Messages

Nice,man!
It's a pleasure to meet you.

One being the lincoln statue above?
I can definitely see that as patronizing!
What's the other?

Of course, there's that too....
Those get lots of clicks and spread well digitally.
In large groups we are erecting walls of righteous indignation.
But face to face I see movement.  Some non canned thinking.
I've been more able to inject nuance into the conversation with friends and family, and had people admit to culpability that they wouldn't have before.
I'm hoping that these little interactions are playing out with others everywhere in this stew of chaos.
The general chaos will hopefully be opportunity

Cram, I totally agree that this is a precious moment in history right now, and I hope we can use it well.
I've had some of the best conversations lately, and can feel some sweet sweet brain plasticity in myself, and see it in those I talk with.

Is it the prevailing view on the board that there is no valid arguments against the statue destructions?

It doesn't seem simple to me.

Hmm... Perhaps it would be more effective to erect statues of these historical figures showcasing their flaws.  The opposition could rail against the ideas conveyed, but they would not have the righteous indignation that is lent by witnessing the destruction of historical public property.

I don't see any need to negotiate, though.  There are no statues to Adolf Hitler, and everyone remembers who he was.  The statues were put up decades after the civil war as an intimidation tactic.

Tear 'em down.

This is a good point.  The Confederate statues I would not argue for.  They are not considered a touchstone of our national identity, contributing to who we aspire to be.  You could argue that they showed bravery in combat, or strategic genius, or loyalty to a cause.... but it wasn't the cause of who we want to be.
So fuck em.

But when we are considering the flawed characters that did layout the framework of what we want to be, I can understand some of the talking points coming out of the red team, as well as those of the blue team.

I guess the more general question for me, is how do we handle historical figures that did both great and horrible things?
Of course we would hope that great people not do horrible things, but the characteristics that make someone likely to achieve the one, often select for both.
It feels like we should be able to have a nuanced memorialization of our past.

But...Maybe humans are incapable of that.

That is an understandable concern.
It is not possible to make a statue express disdain?
How are we to represent historical figures that were important and influential in all their flawed reality?
I have seen it put forward that all historical statues are unnacceptable... is this true?

I was picturing Andrew Jackson killing an Indian.
Facial expression can send the correct message.
It doesn't negate the good things he did. But acknowledges the horrors.

Hot shit! That's so great

Is it the prevailing view on the board that there is no valid arguments against the statue destructions?

It doesn't seem simple to me.

Hmm... Perhaps it would be more effective to erect statues of these historical figures showcasing their flaws.  The opposition could rail against the ideas conveyed, but they would not have the righteous indignation that is lent by witnessing the destruction of historical public property.

So, the argument is:
There is no such thing as born evil in the real world.
And it is wrong to imagine it, because some people will insist it is real.
Edit:  rereading this, my description sounds flip, which is not my intent....

Well.... I totally agree with the value of the more nuanced gradations of evil like ilithids.  They're probably the most interesting race in dnd that I am aware of.  It's a fascinating philosophical concept that I savor.

But there's nothing more viscerally fearful than a group that is just evil.  They just choose to be.  All of them. Every single one.  That's the worst possible thing.
And it's what you destroy.  Like you get baby jesus bucks for killing them. There's no moral qualm.
They're a moral absolute that acts as a cautionary point of reference. You don't be a monster.

Now we shouldn't paint people as monsters. That's totally clear.
But there will be portrayals of monstrous archetypes that are evil by choice.  But they will be tied to groups of people by the shitheads of our past. ... so.
I need to think about it more...

Updated WOMPfodder.
Wheres the Wompin?
I need to scrape the updated pics of yall as my previous picture box died.

Huh.
So. I dont think I'm willing to give up that concept.
Is it morally wrong to accept stories that have that?
It seems like a valuable concept to have in literature and culture as a precautionary tail of how shitty it(society or self) is if we let ourselves be evil.

Now, I can understand trying to avoid certain depictions and not wanting to be attached to actual groups of people....
I wonder what features of orcs would have to be changed to be safe from association with black humans? (That is who it is attached to,  I'm assuming)

Hmm.  So it seems to be tying sentience to inherent evil that is the problem, because all monstrous portrayals of inherent evil have, at some point in history, been applied to a racial group.
Is that accurate assessment?