Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 3:03:56 GMT
You insist that all the speeches and drafted statements only reflect the leadership and the elite's view and therefore do not reflect the view of the common person, and this is insisted, over and over, without a shred of evidence to back it. Not a shred. You know what they say: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. All too easy. The evidence consists of the messages on the monuments themselves. Those refute your narrative quite handily. No wonder the animals want to tear them down; too much evidence of Southern integrity and courage. Oh ok. So its not enough to have textual evidence of racism in the dedications of these statues, now the evidence of racism must also be carved into stone on the monuments themselves before you will take notice? What kind of hillbilly materialist epistemology is this? One thing is hard to miss: this new evidentiary standard represents an interesting, if artless, movement of the goalposts. Luckily for us we already have a great example of a message of racial hatred and legal separatism enshrined on a monument. I would direct your attention to the Wilson County Memorial Fountain, which should really be plural, as in "fountain(s)." Draw your attention to the unequal height of the pedestals and recall the separatist message which adorned these ostentatious fountains until they were removed in 1960: “For White People” and “For Colored People.”  docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/483/What more do you need to see? How much further can we move the goalposts until we finally come out and admit we don't give a damn about evidence? |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,103
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 26, 2020 3:52:43 GMT
Oh ok. So its not enough to have textual evidence of racism in the commemoration of these statues, now the evidence of racism must also be carved into stone on the monuments themselves before you will take notice? What kind of hillbilly materialist epistemology is this? One thing is hard to miss: this new evidentiary standard represents an interesting, if artless, movement of the goalposts. Luckily for us we already have a great example of a message of racial hatred and legal separatism enshrined on a monument. I would direct your attention to the Wilson County Memorial Fountain, which should really be plural, as in "fountain(s)." Draw your attention to the separatist message which adorned these ostentatious fountains until it was removed in 1960: “For White People” and “For Colored People.” docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/483/What more do you need to see? How much further can we move the goalposts until we finally come out and admit we don't give a damn about evidence? Ruh Roh!
You have tacitly endorsed the deadly sin of historical omission!!!
The REST of the article you cited states:
How DARE the PC Police have DESECRATED this monument by removing all that HUSTORICAL and IRREPLACEABLE context?
Da noive!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 3:55:36 GMT
Ruh Roh!
You have tacitly endorsed the deadly sin of historical omission!!!
The REST of the article you cited states:
How DARE the PC Police have DESECRATED this monument by removing all that HUSTORICAL and IRREPLACEABLE context?
Da noive!
It just goes to show how far back the SJW rot goes in our history. lol Some would say it was all downhill after 1865. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 4:06:37 GMT
So far, the guest politicians are the only ones being quoted and not the ladies and gentlemen who actually purchased and erected the monument. At such events, the politician speaks of politics and current events, not the "purpose of the monument".
And I understand why you don't like it, but Lincoln was no different from the fiery dedication speaker listed so far. If you want us to take his racism with a grains of salt as part of his complexity, you do the same concerning these monuments. Objectivity, remember?
I have no illusions about Lincoln. His primary goal was unification, not emancipation. He said so. And some of his words towards black people would be deemed racist today. But a dedication ceremony isn't a person. The analogy still fails. Even if you make it again. In addition, I'm not convinced you know what "anecdotal" means as you have repeatedly used it incorrectly. As for objectivity, I'm a white northerner. I have no emotional response to these statues. I feel neither the pride of the southerner nor the derision of the African American. There's not one Confederate statue that I care whether it stands or falls. I go where the evidence takes me. It is currently taking me away from your position. First, let me help you with "anecdotal".
Secondly, the alleged evidence of white supremacy first peddled by TL is little more than a pair of paragraphs from the guest speaker (not a "dedication ceremony", not the principles that designed the monument) who essentially echoed the Jim Crow sentiments of the much worshiped 16th president, a murderous tyrant who is evidently immune from cancellation dues to liberal hypocrisy and bias.
Thirdly, the evidence that "takes you away" from my position is mighty thin, arguably not relevant and statistically invisible. The context and details of the monuments themselves make a much stronger argument. You're headed in the wrong direction on this subject
While I understand your detachment from this subject, the ongoing purge and cancelling by a mob affects all of us. It may not yet be your turn, but the destruction of the statues won't be the end of this. They will never stop until there is no more to take. Just remember that you stood aside early on when someday they come for the things that YOU do care about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 8:23:25 GMT
I have no illusions about Lincoln. His primary goal was unification, not emancipation. He said so. And some of his words towards black people would be deemed racist today. But a dedication ceremony isn't a person. The analogy still fails. Even if you make it again. In addition, I'm not convinced you know what "anecdotal" means as you have repeatedly used it incorrectly. As for objectivity, I'm a white northerner. I have no emotional response to these statues. I feel neither the pride of the southerner nor the derision of the African American. There's not one Confederate statue that I care whether it stands or falls. I go where the evidence takes me. It is currently taking me away from your position. First, let me help you with "anecdotal".
Secondly, the alleged evidence of white supremacy first peddled by TL is little more than a pair of paragraphs from the guest speaker (not a "dedication ceremony", not the principles that designed the monument) who essentially echoed the Jim Crow sentiments of the much worshiped 16th president, a murderous tyrant who is evidently immune from cancellation dues to liberal hypocrisy and bias.
Thirdly, the evidence that "takes you away" from my position is mighty thin, arguably not relevant and statistically invisible. The context and details of the monuments themselves make a much stronger argument. You're headed in the wrong direction on this subject
While I understand your detachment from this subject, the ongoing purge and cancelling by a mob affects all of us. It may not yet be your turn, but the destruction of the statues won't be the end of this. They will never stop until there is no more to take. Just remember that you stood aside early on when someday they come for the things that YOU do care about.
The fact that you can link to a definition of a word that runs completely counter to how you are using it and still blindly maintain that this proves you are using it correctly makes everything else you claim about this issue, and others, easier to understand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 14:53:28 GMT
It isn't the dates that are disputable but the reason. The reason is not only disputable, but laughable. The 'reason' they were installed was to demonstrate to uppity Blacks that no matter how the Civil War turned out white men were still in charge.. . it's obvious. The idea that it has nothing with race is utterly ridiculous.  Where is it written that the reason was "to demonstrate to uppity Blacks that no matter how the Civil War turned out white men were still in charge"? The fact is that it is not written because that is not the reason. The reason these statues exist is because those people were key figures in a war. You could flip that map and there would be a ton of monuments, statues and tributes in northern states. When you say your answer is obvious, you have no basis in fact for that. That is just the opinion you are prone to believe because of your ideology. So you disregard the fact that every state has war memorials, statues and tributes to every single war we have engaged in. It doesn't matter if we were right or wrong, we are a society (as most are) that values war heroes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 15:01:21 GMT
Where is it written that the reason was "to demonstrate to uppity Blacks that no matter how the Civil War turned out white men were still in charge"? Keep reading through the thread and you'll find it. Look for Maestro and my posts. We have pointed to textual evidence of racism & legal separatism in the dedication speeches. One of the statues we came across actually featured this message on the monument itself. Look on page 3 of this thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 15:11:39 GMT
Where is it written that the reason was "to demonstrate to uppity Blacks that no matter how the Civil War turned out white men were still in charge"? Keep reading through the thread and you'll find it. Look for Maestro and my posts. We have pointed to textual evidence of racism & legal separatism in the dedication speeches. One of the statues we came across actually featured this message on the monument itself. Look on page 3 of this thread. You are going to have to repost what you think said that because I checked all the posts and see nothing of the sort. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 15:18:10 GMT
I don't want to clutter the thread by reposting stuff and these posts are not numbered so it makes it harder to tell you which post to go to.
But if you read the 13th post on page 3 and continue on from there looking at Maestro's posts (and mine), you will see roughly a dozen different citations of racial hatred in the dedication addresses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 15:25:33 GMT
First, let me help you with "anecdotal".
Secondly, the alleged evidence of white supremacy first peddled by TL is little more than a pair of paragraphs from the guest speaker (not a "dedication ceremony", not the principles that designed the monument) who essentially echoed the Jim Crow sentiments of the much worshiped 16th president, a murderous tyrant who is evidently immune from cancellation dues to liberal hypocrisy and bias.
Thirdly, the evidence that "takes you away" from my position is mighty thin, arguably not relevant and statistically invisible. The context and details of the monuments themselves make a much stronger argument. You're headed in the wrong direction on this subject
While I understand your detachment from this subject, the ongoing purge and cancelling by a mob affects all of us. It may not yet be your turn, but the destruction of the statues won't be the end of this. They will never stop until there is no more to take. Just remember that you stood aside early on when someday they come for the things that YOU do care about.
The fact that you can link to a definition of a word that runs completely counter to how you are using it and still blindly maintain that this proves you are using it correctly makes everything else you claim about this issue, and others, easier to understand. .....psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.[4] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is typical requires statistical evidence. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy[6] and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical.
Quoting a handful of paragraphs from a few guest speakers at dedication ceremonies is not statistically sound evidence that white supremacy was in any way the reason for these monuments. These quotes are "notable or unusual examples" that are "not necessarily representative of a typical experience", hence anecdotal evidence. The monuments themselves express no such sentiments nor do most of the other speakers and guests present at the dedication.
Analogy: Trump is invited to a barn raising where he declares that it's a great barn...so beautiful, believe me... and then goes on to speak of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, DACA and COVID-19. Does that mean that the eternal purpose of the barn is now related to all of those things? Or is it just a barn?
Is there anything else that I need to explain to you?
Which brings up another intriguing tactic used by those who desire to falsely cast the South as villain. I call it the "Fallacy of the Magic Word/Phrase". If any of a series of trigger words or phrases are discovered in a single or handful of documents or in a speech, victory is unilaterally declared and the issue is alleged to be settled. In this fallacious method, a single turn of phrase like "slave holding states" or the very mention of the word "slavery" causes the immediate conclusion that all five million Southerners in 1860 were guilty of that motivation for all time. No empirical data nor refutation based on a reading of the entire document or speech will budge said snowflake from his conclusion that every moment of the War Between the States was solely about the preservation of slavery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 15:30:01 GMT
Yeah, that's ^ clearly a misuse of the word "anecdotal." This is not evidence sourced from word of mouth, or a one off atypical event.
The evidence is sourced from official information about these dedications, from the mouths of the people directly involved.
And when you ignore evidence that points to a different conclusion than the one you insist on, what kind of cognitive bias is that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 15:34:45 GMT
No one, including you, has been able to provide proof of the connection that you insist exists. Let's see the evidence rather than just your opinion.
He asks for evidence! Then evidence ye shall have. (1)Here is a snippet of the commencement speech (which clearly demonstrates the racial intent of the monuments) given at the dedication of "Silent Sam" by Julian Carr, in 1913, at the University of North Carolina: hgreen.people.ua.edu/transcription-carr-speech.htmlThe reference he makes to the Confederates and their service during the 4 years after the war is an allusion to the KKK and its campaign of terror that culminated in the black codes. The commencement speech for this apolitical funerary monument is surprisingly political. Odd. Color me surprised. Let's continue. (2)The Wilson County Memorial Fountain was dedicated in 1926. What's racist about a fountain? Did I mention there were 2 fountains featured in this monument? Why 2? Why not 3? or 4? I wonder what the 2 fountains were supposed to symbolize? Shades of Plessy? Separate but equal? docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/483/They even labeled them! And they were in front of a court house! How much more evidence do we need to see before we consider the fact that maybe the ex-Confederates who built these monuments had a political message? It seems to me the onus is now on you to back up the claim (with evidence) that these monuments to Confederates are apolitical historical tributes. All righty then. Let's dispatch of this quickly. I have to get to work: (1) If you read the entire speech to its conclusion you will find that he dismisses your quote: This speech was about contrast. He was talking of his behavior before and after. He acknowledges that the war was just and ended with the will of God being done. That is not someone that is embracing racism or trying to scare the "negros". (2) Doesn't even come close to supporting the thesis that the statues were resurrected to tell black people they were inferior. I don't even know how are why you think it does. It was a monument to all wars and was dedicated on Armistice Day. But it is not a statue. So what was your point? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 15:43:50 GMT
He asks for evidence! Then evidence ye shall have. (1)Here is a snippet of the commencement speech (which clearly demonstrates the racial intent of the monuments) given at the dedication of "Silent Sam" by Julian Carr, in 1913, at the University of North Carolina: hgreen.people.ua.edu/transcription-carr-speech.htmlThe reference he makes to the Confederates and their service during the 4 years after the war is an allusion to the KKK and its campaign of terror that culminated in the black codes. The commencement speech for this apolitical funerary monument is surprisingly political. Odd. Color me surprised. Let's continue. (2)The Wilson County Memorial Fountain was dedicated in 1926. What's racist about a fountain? Did I mention there were 2 fountains featured in this monument? Why 2? Why not 3? or 4? I wonder what the 2 fountains were supposed to symbolize? Shades of Plessy? Separate but equal? docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/483/They even labeled them! And they were in front of a court house! How much more evidence do we need to see before we consider the fact that maybe the ex-Confederates who built these monuments had a political message? It seems to me the onus is now on you to back up the claim (with evidence) that these monuments to Confederates are apolitical historical tributes. All righty then. Let's dispatch of this quickly. I have to get to work: (1) If you read the entire speech to its conclusion you will find that he dismisses your quote: This speech was about contrast. He was talking of his behavior before and after. He acknowledges that the war was just and ended with the will of God being done. That is not someone that is embracing racism or trying to scare the "negros". (2) Doesn't even come close to supporting the thesis that the statues were resurrected to tell black people they were inferior. I don't even know how are why you think it does. It was a monument to all wars and was dedicated on Armistice Day. But it is not a statue. So what was your point? Better call in sick because you have an uphill battle to fight if you think the above in anyway clears up the problem. Carr's speech covered many things. The part you highlight in no way dismisses any other part. Its all one speech. And you have nothing to say in the face of this celebration of the KKK and their campaign of terror, nor do you have an answer as to why the speaker was recounting the time he brutally beat a black woman in front of law enforcement, after he returned from war. Nor do you have an answer for the passage about the south possessing the "purest strain of the Anglo-Saxon." As for (2), if you can't see how a monument featuring 2 fountains and the words “For White People” and “For Colored People,” (in front of a court house no less!) is an endorsement of legal separatism and racial hatred, I don't know what to say. Best to log off and go to work. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 15:55:17 GMT
It's almost as if these Confederate apologists are cut from the same evidence-free cloth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 16:48:39 GMT
Yeah, that's ^ clearly a misuse of the word "anecdotal." This is not evidence sourced from word of mouth, or some one off atypical event. The evidence is sourced from official information about these dedications, from the mouths of the people directly involved. And when you ignore evidence that points to a different conclusion than the one you insist on, what kind of cognitive bias is that? You have a terrible case of the "fallacy of the magic word/phrase". You point to the incidental opinions of individual guest speakers to make the illogical leap to a false assumption of everybody's motivation on these monuments.
an•ec•do•tal (ˈæn ɪkˌdoʊt l, ˌæn ɪkˈdoʊt l)
based on incidental observations or reports rather than systematic evaluation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 17:04:26 GMT
Yeah, that's ^ clearly a misuse of the word "anecdotal." This is not evidence sourced from word of mouth, or some one off atypical event. The evidence is sourced from official information about these dedications, from the mouths of the people directly involved. And when you ignore evidence that points to a different conclusion than the one you insist on, what kind of cognitive bias is that? You have a terrible case of the "fallacy of the magic word/phrase". You point to the incidental opinions of individual guest speakers to make the illogical leap to a false assumption of everybody's motivation on these monuments.
an•ec•do•tal (ˈæn ɪkˌdoʊt l, ˌæn ɪkˈdoʊt l)
based on incidental observations or reports rather than systematic evaluation.
An official ceremony is not an incidental report. Thus the misuse of the word. Hell, we even have an instance of the racism being embedded in the monument itself. You are in denial. It's that simple. Good thing this isn't Solar's board. Taxed or Walks would be duty-bound to drop the ban hammer. We let you slide on that here.  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 26, 2020 17:21:03 GMT
and these posts are not numbered so it makes it harder to tell you which post to go to. Ask, and ye shall receive ... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 18:19:36 GMT
You have a terrible case of the "fallacy of the magic word/phrase". You point to the incidental opinions of individual guest speakers to make the illogical leap to a false assumption of everybody's motivation on these monuments.
an•ec•do•tal (ˈæn ɪkˌdoʊt l, ˌæn ɪkˈdoʊt l)
based on incidental observations or reports rather than systematic evaluation.
An official ceremony is not an incidental report. Thus the misuse of the word. Hell, we even have an instance of the racism being embedded in the monument itself. You are in denial. It's that simple. I came here to respond to him, but that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? The gulf between PC's understanding* of "anecdotal evidence" and the actual definition of the phrase is too great to be overcome, making further discussion kind of pointles because he bases his entire argument on that error.
*I should probably say "claimed understanding." His misunderstanding is so absurd, I'm not convinced he actually believes what he says. Simply grasping for any rhetorical spin he thinks helps him claim some kind of victory seems at least as likely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 18:38:55 GMT
An official ceremony is not an incidental report. Thus the misuse of the word. Hell, we even have an instance of the racism being embedded in the monument itself. You are in denial. It's that simple. I came here to respond to him, but that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? The gulf between PC's understanding* of "anecdotal evidence" and the actual definition of the phrase is too great to be overcome, making further discussion kind of pointles because he bases his entire argument on that error.
*I should probably say "claimed understanding." His misunderstanding is so absurd, I'm not convinced he actually believes what he says. Simply grasping for any rhetorical spin he thinks helps him claim some kind of victory seems at least as likely. I think you hit the nail on the head. This is a case of PC being desperate to find any excuse to dismiss the evidence and reaching for whatever is at hand. This also might be a learned reflex. If PC has had his arguments shut down in the past by folks pointing to the limits of anecdotal evidence, he reasons perhaps he can use the same trick himself. The problem is, the charge is not a mere trick. It's not spin! The words have an actual real-world meaning. Of course, as a reflexive rhetorical flourish, it comes off clumsy and proves too much. If one doesn't know what an anecdote is, how much business do they have in discussing the finer points of politics or history? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 18:47:56 GMT
It's almost as if these Confederate apologists are cut from the same evidence-free cloth.
I'm afraid that it's Lincoln apologists like you that are short on evidence.
Let's do a little audit of the alleged "evidence" so far: a handful of controversial paragraphs taken out of context from lengthy speeches given by invited guest speakers, usually politicians, who had nothing to do with the design or erection of the monuments being dedicated....oh, and one instance of separate water fountains on a 1926 monument to all wars, not just Mr. Lincoln's war.
From such minuscule findings, the Lincoln apologists quickly declared victory. Do you actually think that that is sufficient evidence to condemn the entirely of the South and all of their monuments as being motivated by white supremacy?
Condemn the speakers who have said horrible things, not the rest who didn't say those things and not the monuments that don't say any of those things.
Enjoy.
|
|
