You think more people will get butthurt over this than be neutral, supportive, or newly considerate of the issues? Based on what? Societies could never progress if we maintained status quo for fear of what the extreme edges of the population will think...
People tend to be tolerant of other peoples' unpopular opinions and behaviours if they believe they will be afforded public tolerance of their own unpopular opinions and behaviours. That's pretty much the definition of a pluralistic, liberal society.
Which is why it's a big problem when those who passionately advocate for tolerance of unpopular positions on some issues turn around and just as passionately denounce unpopular positions on other issues. If you want to enjoy the tolerance of a liberal society, you need to extend that tolerance to others.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
It's 2018 now and a summarily different world. They should probably try again.
Wait. We're allowed to retrospectively judge things from 150 years ago on the basis of $CURRENTYEAR thinking, but we're not allowed to judge things from eight years ago under the same standard?
Is this a universal truth - like a reverse statute of limitations - or is it something that is only applied as needed when you find yourself needing to backpedal hard after having your "what about whataboutism" argument blow up in your face like Elmer Fudd's shotgun?
Wait. We're allowed to retrospectively judge things from 150 years ago on the basis of $CURRENTYEAR thinking, but we're not allowed to judge things from eight years ago under the same standard?
Is this a universal truth - like a reverse statute of limitations - or is it something that is only applied as needed when you find yourself needing to backpedal hard after having your "what about whataboutism" argument blow up in your face like Elmer Fudd's shotgun?
Its not even about the methodology of what rules should apply as much as it is about the fact that people want to be selective about what rules should apply as it is convenient to them and the issues important to them.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Wait. We're allowed to retrospectively judge things from 150 years ago on the basis of $CURRENTYEAR thinking, but we're not allowed to judge things from eight years ago under the same standard?
Is this a universal truth - like a reverse statute of limitations - or is it something that is only applied as needed when you find yourself needing to backpedal hard after having your "what about whataboutism" argument blow up in your face like Elmer Fudd's shotgun?
Pfft, eugenics isn't even close to the same thing as racism.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
I’m not sure. It seems like people think it shouldn’t be there. I think this whole Victoria thing shows them they should get a petition going. I’d sign it.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to V For This Useful Post:
I'm referring to the "principle" in Cliff's post; namely that the royal "we" are clamoring to remove the statues of everyone in the country.
That's not a principle. The principle in this case would be the reason you think the statue should be removed. It's something along the lines of "historical figures who have made racist statements should not be idolized". I was trying to determine what principle would allow for the removal of this statue, but not lead to the removal of others if applied consistently.
Quote:
Fact is, this move was a response to a request by a Native community in Victoria. If there was a group that wanted the removal of a Douglas statue somewhere, then we could discuss the merits of that request when and if that actually occurred (like we are doing here).
What is it about making a request that makes the difference? If someone subjectively wants a statue gone, that weighs in favour of removing it? Does it matter how many people (can it just be me - in which case bye bye Gretzky statue outside Rogers Place)?
Quote:
To mentally wax about "WHY DIS DEN NOT DAT?" is literally whataboutism unless there's a similar request of similar gravity to remove the statue that wasn't honored.
No it isn't. Whataboutism is effectively, "sure Donald Trump said "grab them by the #####", but what about Hillary's e-mails?" In contrast, "why this, if not that" (I've translated your version) is a potentially valid method of probing whether you're applying a principle consistently, or if you're selectively applying it in cases that serve your ideological goals.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
No it isn't. Whataboutism is effectively, "sure Donald Trump said "grab them by the #####", but what about Hillary's e-mails?" In contrast, "why this, if not that" (I've translated your version) is a potentially valid method of probing whether you're applying a principle consistently, or if you're selectively applying it in cases that serve your ideological goals.
Except I'm not applying anything. I don't have a dog in this race other than "yeah, I can see why Native people living in Victoria might not want to walk past a statue of MacDonald everytime they visit city hall".
Unless you think I work for the City of Victoria?
I mean if you're trying to make me an arbiter for an absolute ruling on tasteful statuary, as I mentioned earlier, smash em all and turn them into asphalt.
Okay, so when a specific group brings up a specific gripe about a specific Douglas statue to a specific municipality, we can apply the same principles to the situation.
It's a whataboutism because you're speculating rather than referring to an existing circumstance.
You heard it here, we cant use history as a precedent.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid
The Following User Says Thank You to PaperBagger'14 For This Useful Post:
So we can complain about everything or......nothing.
Yeah, I think I can see how this is going to go.
I demand that the 1919 World Series be replayed!
With the original players?
Also gives me an excuse to post one of my favorite movie quotes of all time, even though it has nothing to do with the '19 series. (sorry can't find a video clip, from the movie Cobb)
Spoiler!
Louis Prima: With all the great players playing ball right now, how well do you think you would do against today's pitchers? Ty Cobb: Well, I figure against today's pitchers I'd only probably hit about .290 Louis Prima: .290? Well that's amazing, because you batted over .400 a... a whole bunch of times. Now tell us all, we'd all like to know, why do you think you'd only hit .290? Ty Cobb: Well, I'm 72 ####ing years old you ignorant son of a bitch.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
What’s the point being made on this Nellie Maclung thing?
In Winnipeg in 2010 people with disabilities and their advocates protested her getting a statue in Winnipeg based on her being one of the major advocates of sterialization of the disabled.
This statue was erected.
So it is brought up as a response to disagree with the assertion that asking for a set of values for which we evaluate which statues should stay is not a whataboutism argument and instead the key thing to determine in evaluating whether a statue should be removed.
Also, societies do not progress when change is made for the sake of change either.
Is it just change for the sake of change? I think that would be to just put up a statue of Queen Victoria in its place, or Alexander Mackenzie.
Who is being harmed by the removal? Is there a JAM appreciation club out there? His great great great grand children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
People tend to be tolerant of other peoples' unpopular opinions and behaviours if they believe they will be afforded public tolerance of their own unpopular opinions and behaviours. That's pretty much the definition of a pluralistic, liberal society.
Which is why it's a big problem when those who passionately advocate for tolerance of unpopular positions on some issues turn around and just as passionately denounce unpopular positions on other issues. If you want to enjoy the tolerance of a liberal society, you need to extend that tolerance to others.
The good ole paradox of tolerance.
To my point above, who specifically is incurring harm, negative impact, or sacrifice from the removal? If one can do something that has absolutely no negative impact to themselves, but is in any way helpful to another human, is the choice not obvious? Or are you suggesting the FN groups should just be more tolerant of the people hundreds of miles away getting butthurt about all of this?
What was the cost in this case? The day wage of a few city labourers to remove it? That's actually a sunk cost...so what was the opportunity cost? An employee at city hall gets their new office chair delivered one day later? I guess it'll be whatever it costs to replace it with something...but pretty much everyone seems to agree that an additional plaque would be necessary with or without removal of the statue.
To my point above, who specifically is incurring harm, negative impact, or sacrifice from the removal? If one can do something that has absolutely no negative impact to themselves, but is in any way helpful to another human, is the choice not obvious? Or are you suggesting the FN groups should just be more tolerant of the people hundreds of miles away getting butthurt about all of this?
To be the devils advocate here, who is benefitting from this? Were FN people adverse to going to city hall specifically because of the statue? Will they be any more likely to go with its removal? Is there a quantifiable negative impact in leaving it?
I can also guarantee there are people from Victoria who are also getting butthurt. A statue can have positive and negative connotations with it which do not necessitate its removal.
