable enough thing for the American equivalent of the RSBP to worry about. I assume the same organisation - or a predecessor - named the birds in the first place so up to them if they decide it's time for a change! Sounds like a load of nonsense tbh, as if it's going to help people understand more about the bird. I don't think anybody is buying that I've no idea, but I'll take their word for it. I'm not a birdwatcher. But I can't see why people care so much that a few random, questionable historical figures will no longer have a bird named after them. Why not make a change if it's (a) helpful and (b) removes offence for some? Things change names all the time. I've asked this before and no-one has answered, but at what point in time did we fix names never to be changed again? "It's always Ayers Rock to me, dammit!" I imagine the native Americans has names for most of these birds before they were renamed in the 19th century; perhaps we could revert to those? I can't see why people care so much to bother changing them in the first place. Lucky you're not in charge then. Heaven forbid. The birds name mightn't actually change. The horror" It's not important to you (or me), but it will be to some people, so I don't see why you wouldn't make an effort. Guess it's the same reason street names change at points in history, but I imagine people at the time objected too or didn't think it was worth the bother. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down. It isn't "getting rid of racism", but rather "removing celebration of (some) famous racists"... which is a good thing. Cal Nobody is celebrating a racist when they call a bird by its name. If people want to connect whoever the racist was who named a few birds (assuming there is actually one and it's not just click bait) that's fine. It's a reminder of how not to be. You can't airbrush out history as and when fashion dictates. It's like knocking down dachau or auschwitz because nazism was bad. People visit those places as a reminder of never be like it again. Keep the names, teach the relevant history and learn from past mistakes. " Don't shoot the messenger pigeon
I was referring more to the removal of statues than changing some bird's name.
The idea that tearing down a statue to a famous former s1ave trader, is not "Airbrushing History", just adding a new chapter. I many cases, these statues were commissioned by themselves, their families, or people who benefitted from their profits. A statue is very much designed to be a "celebration" of the subject's achievements (Mainly making money) and personally I believe that when those achievements are constructed on the profits of SELLING PEOPLE, they're no worthy of being celebrated, and surely to continue would be Airbrushing the History of the atrocities they committed?
On the subject of Ghandi (also Churchill and many others), it is another example of history being "airbrushed" to remove the negative. The stories should be re-written to include the complete picture.
Cal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down. It isn't "getting rid of racism", but rather "removing celebration of (some) famous racists"... which is a good thing. Cal Nobody is celebrating a racist when they call a bird by its name. If people want to connect whoever the racist was who named a few birds (assuming there is actually one and it's not just click bait) that's fine. It's a reminder of how not to be. You can't airbrush out history as and when fashion dictates. It's like knocking down dachau or auschwitz because nazism was bad. People visit those places as a reminder of never be like it again. Keep the names, teach the relevant history and learn from past mistakes. Don't shoot the messenger pigeon
I was referring more to the removal of statues than changing some bird's name.
The idea that tearing down a statue to a famous former s1ave trader, is not "Airbrushing History", just adding a new chapter. I many cases, these statues were commissioned by themselves, their families, or people who benefitted from their profits. A statue is very much designed to be a "celebration" of the subject's achievements (Mainly making money) and personally I believe that when those achievements are constructed on the profits of SELLING PEOPLE, they're no worthy of being celebrated, and surely to continue would be Airbrushing the History of the atrocities they committed?
On the subject of Ghandi (also Churchill and many others), it is another example of history being "airbrushed" to remove the negative. The stories should be re-written to include the complete picture.
Cal"There are plenty of nuances to the statue thing. Statues aren't by default a celebration of something. There are still many statues of Stalin around the world. Does that mean we are celebrating it? Why not see the statues as just a way to remind us of history. Even if we are going down the "statues are used to celebrate the person" route, it is straightforward only in cases where the only achievement by a person is sl@ve trade. What about people like Isaac Newton who invested in sl@ve trade but also made major contributions to the advancement of humans? Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" On the subject of Ghandi (also Churchill and many others), it is another example of history being "airbrushed" to remove the negative. The stories should be re-written to include the complete picture. Cal" This is very true, people seem to think Churchill should be immune to criticism but his policies were a huge part of the Bengal famine which killed 3 million people. When questioned about the famine he blamed Indians for ‘breeding like rabbits’ and asked if it was so bad ‘why is Gandhi still alive?’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down. It isn't "getting rid of racism", but rather "removing celebration of (some) famous racists"... which is a good thing. Cal Nobody is celebrating a racist when they call a bird by its name. If people want to connect whoever the racist was who named a few birds (assuming there is actually one and it's not just click bait) that's fine. It's a reminder of how not to be. You can't airbrush out history as and when fashion dictates. It's like knocking down dachau or auschwitz because nazism was bad. People visit those places as a reminder of never be like it again. Keep the names, teach the relevant history and learn from past mistakes. Don't shoot the messenger pigeon
I was referring more to the removal of statues than changing some bird's name.
The idea that tearing down a statue to a famous former s1ave trader, is not "Airbrushing History", just adding a new chapter. I many cases, these statues were commissioned by themselves, their families, or people who benefitted from their profits. A statue is very much designed to be a "celebration" of the subject's achievements (Mainly making money) and personally I believe that when those achievements are constructed on the profits of SELLING PEOPLE, they're no worthy of being celebrated, and surely to continue would be Airbrushing the History of the atrocities they committed?
On the subject of Ghandi (also Churchill and many others), it is another example of history being "airbrushed" to remove the negative. The stories should be re-written to include the complete picture.
Cal
There are plenty of nuances to the statue thing. Statues aren't by default a celebration of something. There are still many statues of Stalin around the world. Does that mean we are celebrating it? Why not see the statues as just a way to remind us of history.
Even if we are going down the "statues are used to celebrate the person" route, it is straightforward only in cases where the only achievement by a person is sl@ve trade. What about people like Isaac Newton who invested in sl@ve trade but also made major contributions to the advancement of humans?
Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today."Have statues of Isaac Newton been taken down? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down. It isn't "getting rid of racism", but rather "removing celebration of (some) famous racists"... which is a good thing. Cal Nobody is celebrating a racist when they call a bird by its name. If people want to connect whoever the racist was who named a few birds (assuming there is actually one and it's not just click bait) that's fine. It's a reminder of how not to be. You can't airbrush out history as and when fashion dictates. It's like knocking down dachau or auschwitz because nazism was bad. People visit those places as a reminder of never be like it again. Keep the names, teach the relevant history and learn from past mistakes. Don't shoot the messenger pigeon
I was referring more to the removal of statues than changing some bird's name.
The idea that tearing down a statue to a famous former s1ave trader, is not "Airbrushing History", just adding a new chapter. I many cases, these statues were commissioned by themselves, their families, or people who benefitted from their profits. A statue is very much designed to be a "celebration" of the subject's achievements (Mainly making money) and personally I believe that when those achievements are constructed on the profits of SELLING PEOPLE, they're no worthy of being celebrated, and surely to continue would be Airbrushing the History of the atrocities they committed?
On the subject of Ghandi (also Churchill and many others), it is another example of history being "airbrushed" to remove the negative. The stories should be re-written to include the complete picture.
Cal
There are plenty of nuances to the statue thing. Statues aren't by default a celebration of something. There are still many statues of Stalin around the world. Does that mean we are celebrating it? Why not see the statues as just a way to remind us of history.
Even if we are going down the "statues are used to celebrate the person" route, it is straightforward only in cases where the only achievement by a person is sl@ve trade. What about people like Isaac Newton who invested in sl@ve trade but also made major contributions to the advancement of humans?
Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today.
Have statues of Isaac Newton been taken down?"They haven't yet. But if we are going down the route of taking down statues of people related to sl@ve trade, isn't that just the natural product progression? If they decide to take it down, will you fight against it or support it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down. It isn't "getting rid of racism", but rather "removing celebration of (some) famous racists"... which is a good thing. Cal Nobody is celebrating a racist when they call a bird by its name. If people want to connect whoever the racist was who named a few birds (assuming there is actually one and it's not just click bait) that's fine. It's a reminder of how not to be. You can't airbrush out history as and when fashion dictates. It's like knocking down dachau or auschwitz because nazism was bad. People visit those places as a reminder of never be like it again. Keep the names, teach the relevant history and learn from past mistakes. Don't shoot the messenger pigeon
I was referring more to the removal of statues than changing some bird's name.
The idea that tearing down a statue to a famous former s1ave trader, is not "Airbrushing History", just adding a new chapter. I many cases, these statues were commissioned by themselves, their families, or people who benefitted from their profits. A statue is very much designed to be a "celebration" of the subject's achievements (Mainly making money) and personally I believe that when those achievements are constructed on the profits of SELLING PEOPLE, they're no worthy of being celebrated, and surely to continue would be Airbrushing the History of the atrocities they committed?
On the subject of Ghandi (also Churchill and many others), it is another example of history being "airbrushed" to remove the negative. The stories should be re-written to include the complete picture.
Cal"We will just have to agree to disagree. Which is fine. History isn't changed by renaming and airbrushing. Only our ability to use them to learn about our history. As imperfect as it may be. I don't a free with fashionably renaming things or removing things. To the person who doesn't understand the relevance of race in nazi history. Can't help you with that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How in the hell is that getting rid of racism? Has pulling down down statues got rid of racism? Interesting isn't it that Ghandi never had a good word to say about black people,but none of his statues have been pulled down. It isn't "getting rid of racism", but rather "removing celebration of (some) famous racists"... which is a good thing. Cal Nobody is celebrating a racist when they call a bird by its name. If people want to connect whoever the racist was who named a few birds (assuming there is actually one and it's not just click bait) that's fine. It's a reminder of how not to be. You can't airbrush out history as and when fashion dictates. It's like knocking down dachau or auschwitz because nazism was bad. People visit those places as a reminder of never be like it again. Keep the names, teach the relevant history and learn from past mistakes. Don't shoot the messenger pigeon
I was referring more to the removal of statues than changing some bird's name.
The idea that tearing down a statue to a famous former s1ave trader, is not "Airbrushing History", just adding a new chapter. I many cases, these statues were commissioned by themselves, their families, or people who benefitted from their profits. A statue is very much designed to be a "celebration" of the subject's achievements (Mainly making money) and personally I believe that when those achievements are constructed on the profits of SELLING PEOPLE, they're no worthy of being celebrated, and surely to continue would be Airbrushing the History of the atrocities they committed?
On the subject of Ghandi (also Churchill and many others), it is another example of history being "airbrushed" to remove the negative. The stories should be re-written to include the complete picture.
Cal
There are plenty of nuances to the statue thing. Statues aren't by default a celebration of something. There are still many statues of Stalin around the world. Does that mean we are celebrating it? Why not see the statues as just a way to remind us of history.
Even if we are going down the "statues are used to celebrate the person" route, it is straightforward only in cases where the only achievement by a person is sl@ve trade. What about people like Isaac Newton who invested in sl@ve trade but also made major contributions to the advancement of humans?
Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today.
Have statues of Isaac Newton been taken down?
They haven't yet. But if we are going down the route of taking down statues of people related to sl@ve trade, isn't that just the natural product progression? If they decide to take it down, will you fight against it or support it?"I believe you are creating what is known as a ‘strawman’ it’s like when people talk about the great replacement theory, that white people will inevitably become a minority in their own country. There’s no evidence that it will happen but it plays into right wing fears. Just as renaming birds won’t inevitably lead to Nazi concentration camps, removing statues of people whose wealth came from sl@ve trading, or those who fought to maintain sl@ve ownership, won’t lead to people who happened to invest in companies who traded sl@ves having their statues removed. Thankfully the world is a little more nuanced than GB News believes it to be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are plenty of nuances to the statue thing. Statues aren't by default a celebration of something. There are still many statues of Stalin around the world. Does that mean we are celebrating it? Why not see the statues as just a way to remind us of history. Even if we are going down the "statues are used to celebrate the person" route, it is straightforward only in cases where the only achievement by a person is sl@ve trade. What about people like Isaac Newton who invested in sl@ve trade but also made major contributions to the advancement of humans? Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today. Have statues of Isaac Newton been taken down? They haven't yet. But if we are going down the route of taking down statues of people related to sl@ve trade, isn't that just the natural product progression? If they decide to take it down, will you fight against it or support it? I believe you are creating what is known as a ‘strawman’ it’s like when people talk about the great replacement theory, that white people will inevitably become a minority in their own country. There’s no evidence that it will happen but it plays into right wing fears. Just as renaming birds won’t inevitably lead to Nazi concentration camps, removing statues of people whose wealth came from sl@ve trading, or those who fought to maintain sl@ve ownership, won’t lead to people who happened to invest in companies who traded sl@ves having their statues removed. Thankfully the world is a little more nuanced than GB News believes it to be." Lol.. How did great replacement theory come in here? How exactly is this strawman? You are taking down statues citing the reason that they contributed to sl@ve trade. By that argument, Newton's statues would be taken down too. You do know that investing in companies that did sl@ve trade also creates wealth, right? It's the people who take down the statues who lack the nuance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are plenty of nuances to the statue thing. Statues aren't by default a celebration of something. There are still many statues of Stalin around the world. Does that mean we are celebrating it? Why not see the statues as just a way to remind us of history. Even if we are going down the "statues are used to celebrate the person" route, it is straightforward only in cases where the only achievement by a person is sl@ve trade. What about people like Isaac Newton who invested in sl@ve trade but also made major contributions to the advancement of humans? Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today. Have statues of Isaac Newton been taken down? They haven't yet. But if we are going down the route of taking down statues of people related to sl@ve trade, isn't that just the natural product progression? If they decide to take it down, will you fight against it or support it? I believe you are creating what is known as a ‘strawman’ it’s like when people talk about the great replacement theory, that white people will inevitably become a minority in their own country. There’s no evidence that it will happen but it plays into right wing fears. Just as renaming birds won’t inevitably lead to Nazi concentration camps, removing statues of people whose wealth came from sl@ve trading, or those who fought to maintain sl@ve ownership, won’t lead to people who happened to invest in companies who traded sl@ves having their statues removed. Thankfully the world is a little more nuanced than GB News believes it to be. Lol.. How did great replacement theory come in here? How exactly is this strawman? You are taking down statues citing the reason that they contributed to sl@ve trade. By that argument, Newton's statues would be taken down too. You do know that investing in companies that did sl@ve trade also creates wealth, right? It's the people who take down the statues who lack the nuance. " If we burn the books too we can make it so it never happened | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are plenty of nuances to the statue thing. Statues aren't by default a celebration of something. There are still many statues of Stalin around the world. Does that mean we are celebrating it? Why not see the statues as just a way to remind us of history. Even if we are going down the "statues are used to celebrate the person" route, it is straightforward only in cases where the only achievement by a person is sl@ve trade. What about people like Isaac Newton who invested in sl@ve trade but also made major contributions to the advancement of humans? Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today. Have statues of Isaac Newton been taken down? They haven't yet. But if we are going down the route of taking down statues of people related to sl@ve trade, isn't that just the natural product progression? If they decide to take it down, will you fight against it or support it? I believe you are creating what is known as a ‘strawman’ it’s like when people talk about the great replacement theory, that white people will inevitably become a minority in their own country. There’s no evidence that it will happen but it plays into right wing fears. Just as renaming birds won’t inevitably lead to Nazi concentration camps, removing statues of people whose wealth came from sl@ve trading, or those who fought to maintain sl@ve ownership, won’t lead to people who happened to invest in companies who traded sl@ves having their statues removed. Thankfully the world is a little more nuanced than GB News believes it to be. Lol.. How did great replacement theory come in here? How exactly is this strawman? You are taking down statues citing the reason that they contributed to sl@ve trade. By that argument, Newton's statues would be taken down too. You do know that investing in companies that did sl@ve trade also creates wealth, right? It's the people who take down the statues who lack the nuance. If we burn the books too we can make it so it never happened" Exactly! We are not making the society better. We are only making them more stupid by removing their ability to see history with all its nuances, to understand that the way moral values have changed over time. People who lack these skills will grow up to be very close minded. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are plenty of nuances to the statue thing. Statues aren't by default a celebration of something. There are still many statues of Stalin around the world. Does that mean we are celebrating it? Why not see the statues as just a way to remind us of history. Even if we are going down the "statues are used to celebrate the person" route, it is straightforward only in cases where the only achievement by a person is sl@ve trade. What about people like Isaac Newton who invested in sl@ve trade but also made major contributions to the advancement of humans? Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today. Have statues of Isaac Newton been taken down? They haven't yet. But if we are going down the route of taking down statues of people related to sl@ve trade, isn't that just the natural product progression? If they decide to take it down, will you fight against it or support it? I believe you are creating what is known as a ‘strawman’ it’s like when people talk about the great replacement theory, that white people will inevitably become a minority in their own country. There’s no evidence that it will happen but it plays into right wing fears. Just as renaming birds won’t inevitably lead to Nazi concentration camps, removing statues of people whose wealth came from sl@ve trading, or those who fought to maintain sl@ve ownership, won’t lead to people who happened to invest in companies who traded sl@ves having their statues removed. Thankfully the world is a little more nuanced than GB News believes it to be. Lol.. How did great replacement theory come in here? How exactly is this strawman? You are taking down statues citing the reason that they contributed to sl@ve trade. By that argument, Newton's statues would be taken down too. You do know that investing in companies that did sl@ve trade also creates wealth, right? It's the people who take down the statues who lack the nuance. " The great replacement theory is a strawman argument, it extrapolates from a little information that white people will be replaced, despite their being no evidence to back up the theory. This is taken up by the far right because it gives them an excuse for their racism. You are extrapolating that because a statue of a man who made his fortune from buying and selling sl@ves was taken down the statues of everyone who invested in companies that made money from sl@ve trafficking will be taken down, despite their being no evidence that this has taken place, or that it will. I think this shows that the people who campaign to have sl@ve traders statues taken down have a good grasp of nuance, given that they haven’t campaigned for the likes of Newton’s statue to be taken down. Please remember that the fears that exist inside your head don’t necessarily exist in the real world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are plenty of nuances to the statue thing. Statues aren't by default a celebration of something. There are still many statues of Stalin around the world. Does that mean we are celebrating it? Why not see the statues as just a way to remind us of history. Even if we are going down the "statues are used to celebrate the person" route, it is straightforward only in cases where the only achievement by a person is sl@ve trade. What about people like Isaac Newton who invested in sl@ve trade but also made major contributions to the advancement of humans? Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today. Have statues of Isaac Newton been taken down? They haven't yet. But if we are going down the route of taking down statues of people related to sl@ve trade, isn't that just the natural product progression? If they decide to take it down, will you fight against it or support it? I believe you are creating what is known as a ‘strawman’ it’s like when people talk about the great replacement theory, that white people will inevitably become a minority in their own country. There’s no evidence that it will happen but it plays into right wing fears. Just as renaming birds won’t inevitably lead to Nazi concentration camps, removing statues of people whose wealth came from sl@ve trading, or those who fought to maintain sl@ve ownership, won’t lead to people who happened to invest in companies who traded sl@ves having their statues removed. Thankfully the world is a little more nuanced than GB News believes it to be. Lol.. How did great replacement theory come in here? How exactly is this strawman? You are taking down statues citing the reason that they contributed to sl@ve trade. By that argument, Newton's statues would be taken down too. You do know that investing in companies that did sl@ve trade also creates wealth, right? It's the people who take down the statues who lack the nuance. The great replacement theory is a strawman argument, it extrapolates from a little information that white people will be replaced, despite their being no evidence to back up the theory. This is taken up by the far right because it gives them an excuse for their racism. You are extrapolating that because a statue of a man who made his fortune from buying and selling sl@ves was taken down the statues of everyone who invested in companies that made money from sl@ve trafficking will be taken down, despite their being no evidence that this has taken place, or that it will. I think this shows that the people who campaign to have sl@ve traders statues taken down have a good grasp of nuance, given that they haven’t campaigned for the likes of Newton’s statue to be taken down. Please remember that the fears that exist inside your head don’t necessarily exist in the real world." You seem to confuse slippery slope arguments with strawman argument. I am just asking for some consistency here. You are saying that people who made money out of sl@ve trade don't deserve statue. How exactly are you going to justify people actually investing money in companies which did sl@ve trade? That's also just a way of making money? Do you think it is morally consistent for a vegan who hates killing animals, to invest in KFC? And you haven't answered my question yet. If a group of people decide to take down Newton's statue, will you support them or argue against them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are plenty of nuances to the statue thing. Statues aren't by default a celebration of something. There are still many statues of Stalin around the world. Does that mean we are celebrating it? Why not see the statues as just a way to remind us of history. Even if we are going down the "statues are used to celebrate the person" route, it is straightforward only in cases where the only achievement by a person is sl@ve trade. What about people like Isaac Newton who invested in sl@ve trade but also made major contributions to the advancement of humans? Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today. Have statues of Isaac Newton been taken down? They haven't yet. But if we are going down the route of taking down statues of people related to sl@ve trade, isn't that just the natural product progression? If they decide to take it down, will you fight against it or support it? I believe you are creating what is known as a ‘strawman’ it’s like when people talk about the great replacement theory, that white people will inevitably become a minority in their own country. There’s no evidence that it will happen but it plays into right wing fears. Just as renaming birds won’t inevitably lead to Nazi concentration camps, removing statues of people whose wealth came from sl@ve trading, or those who fought to maintain sl@ve ownership, won’t lead to people who happened to invest in companies who traded sl@ves having their statues removed. Thankfully the world is a little more nuanced than GB News believes it to be. Lol.. How did great replacement theory come in here? How exactly is this strawman? You are taking down statues citing the reason that they contributed to sl@ve trade. By that argument, Newton's statues would be taken down too. You do know that investing in companies that did sl@ve trade also creates wealth, right? It's the people who take down the statues who lack the nuance. The great replacement theory is a strawman argument, it extrapolates from a little information that white people will be replaced, despite their being no evidence to back up the theory. This is taken up by the far right because it gives them an excuse for their racism. You are extrapolating that because a statue of a man who made his fortune from buying and selling sl@ves was taken down the statues of everyone who invested in companies that made money from sl@ve trafficking will be taken down, despite their being no evidence that this has taken place, or that it will. I think this shows that the people who campaign to have sl@ve traders statues taken down have a good grasp of nuance, given that they haven’t campaigned for the likes of Newton’s statue to be taken down. Please remember that the fears that exist inside your head don’t necessarily exist in the real world. You seem to confuse slippery slope arguments with strawman argument. I am just asking for some consistency here. You are saying that people who made money out of sl@ve trade don't deserve statue. How exactly are you going to justify people actually investing money in companies which did sl@ve trade? That's also just a way of making money? Do you think it is morally consistent for a vegan who hates killing animals, to invest in KFC? And you haven't answered my question yet. If a group of people decide to take down Newton's statue, will you support them or argue against them?" You seem to mistakenly believe that a slippery slope argument cannot be a strawman argument too. I’m afraid you are incorrect in this belief. As for your question I would have to hear the argument of the group who would like to take Newton’s statue down. Now, a question for you. Do you agree that statues of Adolf Hitler should’ve been taken down after WWII? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today." Or maybe it shows that we ARE now able to look at the bigger picture, and decide that a 10m Tall "Idol" of a historic business owner who made his millions primarily from buy & selling people or forcing them to work is maybe slightly perverse? I'm not saying that every statue is wrong, or that some peoples achievements don't deserve to be celebrated (Ghandi, Churchill, etc..) regardless of them being racist\sexist\homphobic\etc.. BUT that the world should also be aware of the entire colour of that person's character, and not just the "purple patch" Cal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I like boobys and shags and great tits" Love a blue booby, and blue tit To much avatar | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are plenty of nuances to the statue thing. Statues aren't by default a celebration of something. There are still many statues of Stalin around the world. Does that mean we are celebrating it? Why not see the statues as just a way to remind us of history. Even if we are going down the "statues are used to celebrate the person" route, it is straightforward only in cases where the only achievement by a person is sl@ve trade. What about people like Isaac Newton who invested in sl@ve trade but also made major contributions to the advancement of humans? Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today. Have statues of Isaac Newton been taken down? They haven't yet. But if we are going down the route of taking down statues of people related to sl@ve trade, isn't that just the natural product progression? If they decide to take it down, will you fight against it or support it? I believe you are creating what is known as a ‘strawman’ it’s like when people talk about the great replacement theory, that white people will inevitably become a minority in their own country. There’s no evidence that it will happen but it plays into right wing fears. Just as renaming birds won’t inevitably lead to Nazi concentration camps, removing statues of people whose wealth came from sl@ve trading, or those who fought to maintain sl@ve ownership, won’t lead to people who happened to invest in companies who traded sl@ves having their statues removed. Thankfully the world is a little more nuanced than GB News believes it to be. Lol.. How did great replacement theory come in here? How exactly is this strawman? You are taking down statues citing the reason that they contributed to sl@ve trade. By that argument, Newton's statues would be taken down too. You do know that investing in companies that did sl@ve trade also creates wealth, right? It's the people who take down the statues who lack the nuance. The great replacement theory is a strawman argument, it extrapolates from a little information that white people will be replaced, despite their being no evidence to back up the theory. This is taken up by the far right because it gives them an excuse for their racism. You are extrapolating that because a statue of a man who made his fortune from buying and selling sl@ves was taken down the statues of everyone who invested in companies that made money from sl@ve trafficking will be taken down, despite their being no evidence that this has taken place, or that it will. I think this shows that the people who campaign to have sl@ve traders statues taken down have a good grasp of nuance, given that they haven’t campaigned for the likes of Newton’s statue to be taken down. Please remember that the fears that exist inside your head don’t necessarily exist in the real world. You seem to confuse slippery slope arguments with strawman argument. I am just asking for some consistency here. You are saying that people who made money out of sl@ve trade don't deserve statue. How exactly are you going to justify people actually investing money in companies which did sl@ve trade? That's also just a way of making money? Do you think it is morally consistent for a vegan who hates killing animals, to invest in KFC? And you haven't answered my question yet. If a group of people decide to take down Newton's statue, will you support them or argue against them? You seem to mistakenly believe that a slippery slope argument cannot be a strawman argument too. I’m afraid you are incorrect in this belief. As for your question I would have to hear the argument of the group who would like to take Newton’s statue down. Now, a question for you. Do you agree that statues of Adolf Hitler should’ve been taken down after WWII?" Slippery slope argument can sometimes be a strawman argument. But the definition you gave is that of a slippery slope argument. I gave you the argument of the people who want to take down Newton's statue. It's because he invested in sl@ve trade and hence clearly supported it. As for Hitler statues, I would rather add the details of all the atrocities that he did under the statue, to act as a stark reminder of the past instead of taking down the statue itself. If we are keeping Stalin's and Mao's statues, why not Hitler's statue? It makes much more sense to face the truth instead of hide from it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today. Or maybe it shows that we ARE now able to look at the bigger picture, and decide that a 10m Tall "Idol" of a historic business owner who made his millions primarily from buy & selling people or forcing them to work is maybe slightly perverse? I'm not saying that every statue is wrong, or that some peoples achievements don't deserve to be celebrated (Ghandi, Churchill, etc..) regardless of them being racist\sexist\homphobic\etc.. BUT that the world should also be aware of the entire colour of that person's character, and not just the "purple patch" Cal" Having a statue of someone isn't celebrating it. There are Stalin and Mao's statues around the world. It has nothing to do with celebrating them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As for Hitler statues, I would rather add the details of all the atrocities that he did under the statue, to act as a stark reminder of the past instead of taking down the statue itself. If we are keeping Stalin's and Mao's statues, why not Hitler's statue? It makes much more sense to face the truth instead of hide from it?" Are you suggesting that the removal of Hitler statues has somehow airbrushed the nazi regime from history? Really? There are many excellent museums, exhibitions, real concentration camps that continue to educate people. Excellent films about that period. Written testimonies about that period. You can’t move in the UK around early November with out tripping over poppies or similar. The Second World War is still referenced in recent politics. Airbrushed? No. Hitler statues needed? No. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As for Hitler statues, I would rather add the details of all the atrocities that he did under the statue, to act as a stark reminder of the past instead of taking down the statue itself. If we are keeping Stalin's and Mao's statues, why not Hitler's statue? It makes much more sense to face the truth instead of hide from it? Are you suggesting that the removal of Hitler statues has somehow airbrushed the nazi regime from history? Really? There are many excellent museums, exhibitions, real concentration camps that continue to educate people. Excellent films about that period. Written testimonies about that period. You can’t move in the UK around early November with out tripping over poppies or similar. The Second World War is still referenced in recent politics. Airbrushed? No. Hitler statues needed? No. Gbat " Do you think presence of Hitler statues is actually celebrating Hitler? No Again, there are still many Stalin statues. No one thinks we are celebrating them. It's just seen as a historical relic, albeit a statue of an authoritarian. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As for Hitler statues, I would rather add the details of all the atrocities that he did under the statue, to act as a stark reminder of the past instead of taking down the statue itself. If we are keeping Stalin's and Mao's statues, why not Hitler's statue? It makes much more sense to face the truth instead of hide from it? Are you suggesting that the removal of Hitler statues has somehow airbrushed the nazi regime from history? Really? There are many excellent museums, exhibitions, real concentration camps that continue to educate people. Excellent films about that period. Written testimonies about that period. You can’t move in the UK around early November with out tripping over poppies or similar. The Second World War is still referenced in recent politics. Airbrushed? No. Hitler statues needed? No. Gbat Do you think presence of Hitler statues is actually celebrating Hitler? No " But that was the very purpose of the statues... They don't erect a statue to remind people of the BAD that people did, it is an Idol to be looked up at. As for Stalin. There are very few statues of Stalin still standing, most were removed a long time ago. The majority of those that still exist are in Russia, where he is still seen as a hero by many. We have no control over what other countries choose to do. Cal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Having a statue of someone isn't celebrating it. There are Stalin and Mao's statues around the world. It has nothing to do with celebrating them. " What is it to do with then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As for Hitler statues, I would rather add the details of all the atrocities that he did under the statue, to act as a stark reminder of the past instead of taking down the statue itself. If we are keeping Stalin's and Mao's statues, why not Hitler's statue? It makes much more sense to face the truth instead of hide from it?" Where are these statues of Stalin and Mao, of which you speak? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do we think people in African countries or places like China or Russia or having these moral debates? They are in their balls. They're getting on with daily business" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's all plain daft. The perpetually outraged must have hit the bottom of the barrel in their search for all things they find offensive. It'll be mamals, marsupials and rodents next. Then the spiders and other creeping things. There are some fantastic bird names out their and we could lose them all. Horned screamer Fluffy backed tit babler Blue footed booby Himalayan snowcock Rough faced shag Little bustard Red rumped bush tyrant Ruddy pigeon Flying steamer duck And my personal favourite; The satanic goatsucker Yes, Racism is a terrible thing. But (insert pronoun here) bringing the creatures of the world into their little universe of shock and outrage is taking it too far in my opinion. Don't forget folks! BLM; Birds Lives Matter! " This | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Taking down statues doesn't prove we have become morally superior. It only proves that we have lost the ability to look at the larger perspective, understand that the societies in the past weren't ideal in current terms and most people of that time wouldn't stand up to the morality test of today. Or maybe it shows that we ARE now able to look at the bigger picture, and decide that a 10m Tall "Idol" of a historic business owner who made his millions primarily from buy & selling people or forcing them to work is maybe slightly perverse? I'm not saying that every statue is wrong, or that some peoples achievements don't deserve to be celebrated (Ghandi, Churchill, etc..) regardless of them being racist\sexist\homphobic\etc.. BUT that the world should also be aware of the entire colour of that person's character, and not just the "purple patch" Cal" Agree with that... And that is why the memorials should remain as a trigger for those learnings. In my opinion anyway. Every status or memorial is not a celebration... Its a memorial or a statue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As for Hitler statues, I would rather add the details of all the atrocities that he did under the statue, to act as a stark reminder of the past instead of taking down the statue itself. If we are keeping Stalin's and Mao's statues, why not Hitler's statue? It makes much more sense to face the truth instead of hide from it? Where are these statues of Stalin and Mao, of which you speak?" Other than the plenty in Russia, there are a few Stalin statues in other countries like Georgia, Lithuania and Mongolia. Plenty of Mao statues continue to exist in China | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plenty of Mao statues continue to exist in China" Ah, I hadn’t thought of that as an argument. “You can’t rename a bird in the USA because there are Mao statues in China.” You’ve changed my mind completely. It’s good to talk! Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As for Hitler statues, I would rather add the details of all the atrocities that he did under the statue, to act as a stark reminder of the past instead of taking down the statue itself. If we are keeping Stalin's and Mao's statues, why not Hitler's statue? It makes much more sense to face the truth instead of hide from it? Where are these statues of Stalin and Mao, of which you speak? Other than the plenty in Russia, there are a few Stalin statues in other countries like Georgia, Lithuania and Mongolia. Plenty of Mao statues continue to exist in China" So that's Georgian born Joseph Stalin the leader of the Soviet Union, who is still considered a hero by many in Russia, including Vadimir Putin; and Chairman Mao who led the revolution that brought the Chinese Communist party to power. Can you think of a reason that statues of these figures might still be standing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Can you think of a reason that statues of these figures might still be standing?" They were built to last in those days. ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As for Hitler statues, I would rather add the details of all the atrocities that he did under the statue, to act as a stark reminder of the past instead of taking down the statue itself. If we are keeping Stalin's and Mao's statues, why not Hitler's statue? It makes much more sense to face the truth instead of hide from it? Where are these statues of Stalin and Mao, of which you speak? Other than the plenty in Russia, there are a few Stalin statues in other countries like Georgia, Lithuania and Mongolia. Plenty of Mao statues continue to exist in China So that's Georgian born Joseph Stalin the leader of the Soviet Union, who is still considered a hero by many in Russia, including Vadimir Putin; and Chairman Mao who led the revolution that brought the Chinese Communist party to power. Can you think of a reason that statues of these figures might still be standing?" Just because Stalin was Georgian born, it justifies the presence of his statue in Georgia? The guy is a dictator directly responsible for millions of death. Do you think that if communist party rule is taken down and China becomes a Republic, the Chinese people are going to take down Mao statues? In case you have forgotten, you still haven't answered my question about Newton's statue | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Plenty of Mao statues continue to exist in China Ah, I hadn’t thought of that as an argument. “You can’t rename a bird in the USA because there are Mao statues in China.” You’ve changed my mind completely. It’s good to talk! Gbat " Mao is a guy who killed more number of people than Hitler. 40 million is the lowest estimate of number of people he killed. If the Chinese people can look at his statues and understand that it's just a statue, why can't we? Oh I also pointed out Georgia and Lithuania which you have conveniently missed. It's hard to change mind of someone who prefers to read only the parts which agree with their belief systems | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As for Hitler statues, I would rather add the details of all the atrocities that he did under the statue, to act as a stark reminder of the past instead of taking down the statue itself. If we are keeping Stalin's and Mao's statues, why not Hitler's statue? It makes much more sense to face the truth instead of hide from it? Where are these statues of Stalin and Mao, of which you speak? Other than the plenty in Russia, there are a few Stalin statues in other countries like Georgia, Lithuania and Mongolia. Plenty of Mao statues continue to exist in China So that's Georgian born Joseph Stalin the leader of the Soviet Union, who is still considered a hero by many in Russia, including Vadimir Putin; and Chairman Mao who led the revolution that brought the Chinese Communist party to power. Can you think of a reason that statues of these figures might still be standing? Just because Stalin was Georgian born, it justifies the presence of his statue in Georgia? The guy is a dictator directly responsible for millions of death. Do you think that if communist party rule is taken down and China becomes a Republic, the Chinese people are going to take down Mao statues? In case you have forgotten, you still haven't answered my question about Newton's statue " I’m not trying to justify Stalin’s statues not being torn down in Georgia, I’m trying to explain why they haven’t, he is still a hero in Georgia, he’s celebrated there. That’s what statues are, they are celebrations of the person they depict. There are no statues of Hitler in Germany because he is not a hero there, he is not celebrated. The lack of Hitler statues doesn’t mean I don’t know what he did though. Just as the lack of sl@ve trader statues doesn’t mean I don’t know of the evils they perpetrated. The less celebration of racists and other evil people the better as far as I’m concerned, that’s because I’m anti-racism and evil in general. You are free to support the celebration of racists and other evil doers if you wish, I shall draw my own conclusions as to why you would do that. Mr DD | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Mao is a guy who killed more number of people than Hitler. 40 million is the lowest estimate of number of people he killed. If the Chinese people can look at his statues and understand that it's just a statue, why can't we? " You think Chinese people are stupid enough to try and get statues of Mao torn down? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As for Hitler statues, I would rather add the details of all the atrocities that he did under the statue, to act as a stark reminder of the past instead of taking down the statue itself. If we are keeping Stalin's and Mao's statues, why not Hitler's statue? It makes much more sense to face the truth instead of hide from it? Where are these statues of Stalin and Mao, of which you speak? Other than the plenty in Russia, there are a few Stalin statues in other countries like Georgia, Lithuania and Mongolia. Plenty of Mao statues continue to exist in China So that's Georgian born Joseph Stalin the leader of the Soviet Union, who is still considered a hero by many in Russia, including Vadimir Putin; and Chairman Mao who led the revolution that brought the Chinese Communist party to power. Can you think of a reason that statues of these figures might still be standing? Just because Stalin was Georgian born, it justifies the presence of his statue in Georgia? The guy is a dictator directly responsible for millions of death. Do you think that if communist party rule is taken down and China becomes a Republic, the Chinese people are going to take down Mao statues? In case you have forgotten, you still haven't answered my question about Newton's statue I’m not trying to justify Stalin’s statues not being torn down in Georgia, I’m trying to explain why they haven’t, he is still a hero in Georgia, he’s celebrated there. That’s what statues are, they are celebrations of the person they depict. There are no statues of Hitler in Germany because he is not a hero there, he is not celebrated. The lack of Hitler statues doesn’t mean I don’t know what he did though. Just as the lack of sl@ve trader statues doesn’t mean I don’t know of the evils they perpetrated. The less celebration of racists and other evil people the better as far as I’m concerned, that’s because I’m anti-racism and evil in general. You are free to support the celebration of racists and other evil doers if you wish, I shall draw my own conclusions as to why you would do that. Mr DD" I don't think majority of Georgians celebrate Stalin. Not sure where that comes from. If you have a principle that the presence of a statue automatically means we are celebrating something and racists shouldn't be celebrated, then you should be supportive of taking down statues of all racists - including Newton and Einstein. If you are just going to take down random statues based on whims, you are just taking the latest bandwagon without thinking much about it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Mao is a guy who killed more number of people than Hitler. 40 million is the lowest estimate of number of people he killed. If the Chinese people can look at his statues and understand that it's just a statue, why can't we? You think Chinese people are stupid enough to try and get statues of Mao torn down?" Have you talked to enough Chinese people? Most of them who hate Mao also hate the culture of taking down statues. Coincidentally, it was part of Mao's cultural revolution to take down statues of people with "old views" which they don't agree with. Why would people who hate Mao believe that it is right to follow his acts? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As for Hitler statues, I would rather add the details of all the atrocities that he did under the statue, to act as a stark reminder of the past instead of taking down the statue itself. If we are keeping Stalin's and Mao's statues, why not Hitler's statue? It makes much more sense to face the truth instead of hide from it? Are you suggesting that the removal of Hitler statues has somehow airbrushed the nazi regime from history? Really? There are many excellent museums, exhibitions, real concentration camps that continue to educate people. Excellent films about that period. Written testimonies about that period. You can’t move in the UK around early November with out tripping over poppies or similar. The Second World War is still referenced in recent politics. Airbrushed? No. Hitler statues needed? No. Gbat Do you think presence of Hitler statues is actually celebrating Hitler? No But that was the very purpose of the statues... They don't erect a statue to remind people of the BAD that people did, it is an Idol to be looked up at. As for Stalin. There are very few statues of Stalin still standing, most were removed a long time ago. The majority of those that still exist are in Russia, where he is still seen as a hero by many. We have no control over what other countries choose to do. Cal" They erected it for pride. So what? I am pretty sure the gas chambers were also erected because they thought it was a great idea. Haven't we retained them to show people that it was actually a terrible idea? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As for Hitler statues, I would rather add the details of all the atrocities that he did under the statue, to act as a stark reminder of the past instead of taking down the statue itself. If we are keeping Stalin's and Mao's statues, why not Hitler's statue? It makes much more sense to face the truth instead of hide from it? Are you suggesting that the removal of Hitler statues has somehow airbrushed the nazi regime from history? Really? There are many excellent museums, exhibitions, real concentration camps that continue to educate people. Excellent films about that period. Written testimonies about that period. You can’t move in the UK around early November with out tripping over poppies or similar. The Second World War is still referenced in recent politics. Airbrushed? No. Hitler statues needed? No. Gbat Do you think presence of Hitler statues is actually celebrating Hitler? No But that was the very purpose of the statues... They don't erect a statue to remind people of the BAD that people did, it is an Idol to be looked up at. As for Stalin. There are very few statues of Stalin still standing, most were removed a long time ago. The majority of those that still exist are in Russia, where he is still seen as a hero by many. We have no control over what other countries choose to do. Cal They erected it for pride. So what? I am pretty sure the gas chambers were also erected because they thought it was a great idea. Haven't we retained them to show people that it was actually a terrible idea? " Yeah, I’m not sure the gas chambers were erected out of pride . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
