|
|
Post by jasmine on Jul 10, 2020 20:47:23 GMT
How do you guys feel about Bill deBlasio using public property to construct a “BLM” mural?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 20:48:17 GMT
I feel good about it. Really good.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Jul 10, 2020 20:53:01 GMT
I feel good about it. Really good. Really? Aren’t you an opponent of having religious displays on public grounds? Don’t you support vigilantes tearing down public displays? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 21:00:28 GMT
I feel good about it. Really good. Really? Aren’t you an opponent of having religious displays on public grounds? Don’t you support vigilantes tearing down public displays? Yes to the first, no to the second (its more complicated than that.) But to circle back around to the point, I really think using public property to support previously marginalized groups is fantastic. If we are going to use public property to build monuments to traitors, slave holders, racists (looking at you Wilson, FDR, etc) then we certainly can build monuments celebrating the dispossessed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 21:03:35 GMT
How do you guys feel about Bill deBlasio using public property to construct a “BLM” mural? It's as wrong as confederate statues. Queshank |
|
|
|
Post by william on Jul 10, 2020 21:08:40 GMT
How do you guys feel about Bill deBlasio using public property to construct a “BLM” mural? It's as wrong as confederate statues. Queshank Why? was the BLM painted on the street to bring some temporary awareness to a problem. Where's the statues were installed a hundred years ago to intimidate and emphasis white power. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 21:11:02 GMT
It's as wrong as confederate statues. Queshank Why? was the BLM painted on the street to bring some temporary awareness to a problem. Where's the statues were installed a hundred years ago to intimidate and emphasis white power. Using the public space and public funds to push political messages half the country disagrees with is either wrong or it isn't. Queshank |
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Jul 10, 2020 21:11:23 GMT
Really? Aren’t you an opponent of having religious displays on public grounds? Don’t you support vigilantes tearing down public displays? Yes to the first, no to the second (its more complicated than that.) But to circle back around to the point, I really think using public property to support previously marginalized groups is fantastic. If we are going to use public property to build monuments to traitors, slave holders, racists (looking at you Wilson, FDR, etc) then we certainly can build monuments celebrating the dispossessed. But aren’t you supportive of vigilantes tearing down monuments to slave owners and such? Aren’t you simply just picking a political side? To be consistent, if someone splattered the BLM matter mural because they found the messaging to be immoral, shouldn’t you support that? |
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Jul 10, 2020 21:12:17 GMT
How do you guys feel about Bill deBlasio using public property to construct a “BLM” mural? It's as wrong as confederate statues. Queshank I agree. Put the mural in a private museum or something. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 21:13:08 GMT
It's as wrong as confederate statues. Queshank I agree. Put the mural in a private museum or something. There cannot be a shortage of private companies right now that would welcome such a mural on their property with open arms. Queshank |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 21:16:55 GMT
Yes to the first, no to the second (its more complicated than that.) But to circle back around to the point, I really think using public property to support previously marginalized groups is fantastic. If we are going to use public property to build monuments to traitors, slave holders, racists (looking at you Wilson, FDR, etc) then we certainly can build monuments celebrating the dispossessed. But aren’t you supportive of vigilantes tearing down monuments to slave owners and such? Aren’t you simply just picking a political side? To be consistent, if someone splattered the BLM matter mural because they found the messaging to be immoral, shouldn’t you support that? In certain cases, yes, but it would depend on the context. Your questions seems to leave out context. Where is the monument to slave owners? Who built it? When? What was the context? And the same questions apply to the BLM mural. I'm not going to get bent out of shape at someone defacing a chalk drawing on a public street. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 21:22:08 GMT
Public property is used for all sorts of purposes, some of them quite grotesque. I am thinking about the FBI, ICE, Border Patrol, state and local police, prisons, etc. If all of that non-sense is tolerated and allowed, certainly we can tolerate some murals expressing solidarity and love.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Jul 10, 2020 21:25:10 GMT
But aren’t you supportive of vigilantes tearing down monuments to slave owners and such? Aren’t you simply just picking a political side? To be consistent, if someone splattered the BLM matter mural because they found the messaging to be immoral, shouldn’t you support that? In certain cases, yes, but it would depend on the context. Your questions seems to leave out context. Where is the monument to slave owners? Who built it? When? What was the context? And the same questions apply to the BLM mural. I'm not going to get bent out of shape at someone defacing a chalk drawing on a public street. The context, as I see it: The statues of slave owners were probably constructed at a time when slavery wasn’t the be-all, end-all issue that it is today. The were placed in the public domain to honor these leaders of our country. They were monuments to history. BLM murals on public property is purely a political message done to appease a movement. If one side can’t honor a historical figure on public property, I don’t understand how the other side can honor a political or social movement on public property. It seems to be the height of hypocrisy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 21:28:07 GMT
In certain cases, yes, but it would depend on the context. Your questions seems to leave out context. Where is the monument to slave owners? Who built it? When? What was the context? And the same questions apply to the BLM mural. I'm not going to get bent out of shape at someone defacing a chalk drawing on a public street. The context, as I see it: The statues of slave owners were probably constructed at a time when slavery wasn’t the be-all, end-all issue that it is today. The were placed in the public domain to honor these leaders of our country. They were monuments to history. BLM murals on public property is purely a political message done to appease a movement. If one side can’t honor a historical figure on public property, I don’t understand how the other side can honor a political or social movement on public property. It seems to be the height of hypocrisy. Well, there ya go. The problem is the context you see. It's way off. There is a thread over this here at LNF. Let me know if you need a link. Race relations were an even bigger issue in the 1910's and 1960's than it is today. These were very divisive times. We were building/deconstructing a system of apartheid. We don't get the benefit of pretending that context didn't exist. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 21:45:56 GMT
certainly we can tolerate some murals expressing solidarity and love. Are they tho? Queshank |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 10, 2020 21:48:30 GMT
How do you guys feel about Bill deBlasio using public property to construct a “BLM” mural? Is it any different than using public land to construct a statue of a Confederate?
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 10, 2020 21:53:52 GMT
Yes to the first, no to the second (its more complicated than that.) But to circle back around to the point, I really think using public property to support previously marginalized groups is fantastic. If we are going to use public property to build monuments to traitors, slave holders, racists (looking at you Wilson, FDR, etc) then we certainly can build monuments celebrating the dispossessed. But aren’t you supportive of vigilantes tearing down monuments to slave owners and such? Aren’t you simply just picking a political side? To be consistent, if someone splattered the BLM matter mural because they found the messaging to be immoral, shouldn’t you support that? You are misconstruing the taking of down of statues celebrating those who believe in slavery, with HOW those statues are taken down.
Support of taking them down is NOT necessarily support of doing so outside of legal strategies.
So no, and you know this very well, ms. bait-and-switch jasmine, this is not taking a political side. It is honoring the ideals of our founders, the constitution, and other worthy symbols such as the statue of liberty.
The real question is what values do you hold, if any.
Freon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 21:56:42 GMT
Interesting side conversation: Was Bill Deblasio violating campaign finance laws?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 22:02:42 GMT
certainly we can tolerate some murals expressing solidarity and love. Are they tho? Queshank I think they are. I see BLM and the message I get is: "Black lives are valuable and its time to protect them as such." I read that as a message of solidarity and love. Of course it is alienating to people who are okay with the wanton disregard of life, black, brown or otherwise, as long as there is a man with a badge involved. But their extremism shouldn't reflect on the actual message that is intended by the movement. And really... Black Lives cannot simply be a story about issues with the police. You're right, it has to include all of the legacies of apartheid which have held black communities for so long. Otherwise it doesn't strike at the root of the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Jul 10, 2020 22:43:21 GMT
I think they are. I see BLM and the message I get is: "Black lives are valuable and its time to protect them as such." I read that as a message of solidarity and love. Of course it is alienating to people who are okay with the wanton disregard of life, black, brown or otherwise, as long as there is a man with a badge involved. But their extremism shouldn't reflect on the actual message that is intended by the movement. And really... Black Lives cannot simply be a story about issues with the police. You're right, it has to include all of the legacies of apartheid which have held black communities for so long. Otherwise it doesn't strike at the root of the problem. Did you recently get a black girlfriend or something? |
|
