Should the relief on Stone Mountain be destroyed?

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Should the Confederate memorial on Stone Mountain be sandblasted out of existence?

Absolutely!
2
10%
Probably.
7
33%
Maybe.
2
10%
Probably not.
7
33%
No way!
3
14%
 
Total votes : 21

Re: Should the relief on Stone Mountain be destroyed?

Postby cmsellers » Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:31 pm

ghijkmnop wrote:In my example (which isn't happening now, but has in the past), it's the music I find offensive, not the delivery system. But, since it's been declared a false dichotomy by the OP, I really shouldn't address this further.

It is a false dichotomy, because you ignore intermediate options including doing nothing, talking to your neighbors, calling the cops, and soundproofing the house. In your formulation, either you get together a mob to destroy the stereo, or you move.

But I am still curious as to how you think that your example is a good analogy for Stone Mountain?
  • 3

User avatar
cmsellers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 8624
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Three miles from the bat bridge
Show rep
Title: The Bad Bart of Ruddigore

Re: Should the relief on Stone Mountain be destroyed?

Postby CarrieVS » Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:50 pm

ghijkmnop wrote:In my example (which isn't happening now, but has in the past), it's the music I find offensive, not the delivery system. But, since it's been declared a false dichotomy by the OP, I really shouldn't address this further.


Right, as I expected.

So, while you wouldn't be justified in destroying the hypothetical neighbours' property, that's also not really an effective method of stopping their offensive behaviour of playing music, of a type you find distasteful, loud enough to intrude upon your enjoyment of your home. It is highly likely that they would be able to replace the stereo or obtain an alternative means of playing music, and continue the offense. (If all else failed, and if they really wanted to, they could sing it at you.)

And you would be justified in taking the appropriate measures to require the neighbours to stop causing a nuisance.

So not only is it a false dichotomy, but the analogy of destroying the stereo is not the most comparable action, in the scenario, to the topic of this thread.
  • 5

The Dungeon Master wrote:Those who don't want to be baptised, make a dexterity saving throw.
User avatar
CarrieVS
TCS Redshirt
TCS Redshirt
 
Posts: 6992
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:43 pm
Location: By my wild self in the wet wild woods waving my wild tail
Show rep
Title: Swamp Thing

Re: Should the relief on Stone Mountain be destroyed?

Postby Cpt._Funkotron » Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:00 pm

ghijkmnop wrote:Counter-question: If I find the cop-killing hip-hop or the cookie-monster-murder-everyone metal coming out of my neighbor's house an offensive assault on my ears, am I justified in gathering like-minded people together to destroy the neighbor's stereo, or should I just move to someplace where I don't have neighbors?


Along with the other problems already stated, I'd point out the proprietary concern here. Stone Mountain is a cliff face in a national park, it belongs to the people of the nation. What someone else plays on their own stereo in their own home only affects me if it they're playing it too loud, in which case yes most people would take measures to resolve the nuisance. But in this case, it's a boombox sautered on to the roof of a public school. It belongs to everyone in the municipality, it offends the majority of them, and it cannot be altered or moved without destroying it. It doesn't matter how artfully the NWA have crafted their lyrical stylings in admonishing the constabulary, the boombox should go.

I wouldn't call that Mob Rule, I'd call that Democracy.
  • 4

ImageImageImage
User avatar
Cpt._Funkotron
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:46 am
Location: Virginia
Show rep

Re: Should the relief on Stone Mountain be destroyed?

Postby ghijkmnop » Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:30 pm

Redacted
  • 1

Last edited by ghijkmnop on Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Delete my account
ghijkmnop
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 8:22 am
Show rep
Title: Prisoner of TCS

Re: Should the relief on Stone Mountain be destroyed?

Postby Tesseracts » Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:50 pm

You can always blast classical music to drown them out.
  • 1

User avatar
Tesseracts
Big Brother
Big Brother
 
Posts: 9633
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:31 am
Show rep
Title: Social Media Expert

Re: Should the relief on Stone Mountain be destroyed?

Postby Absentia » Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:57 pm

I don't want to get involved in this debate, but I will say this: I am continually disgusted that so many people hold up Robert E. Lee as a symbol of white supremacist ideology. It's especially disgusting when white supremacists do it, but it's also disgusting when SJW's who don't know a lick of history do it.

Lee was no fan of slavery, and he was bitterly opposed to secession. He took command of the CSA Army with great reluctance, as a matter of personal honor and because he was unwilling to join the Union side to fight against his home state of Virginia.

If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?


After the war, he used his political influence to advocate for the education of newly freed slaves. He was not "woke" by modern standards, but he repeatedly and publicly stated his positive sentiments towards "the negro race" and the hope that they could be successfully assimilated into free society; if anything, he was guilty of being too optimistic that other Southerners shared his good will.

Leave the man out of this.
  • 7

User avatar
Absentia
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 1703
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:46 am
Location: Earth
Show rep

Re: Should the relief on Stone Mountain be destroyed?

Postby Crimson847 » Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:10 pm

Aquila89 wrote:
ghijkmnop wrote:Personally I think Grandma Moses' paintings are both crappy AND a reminder of a horrible period of American history, but if somebody decided that they need to be burned, I would be quite against that as well. I'm really not a fan of mob rule.


Hungary in the 1950s was a communist dictatorship. The only option for changing things was through revolution, or mob rule, if you want to call it that. The Stalin was not only artistically worthless, but was put on a public place against the will of the public. Tearing it down brought more joy to people than its existence ever could have. And it certainly wasn't an erasure of history. That destroyed statue is known by more people than many statues that are still out there, because tearing it down was such an iconic moment of the revolution.

I'm not saying that destroying the Stone Mountan relief is in the same category, since the US is not a dictatorship. Also, a lot of people probably like the relief, while pretty much no one actually liked the Stalin statue. But I don't think you can categorically say that destroying art is always wrong.


I actually think it is in the same category. The US is not a dictatorship, but the Jim Crow regime in the South was not installed democratically through consent of the governed; it was established through force and systematic intimidation of black Southerners. A black man in 1950s Alabama and a Hungarian in 1950s Hungary could both expect to be met with brutal, state-sanctioned violence if they tried to challenge the ruling authority. This relief was not placed there with the free consent of the people of Georgia--it was placed there with the acquiescence of a regime whose power to grant such permission was, in essence, stolen by force.


Hence why I bring up the graffiti example, Noel. If I steal your car and I've paid off the cops to let me have it, your car is mine for all practical purposes and I can do what I want with it. I acquired it through unfair means, obviously, but with the cops on my side that observation and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee. If I decide to let some guy paint a graphic mural of a man fucking a goat on the side of it, there ain't nothing you can do to stop me.

But once you get the car back later on, once the crooked cops have been booted out and the theft has been reversed, what do you do? The mural isn't precisely graffiti, since the car was "mine" when I had it painted, but it was only "mine" because I stole it so it's pretty close. Do you leave the mural on the car because destroying art is never acceptable, or do you get rid of it?

Incidentally, I say all this not because I disagree with the general principle you're outlining that destroying art is bad. I agree with that. However, you've conceded that there are some circumstances where destroying art is acceptable, while maintaining that this case doesn't meet the criteria for such an exception. I disagree; I think it is a valid exception, for many of the same reasons that destroying graffiti is a valid exception. That's all I'm arguing for. I didn't mean to attack you personally or insult you; I apologize if it came across that way.
  • 6

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3175
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Should the relief on Stone Mountain be destroyed?

Postby Aquila89 » Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:59 pm

Crimson847 wrote:I actually think it is in the same category. The US is not a dictatorship, but the Jim Crow regime in the South was not installed democratically through consent of the governed; it was established through force and systematic intimidation of black Southerners. A black man in 1950s Alabama and a Hungarian in 1950s Hungary could both expect to be met with brutal, state-sanctioned violence if they tried to challenge the ruling authority. This relief was not placed there with the free consent of the people of Georgia--it was placed there with the acquiescence of a regime whose power to grant such permission was, in essence, stolen by force.


I was talking more about the removal of the statue. Georgia under Jim Crow may not have been democratic, but it is today. If the citizens of Georgia want to remove the relief, they do not have to resort to illegal means; they can, for instance, elect the candidate who promised to have it removed. Hungarians in 1956 did not have that option.

After the Communist reigme ended in 1989, many other Communist statues were removed in Hungary, but they weren't destroyed; they were taken to an open-air museum created for that purpose, where they can still be viewed. (This is not an option with the Stone Mountain relief though, as people have noted).
  • 6

As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
--Carl Jung
User avatar
Aquila89
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3414
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:45 pm
Location: Hungary
Show rep

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest