Caecus

After debating the minute points of an argument that only tangentially relates to the op, you wait until my patience runs out and declare victory. I'll just write off the fact that you have never touched even one of my arguments as admission that you surrender. I know you are too afraid to actually debate my arguments because you know you can't win. Everyone can see that too, by the way. You are trying SO hard for me to debate something that doesn't relate to the OP in the hopes that it will distract me from the fact you can't refute my arguments and then taunt me for not replying to your ignorance. Can you actually refute my arguments for once? I don't expect you to do so, since you are obviously too afraid to debate me on my arguments.

If the statues have something to do with the oppression of African Americans, then all the more reason to remove them. If we assume that the statues are acting to oppress African Americans, then by our republic's belief in equal rights, the statues need to come down. If we assume that the statues are not acting to oppress African Americans (as that would be PC), these statues are already icons of PC culture, and thus should be removed. In any case, regardless of why those protesters were there, these statues either currently interfere with the exercise of civil rights by African Americans or are icons of PC culture that need to be taken down. If the protesters are there because they PERCEIVE that the statues interfere with the exercise of African American civil rights, then they are stupid and there for the wrong reasons. But we know better. As for the op, I'm not surprised that stock brokers are cheering Bannon's departure. The way they see it, Bannon adds instability to the white house. This possibility of nuclear war with North Korea thing freaks people out and destroys market confidence. Their wrong, of course. The president himself is the factor of instability, not Steve Bannon. Bannon is just a normal dude trying to suck his own dick, from what I hear.

Your first paragraph just demonstrates even further that you have no understanding of American history. As for the attacks on the Lincoln monument, ok. Again, the way I see it, the Lincoln monument you can defend. You can say to "rabid foot soldiers of identity politics" that Lincoln kept the Union together, and ultimately freed the slaves despite the unpopularity of such a policy even in the North. You can't defend statues of confederate leaders. Again, you are trying to make me debate some random minute point without actually addressing the topic at hand. You have one flimsy argument about people vandalizing the Lincoln memorial. I have at least 5 morally compelling arguments against you. By sheer numbers (not to mention quality), I win the debate.

How can removing an icon of PC culture be considered PC in itself? We need to set the record straight here, otherwise this becomes a confusing conversation: 1. These statues have nothing to do with current oppression of African Americans, and by believing that they are, we are going to an extreme to act on perceived marginalization of African Americans, thus becoming PC. 2. These statues and monuments were built in the early 20th century (a little past the beginning of the Jim Crow era), and represent "catering" to southerners in a PC fashion. 3. If we assume both 1 and 2 are correct, then there is nothing PC about removing icons of PC culture, right? If we can all universally condemn PC, then we should have no problem with removing the statues and monuments.

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=political+correctness&oq=political+correctness&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1j0l3.305.2310.0.2383.22.9.0.0.0.0.343.970.0j1j2j1.4.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..18.4.968.0..0i20k1j0i131k1.hM7PFJt-c_A Politically Correct and Political Correctness are close, but not the same. Politically correct is an adjective used to describe an action. Political correctness has an entire faulty ideology behind it that leads to the objectification and commoditization of people. I prefer to use the google definition of political correctness, as listed above, since it includes why political correctness is inherently flawed: "the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." These monuments are the embodiment of political correctness. They are there because the US government was unwilling to exclude, marginalize, or insult the socially disadvantaged KKK and rebel confederate sympathizers in the post-war period.The US government used political correctness in the early 20th century to have an easy way out, to look united in its age of imperialism while ignoring the serious problems of civil rights, domestic terrorism, and a broken southern economy. The US government ignored the crimes of these terrorists when they lynch people. The US government turned a blind eye to their unjust laws which restrict citizen's rights. Political correctness is wrong because it is a fancy paint job over real problems and issues. It's a token gesture without ever having to solve problems. It's PC to not call people "retarded," but PC conveniently allows people to seem like they care about the mentally disabled while in actuality they have done nothing (and will continue to do nothing) to solve issues like the public mental health crisis or disabled learning. Liberal politicians today love to use this, to make it seem like they are the vehicles of change and progress towards an egalitarian utopia. In the same way at the beginning of the 20th century, it was PC to glorify confederate generals in the "spirit of reconciliation" and to pretend like there aren't any major socio-economic divides between the North and South, all the while allowing the entire country to ignore the mob lynchings and Jim Crow laws of the racially divided South.

Nope. I'm not being sarcastic. These statues have represented political correctness for too long, and have been left up there as a representation that our government plays in PC politics. They should be taken down. That is, I'm assuming that's what you mean by political correctness.

I think you have a hard time understanding this, considering the country you come from. When you have up statues of Jefferson and Washington, you can justify their existence because of the things they have done for this country despite being slave owners or racists. When you have up statues of Lee, Bedford Forrest, or Davis, it is entirely indefensible. Their legacy is terrorism. Their legacy is a racially divided country. Their legacy is a million graves of Americans. If your only argument is that keeping up these statues will prevent the statues of other people from coming down while ignoring what these statues symbolize and mean, your argument is morally bankrupt and at an end. I've given plenty of reasons why these statues should be removed, none of which has been refuted. You have only given one, and it is flimsy at best. These are how most of our debates end, Roz. You end up debating the minute points while providing nothing when actually confronted with the debate topic at hand.

...Republicans...? This statement doesn't make any sense. Edit: Clarification For someone who has taken up the name of an American writer, you seem to not be American considering your lack of understanding of American history. I don't typically do this, but I'll give you a short lesson free of charge this time. This statement doesn't make any sense for two reasons: One, it implies you don't understand the Fourth-Party System and the ideological shift that happened in 1896, when conservatives switch from the democratic party to the republican party. Second, this implies that these statues were built before 1896 during the Reconstruction Era, which is entirely false. Only some Confederate graves were built during the Reconstruction Era, and even then, there were no statues of rebel leaders. So, to conclude, the party that put them up would have been the conservative party after 1896, which would have been the Republican party. I'm assuming you are trying to tie democrats to some form of ideological hypocrisy, but only people so thoroughly ignorant as you are in American history would think that. You're welcome.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Dubayoo. Political correctness is killing this country, and it's about time we get rid of those statues representing PC culture. Finally, someone who understands why political correctness can let crooks be crooks and blame victims.

3. Really? Cause that's pretty convenient timing. The day immediately after, some KKK big wig reminds Trump of who elected him and he turns right on his head to placate the Nazis. 6: Again, your country is hardly relevant here in America. As far as we are concerned, there are only 5 countries out there: The US, Canada, Mexico, Texas, and Not the US. Notice how your country isn't on that list. At this point, you are speculating with flimsy evidence, essentially pointing to one person on CNN and rumors. As for the Nazis. Nobody is taking away their freedom of speech or imprisoning them (except for an Alex Fields), and the fact that you somehow think that is happening is false and defends their cause enough. If you don't want yourself to be associated with Nazis, perhaps you should start by not making excuses for them and their ideology. And the fact that you think Nazis are "other reasonable people" is disturbing and perhaps is why you are constantly accused of being a Nazi. I would recommend some introspection when assessing whether or not you are a Nazi. If you find yourself on the same side as them often enough, maybe you should take a closer look at what you believe instead of blaming it on other people like the spoiled little brat of a President we have. To conclude, I still stand by my statement, albeit with some adjustments: Your evidence is still shit. Ultimately, your argument behind not removing Confederate statues is that it would lead to the removal of other statues. It's a simple-minded argument that ignores everything else egregiously wrong with Confederate statues (presumably because you can't win the moral argument without sounding like a neo-Nazi for keeping up statues of racist terrorists who killed a million Americans to try and keep the institution of slavery).

3. Ok, I see your point now. But I'm not sure if Donald Trump sees your point. His statement condemning the KKK and Nazis out by name on Monday was followed up by David Duke reminding the president who put him in the White House. Not a full day goes by, and Trump walks back his statement to appeal to "who put him in the white house." I'm sure that people might get offended and do some reverse psychology dipshit move like they are 10 year olds, but what happens when Trump himself thinks his base is a bunch of Nazis? 2/4/6: So you have one person on CNN talking about it, and you assume that leads to that eventuality. I don't see how this is significant. Are there protests marching in the capitol to take down monuments of Washington and Jefferson? Are there any scheduled removals of those statues by state or federal governments? If we judged the probability of one thing happening just because some random "commentator" on CNN says it should happen, Clinton would be president, the economy would be simultaneously at its best and worst since 1970, and Guam would be an irradiated coral reef. Your evidence is still shit. Ultimately, your argument behind not removing Confederate statues is that it would lead to the removal of other statues. It's a simple-minded argument that ignores everything else egregiously wrong with Confederate statues (presumably because you can't win the moral argument without sounding like a neo-Nazi).

3. No, it just sounds like the right has a snowflake issue and don't want their feelings hurt, even if it means electing a Nazi to the white house. 2/4/6: Why the hell is the burden of proof on me? You are the one making a dipshit claim about the future with shit evidence. If you make the claim, you prove it. The only proof you presented is just a vandalization of the Lincoln memorial which says "!@#$ law," and assuming that means people want to take down a statue. You have no argument, and you are trying to force it on me. You are obviously at the end of your rope here.

1. K. 3. Snowflake Trump supporters, boo-hoo. People insult my intelligence and my moral compass and so I prove them right by supporting Nazis because my feelings were hurt. I need safe-spaces too! 5. K. 2/4/6: You are assuming that all Americans are as uneducated about American history as you are. Granted, if you judged our country and our own knowledge about our history by the leader we elected, I can see why you would make such a fallacy. Your slippery slope argument is stupid, because it can be applied to anything since it relies on something that hasn't happened yet. For example, we could say that since neo-Nazis and the KKK are allowed to keep up statues of slave-holding traitors, the logical extreme would be that eventually people will start putting up statues of Hitler and Himmler. And why would they stop there? Why would they not start up concentration camps to exterminate inferior races? It's a slippery slope when you feed Nazi trolls. Look forward to them stepping up their Nazification of America when the Confederate statues stay up. I like being right.

1. Dead serious. Your comparison is irrelevant and incorrect. 3. Yes, I'm sure David Duke does have the same view as the president. He's made it quite clear that he was very happy with his speech. 5. Again, your shithole of an island isn't America, and the fact that you continue to somehow equivocate them is insulting to Americans. 2/4/6: See, you are still using the commas wrong. Washington and Lincoln were not Confederate generals. But I get your gist now. It seems that you all have a really hard time conceptualizing what is wrong with Lee. It's not that he was a traitor and rebel that killed half a million people. It's not that he was a slave owner who fought to preserve the institution of slavery. It's the fact that he's both, and that he represents an organization that attempted to reverse the progress of equality. Lincoln and Washington understood that the moral progression of this republic has always been towards equality and the preservation of rights, despite the inherent social culture of the time. They foresaw an eventuality. Lee did not understand that. The confederacy did not understand that. To make the argument that Washington and Lincoln will eventually be next is stupid. There is no equivalency between Washington and Lincoln and leaders of the confederacy because they are fundamentally different. One is an embodiment of an eventuality, a path that the moral heart of the republic walks, the other seeks to destroy it. Get that through your thick skull, and learn some American history before coming to the conclusion that people will think Washington and Lincoln are anywhere close to what Lee is and what he stood for. By the way, if you are still on about how the President of the United States thinks that, all I have to say is that he doesn't know American history either. That's right, I'm ashamed to admit it, but the US collectively elected a President who is an uneducated dipshit that found his fat ass in the seat of the oval office by appealing to Nazis, Neo-Confederates, and Russians. And if you are thinking "Oh, those are greatest threats American had faced in the last 150 years," you would be right.

1. Your shithole of an island isn't America and the fact that you think we have any remote similarity other than the language we speak (and you guys speak it wrong) is insulting to 300 million people of a nation that saved your country from (ironically) angry German nationalists twice. 3. Yeah, and the President of the United States is a dumbass. I'm not ashamed to admit that our leader is the dumbest dipshit to ever sit his fat ass in the office. 5. To be entirely fair, the Scotts, Welsh, and the Irish weren't hell-bent on racial enslavement to better their economy. I also refer back to the fact that your shithold of an island isn't America and there is no comparison. 2&4&6: You lumped Lincoln in with the rest. The commas link the 3 nouns. Now, I'm no "proper" English expert, but down in the ol' US, when you link 3 nouns by commas and then proceed the next sentence with "They," it is assumed you mean all three nouns, not just "Washington" and "the rest." Your own fault for being a dumbshit and not knowing any American history, stop blaming your ignorance on your grammar deficiencies. But according to your vision of "the will of the majority," this isn't it. Fact of the matter is, 3 million more people voted for Clinton over Trump. If you really do believe in "the will of the majority," you would be condemning the electoral college, not praising it. The purpose behind the electoral college is inherently against the principles of democracy (the Greek city-state form). It favors a republic (the Roman form), in which the impulses of the easily swayed people are controlled by the electoral college of people serving as a check against demagogues. A true believer in the "will of the majority" would condemn a Roman-style republic in favor of a more direct democratic system. Otherwise you have someone who isn't elected by the majority, has an approval rate of 33% of the American public, and has people from his own political party calling him an amoral dipshit. Pointing to the electoral college and saying that it represents the will of the majority is silly. I disagree. In my previous posts, I pointed out that these "reconciliation" efforts were a form of political correctness that ultimately allowed the US government to feel like they are unified again while ignoring the terrorism of mob lynchings and state laws that infringed on individual rights. Just like how people criticize PC culture today for being all talk and not actually solving any issues, we need to look at these statues and monuments as the dumb shit that they were: token gestures which ignored the larger reality of racism and violation of human rights. Your right to swing your fist ends at someone's face. Nazis can march all they want, spreading their slogan of white supremacy and racism. In America, that's allowed and we should be proud of that. Nonetheless, the first amendment doesn't protect Nazis from me calling them a bunch of dumbshits and saying their cause is against the moral heart of this republic. Lol, I also like how you are trying to anticipate my arguments. I actually wasn't going to go with that one, but that's pretty good. But I'll take you up on "no one is celebrating his actions." As far as I can tell, no one is, but justifying his violent action is pretty damn close: https://www.glamour.com/story/daily-stormer-heather-heyer-mocking-article If the title "daily stormer" doesn't give you a clear idea, I can tell you they are neo-nazis. Rioting and murder are two different things, first of all. It's one thing to chuck a rock through a window and punch someone, a whole 'nother thing to run into a crowd with a car in some ISIS-level bullshit. Second, right-wing extremist violence is by far more prevalent than left-wing violence. It should be noted that left-wing extremist violence is on the rise, that is correct, but is far disproportionate to right-wing extremism. http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/23/fact-check-is-the-far-right-largely-responsible-for-extremist-violence/ That being said, we've already gone over the fact that not all the counter protesters can be tied with a left-wing extremist group. Unlike white supremacists and Nazis, most decent people see a statue of Robert E. Lee and think "Oh, that's the guy who led a rebel army to try and preserve the institution of human enslavement. We probably shouldn't have a statue of him at the county hall." On the other hand, people shouting "blood and soil" down the street might be giving away their identity. Besides, while Vanguard America may deny that Alex Fields was part of their group, he was photographed protesting with them, carrying their slogans and symbols. Again, I have yet to see a moderate, history buff who is willing to march with Nazis and White Supremacists to "preserve history and culture." Please do tell if you ever do find someone like that, I have a lot of questions for them. Ah, then we are in agreement. You don't have to be an alt-leftist to see Nazis marching down the street trying to preserve an over glorification of a rebel general to feel like there should be something done about this. From my understanding, BOTH parties are anti-Nazis and white supremacists. Hell, I'd march against them too. They could be marching to keep a taco bell on state street open and I would still march against their dumbasses even if it means I have to (god-forbid) go to del taco. But again, you are still missing my argument that these statues were built in an era of reconciliation. They were built to placate the south and to "allow the nation to heal," while ignoring mob lynchings and Jim Crow. In essence, they were built for the KKK. Lee's ability to kill a shit ton of people isn't relevant here, it's the fact that the purpose of these statues were token gestures of PC culture that allowed the entire country to ignore the real problems. First, the south's entire economy depended on the export of cotton to the textile factories of England. Cotton, which, by the end of 1860, England had acquired through her colonies in Egypt and India. Second, the southern economy collapsed when a fungal blight ate the cotton in the 1880s Reconstruction era. Compounded by the fact that England was no longer buying cotton at the rate pre-war, the south became the largest exporter of poor white trash to the west. Even under the circumstances where cotton was no longer profitable, the south continued to invest in agriculture well into the 20th century. It wasn't until the end of the Second World War and the military-industrial complex pork barrel that the south turned to industry and started building Uncle Sam's bombs. That's entirely excluding the fact that the SOUTH WAS WILLING TO KILL A MILLION AMERICANS TO PRESERVE THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY. Jim Crow was slavery in all but name. The video is misinformed, and you are naive to believe that the south would have abandoned slavery due to pressure from England. You think proud southerners are going to bend to the pressure from pricks on an island on the other side of the Atlantic? Tell that to George !@#$ing Washington.

Those are the words of Nazis and White Supremacists, and the fact that you are trying to downplayed what happened is disgraceful in itself. Say it like it is, a Nazi got too emotional over a statue of their dear terrorist leader getting torn down and ran someone over because he thought she was a "libtard cuck who deserved to die." Don't run around with "they rallied" or "they got attention." Ah huh. Go ahead, tell me which poor Nazi got ran over. I'm sure that when workers wear body armor to take down these statues, they are trying to protect themselves from the "alt-left." Oh? Was Antifa present at the counterprotest? Did they destroy property, or kill people? Did they burn the city? Did they rob the banks while chanting socialist slogans? Why the !@#$ do you think there was any "alt-left" radical person at the counter protest? Do you have to be a radical to be anti-Nazi and anti-confederacy? This is what I mean by Trump and morally equating Nazis and anti-Nazis. Lol. Seeing as how you don't know jack shit about American history, let me get some facts straight for you: 1. The Confederacy was an enemy of the Republic, and it dedicated itself solely to preserve the institution of slavery by tearing apart the democratic experiment. In doing so, it killed close to a million Americans and nearly destroyed America in its infancy. Were it up to me, every single leader of the confederacy should have been shot, their names eternally damned in history. I would have salted the !@#$ing lands in the south for their stupidity and hunted the KKK down like the white trash dogs they are. But no, political correctness dictates we need to reconcile and hold hands and sing. 2. Lincoln was not a slave owner. 3. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, yes. But unlike Robert E. !@#$ing Lee, they didn't try to destroy this country. And unlike the confederacy, the progression of equality in this country was assumed to be more encompassing, even Washington and Jefferson knew that. To even equate Washington and Jefferson to Lee is a !@#$ing disgrace, and shows that you don't know a damn thing about American history. 4. LINCOLN WAS NOT A !@#$ing SLAVE OWNER. 5. If you are a nationalist (not that you live in the US), then you would be as equally offended by the fact that the south still putting up monuments that celebrate people trying to tear apart the country. That's not nationalism, that's called being seditious. It's the exact !@#$ing opposite of nationalism and patriotism. The only way celebrating the confederacy could be considered "nationalist" is if you add "white" in front of it. You are not a nationalist. You are either a white nationalist or an anarchist. 6. LINCOLN WAS NOT A !@#$ing SLAVE OWNER!!!!

"It gets them much more attention" is a great euphemism for "Have a Nazi run over a libtard cuck who deserved to die." Yeah, I'm sure Heyer was looking for a fight, that's why she was armed with body armor, assault weapons, and clubs. Oh wait. No, that's exactly what he said. His statement essentially equates neo-Nazis and white supremacists to counterprotesters. My memory is a bit foggy, when was the last time an anti-Nazi protester ran over a fascist? I think it was back in 1945. Those damn soviet and American extremists, killing Nazis by the thousands. You'll have to remind me, were there any history buffs protesting the monument removal who weren't white supremacists or Nazis? Or are you saying that some Nazis and white supremacists are good? I think it's funny how people think there are just a bunch of normal, non-racist dudes out there with moderate views who want to preserve history so badly that they would show up at a KKK/Nazi rally to prevent statues of a leader who is best known for trying to tear America apart by killing half a million people (again, and I can't stress this enough, on the really really low end of the estimate).

Are there any more arguments left for keeping the statues up? I believe we have "it should not be taken down because it already exists," "it's part of history and we will forget it if we take them down," "leaving them up is popular," and "people are willing to commit acts of terrorism to keep them up, so let's placate the terrorists." Anyone want to make the argument that Robert E. Lee was a great person and should be celebrated in American history? Anyone want to make the argument that the confederacy was a good part of American history that should be celebrated? Anyone want to make the argument that they are a neo-nazi and that the confederacy represented a government that would have created their ideal utopia based on their superior race ruling over enslaved masses of genetically inferior black people? Come on, spice up this debate. I honestly don't know why neo-Nazis hide their identity online when they are so open and public about it in rallies. Be proud of what you are, don't be a coward and feel like you need to stand behind a group of tiki-torch bearing idiots to express what you truly believe. The only thing worse than Nazis are !@#$-ass nazis who can't even defend their own arguments.

"let the Right rally" is a great euphemism for "Have a Nazi run over a libtard cuck who deserved to die." But let's not pretend you actually read all of my posts and know what my perspective is, because if you boiled it down to those few words, you are wrong. I could try and boil it down to a sentence or two if you would like. To be entirely fair, most liberals didn't expect to get hit by a !@#$ing car when they decided to counterprotest white nationalists and neo-Nazis. But then again, why people didn't realize that the KKK and Nazis aren't really known for their peaceful protests is beyond me. That is actually pretty damn stupid. I love this narrative of Donald Trump. His statement today essentially states that if you are against white supremacy and Nazis, you are part of an "alt-left" or a liberal extremist group. Which is funny, because last I checked, the last 40 or so presidents were openly against the KKK and Nazis. I suppose FDR would be considered an alt-left terrorist that killed a shit ton of Nazis by that dumbass standard.

So when Trump was elected with 3 million less votes than Clinton, you must be pretty pissed about that. After all, it's not a democracy when the majority of people don't believe you are the right leader. I'm actually surprised there isn't a national census on this issue. I'm pretty sure there are other scientific polling, I just didn't bother to sift through the ungodly shitstorm of conservative twitter poll sites regarding it. "Your republic?" I didn't know you weren't a citizen here. Not that it matters. It was the federal government that allowed for these statues to be put up. Before the end of the 19th century, the south was militarily occupied by the north and the federal government prevented people from building those statues and monuments. All of these statues depicting these renegades were allowed by the government to exist in the first place in the name of reconciliation between the north and the south. Again, it is an age-old concession to the south that shouldn't have existed in the first place. Speaking of "will of the people manifest," doesn't the governor of Virginia (and the legislation passed which allowed for the monument's removal) represent the will of the people of Virginia? Granted, I haven't seen any scientific polling specific to Virginia, but seeing as how a majority of the UTR movement members came from out of state and most of the counter-protesters were localized, I imagine that's a pretty good indication of what the will of Virginia is.

So if a majority of the electorate believes that the government should take care of the poor and homeless through a system of government credits to purchase food, that's not socialism? You should totally tell that to Ted Cruz, I'm sure he'll appreciate it. The statement I highlighted is literally word for word what social democracy is: "Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social democracy Also, aren't you a Trump supporter? Assuming you really did not mean that the government should provide for the people's wants and needs, you do realize he lost the majority vote by 3 million, polls at around 33% approval with up to 60% disapproval, and his last healthcare bill that barely didn't pass had an approval rating of 12%. Trump's government has not been strong or active, just a lot of fluff. I'm surprised you haven't called for his resignation yet, consider you believe in the majority representation. Let's be clear here, the only scientific polling I found was about the inhabitants of the state of Louisiana back in 2014, not the entire US. There is only one specific region (state, really, since we are assuming Louisiana is representative of former confederate states) of this country that still believes these confederate monuments mean something. I'm not aware of any data that shows the entire US population polled thinks that the statues should remain up (or not collectively give a shit like you claim). So without that data, we can only conclude that the state populations, not the US population as a whole, believes it should remain. If that's the case, I still refer back to my argument, that the US FEDERAL government should not be leaving up the vestige of PC culture from the beginning of the 20th century that still recognizes a sectionalism that should have died at the end of the Second World War.

Neo-Con alert! Someone get Roz in here and chastise this man for his socialist beliefs. I would slap you across your Russian socialist face with American democracy, but unfortunately it's in the process of dying in darkness. Besides the fact that you have essentially advocated for democratic socialism, I'm going to go ahead and continue to point out that it is not the job of the US government to kowtow to violent terrorists, regardless of whether or not you think Sweden has an ideal socio-economic system. Also, you are right. Looking back at polls and studies, the majority of people (at least in Louisiana) in southern states don't want the statues removed. However, I still refer back to my former argument (if the socialist thing doesn't get to you): And you could argue that the reason why most people in southern states don't want these statues removed is because of reason 3. But that's a chicken or the egg argument that neither of us can prove one way or the other.

Yeah, and I'm sure if Poland surrendered its political autonomy to the Third Reich and collectively shoot, displace, or enslave themselves there wouldn't be a Second World War. My two cents. Again, what your statement implies is that the US government should kowtow to a minority of violent terrorists and their demands of keeping up figures important to their extremist beliefs. Doesn't that sound like what libtards would do?

I'm 100% serious. So let me get this straight: when issues turn to political violence, we should appease the aggressors? Correct me if I am wrong, but your argument here is essentially "People feel so strongly about these monuments that they are willing to commit ISIS-with-a-car-and-a-crowd level of terrorism, so we should bow to their demands and not take them down." Sure, you could say that the one alt-right terrorist doesn't speak for all of the KKK and the neo-Nazis (I sincerely, desperately, hope you see the irony in this statement), but seeing as how there aren't any history buffs/teachers marching among the grand wizards and the brownshirts making the case that we need to remember our history, perhaps we should take another look at the argument that somehow these monuments contribute to better understanding of our (dark) history of racial divide. Who is "they," in this context? From my understanding, the UTR movement (due to its small size and relative unpopularity) had people from multiple states arrive for the protest of the monument removal. There were very few people on the anti-Nazi protesters who were out of state due to how distasteful the KKK and Nazis are today. The probability of protesters from Berkley being at the same counter protest today is extremely slim. If "they" is a generalization of people with liberal political leanings, that's a bit of a mischaracterization. That's like saying all Trump supporters are neo-Nazis and Klan members, and I know for a fact that the helmet in your profile picture is round at the top. Besides the "them" in your post, I'm pretty sure we can all condemn violence as a political means in a democracy.

The events in Charlottesville should close this argument. The statue of Robert E. Lee now promotes violence and extremism. It is a rallying sign for neo-Nazis and racial supremacy groups. Liberals have kowtowed to terrorism long enough. These terrorists should be deported back to Hungary.