posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 04:13 PM
is anyone else besides me wondering where the rigorous set of criteria are for determining who gets stuff named after them and statues of them made?
cuz i dont see anything but "he was a bad man, BAN HIM".
right now it appears the zeitgeist has determined that the most important criteria for deciding to diminish someones historical notoriety is whether
or not they were a racist or a slave owner. My question is, is that really the most important quality to zero in on out of all the potentially
horrible character defects or bad behavior that exist? What about mass murderers? what about
im sure im not the only one who has intuited that we could very easily go down a road where SJWs on steroids decide that pretty much any flaw or PC
culture misstep could render someone persona non grata and worthy of having their lives destroyed. In fact, we are already seeing that happen with
many high profile individuals on YouTube, Twitter and other platforms. People in some cases who are not even white (Gad Saad), or appear even remotely
bigoted (Jordan Peterson), are being publicly shamed and de-platformed, shunned, shut down, protested, attacked, threatened (Brett Weinstein, a jewish
man) and generally harassed!
One of the things thats truly frightening about this "movement" for lack of a better word, is that it does not generally have a well articulated set
of principles upon which it operates where one could predict with any accuracy what kind of consequences one might face for having trampled upon some
obscure sacred cow. Its true that for the most part anything that doesnt toe PC culture values is subject to immediate and fairly merciless attack,
but the list of potential offenses is growing quite rapidly.
What it appears we are seeing now is the enlargement of areas of public life in which we can more easily offend. What i mean is, for a long time the
only thing most of us really had to worry about was not using a racial slur, epithet, or other derogatory term for certain groups of people. NOW that
sphere of potential social pitfalls has at least doubled with the inclusion of any number of attributes or behaviors that could lead SJWs to think you
are a NAZI or white supremacist sympathizer. Clothes, HAIRCUTS, unproven associations, music....who knows where it could go from here and how
expansive it could become. As a person who grew up in the 80s during the height of the Crips and Bloods nonsense i know that its too easy for a group
to decide certain colors worn are worthy of DEATH! I mean, imagine if youre just slightly out of touch with the never ending trends which can change
overnight and you go on vacation and come back only to find you showed up at work wearing a color, brand, design etc that was decided while you were
gone means you are a hardcore nazi racist scum? Dont laugh....it could happen.
Someone has yet to publicly and with the utmost rationality and clarity explain to the public what is actually going on here and what it means for
society and for America. We keep hopping from one offense to the next without having the really deep conversation about what the core principle that
underlies all this actually is.
To me it seems there are groups of people who basically want to bully the rest of society to toe the invented lines of morality and ethics that THEY
THEMSELVES invented. Notice no one is appealing to any central standard or authority to support what appears to be social engineering. No one has
stood up and said "....according to the Laws of Hammurabi or Blacks Law or the Magna Carta or the Bible or ANY OTHER perceived mortal/ethical
authority, we have a special dispensation or are empowered to tell and if need be, force, your compliance on these issues". Thats among one of the
most annoying, troubling, bothersome and absurd aspects of this entire phenomenon. It appears to be entirely Ad Hoc with no real ultimate goal other
than policing peoples language and behavior. I think they have a word for that.....its called Authoritarianism.
to the OP: Columbus is credited for discovering America in HIS time. Likely he is given this credit because out of ALL the other people who
supposedly discovered America, nothing ever came of it. So it seems reasonable to give credit to the person who appears to have had the most influence
on America becoming what it is TODAY because of his journey here. Now, it IS possible to separate his "discovery" of America from all the bad things
he did. I'll prove it to you. Most of us know Leonardo DaVinci was a a child molester, but in popular culture that neat little factoid has failed to
gain any traction to the point of causing his name and any association with him to be reviled and declared immoral on account of that one thing. So
why not? I mean, in principle isnt it important that this person was a total scumbag who exploited and abused children? How can we continue to praise
his genius and inventions knowing he was an evil pedo?
And yet, people compartmentalize things like this ALL THE TIME so they can keep what they like and forget what they dont. But now as a society we are
being told that this group over here doesnt like this thing because its associated with this or that so get rid of it. Well guess what guys....maybe
ill just decide to start a little project where i dig into the lives of every person we as a society have generally regarded or highly esteemed and
just see if we can find a reason to exile them into historical ignominy.
I think i heard somewhere that Ghandi was a hardcore racist against Africans.......