Abolitionism wasn't a 19th century invention. People had figured out slavery was wrong, way, way before that. Some people who had done so were friends and acquaintances with Washington and Jefferson.

I'm not in favour of "deadly violence" to defend property.

Just "enough violence" to protect stuff.

i think you guys saying that mobs arent democracy are forgetting what democracy is.

if there are more people at the statue that want to tear it down than there are that dont, then that is democracy in its purest form.

sounds like you guys need to get out there and practice some democracy if you don't want these racist statues torn down.

Famous Quote:

Democracy is three wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

The "WHO" in your world view who get to use "enough violence" to "protect stuff" that is not their own are any random person? Am I reading you correctly? And if "enough violence" to stop it requires "deadly violence" you are saying that is ok?


Using my example above, you have a heated rivalry in football, as many are. After a very controversial loss, hundreds of fans of the losing team flood the field, and in a rage start to tear down the end zone uprights.

The police cordon the area but do not try to stop the mob.

Citizens in the crowd, many armed legally, and supporters of the home team, see this as an outrage. They think they won fair and square and don't want their uprights damaged.


There is nothing short of starting to to shoot that will stop this property damage.

Are you saying that average citizens should and would be justified in opening fire on those trying to pull down the uprights??

I am curious what limitations you would put on this citizen police force since they are acting not just as cop but as judge and jury in most instances.

Agreed and i raised this point.

There is an argument that such property owned by the gov't is owned 'by the people', and another that 'Civil disobedience' is not only Constitutional but a DESIRED result, at times within a healthy democracy.

Of course there should be limits and there should be consequences when those limits are breached but that should be and historically has been adjudicated in courts. In many cases the courts ALLOW civil disobedience and do not impose punishments because they find it allowable within those context.

But it is the Courts and not other private citizens who act as police, judge and jury, who need to decide that.

Lethal force is NEVER justified to prevent property damage, in my opinion.

Lethal force CAN be justified to protect humans from being murdered, in my opinion.

Well good on you for coming around to a normal position.

Before we were talking about 'defense of property not owned by the individual' and you were suggesting whatever force was necessary, which includes lethal.

So the most emotional 2% of a population should dictate what's right and wrong? The protesters in Seattle wanted to abolish the police department -what about the rest of the people in Seattle and Washington - their vote doesn't count because they don't have time to stop their lives and stand in the street yelling?

I should have been more careful in my wording.

This is about as dumb of a post as you get.

gotta show up if you want a vote in a democracy.

civics class was hard, i understand.

Washington was a slave owner and nicknamed "The Town Destroyer" by the Iroquois Native Americans due to bis penchant for destroying their villages, so within the protesters ethos it's justifiable to them. Mt Rushmore will be next due to him Jefferson Teddy and Lincoln (who felt black people weren't on a par with white people despite his feelings that slavery was morally wrong) all being on it. They'll probably need a bigger winch or something though...

Surprising Mississippi was willing and able to move so fast on changing their state flag.

It is smart and good politics really.

Ok so this Republican governor gets some nods of disapproval from some citizens who see that as 'caving' but really few will focus on it or care beyond the extremists. Most just go on with life.

You wait until its a hot flash area, with tons of pressure from BLM and other groups and then suddenly everyone in the State is engaged and taking a position, you are far more likely to anger one group or the other, regardless of your choice.

You will be called 'weak' if you cave and 'supporting racism' if you do not.

He has avoided that by being proactive. Smart. A word I rarely feel is applicable for Trump Republicans lately.

Trump signs executive order to establish a "Garden of American Heroes"

Surprise! It's only slightly less partisan than you'd expect

Dumbest post I've read this month (or nice troll sir)

I have no issue with that actually. Establishing a place where people have to travel to or purposely go out of their way to go to (like a Museum) where periods in history can be displayed and examined are fine. As long as its not done by glorifying it with a very biased history. Give proper context including citations to the history.

That is very different than most of these other statues being torn down that were very purposefully commissioned and often paid for by White Supremacists groups and then donated to Cities to put in very public places where POC had no choice but to go, so as Gov't service offices.

They choose those locations as a deliberate middle finger to POC saying 'we may have lost the war but we still hold all the power in this City/State and we need you to remember that and that we still do not consider you equals.'

it's obviously tongue in cheek, but everyone saying that "mob rule isnt democracy" is showing an obvious misunderstanding of "democracy".

I'm surprised he hasn't called "The Trump Garden of American Heroes" and that he didn't put himself in it with the biggest statue.

"Of course my statue is the largest. I have a very, very large brain. Nobody knows more about gardens and heroes than I do."

holy ****. mask right the **** off.

thanks I just came

It is not dumb at all.

The systems of governance are filled with checks and balances purposely.

POTUS - COngress - Senate - Supreme Court
Various levels of gov't


But above them all sits 'The will of the people'.


Often fractured. Often frayed and unclear. But if the population thinks some law created by gov't is completely unfair and they rise in mass, unified protest and fill the streets demanding change they often WILL and SHOULD get it as obviously the law makers got something wrong if the people are unified in their agreement that is wrong.

The Constitution allows for Protest as a means of Speech for this very reason.

NOw unity is never really achieved, but that does not destroy the points. It is up to the politicians and others to determine how much of an imperative they are being given.

This feels quite relevant to Jimmy's early posts in this thread, which focused on Auschwitz

You're too stupid at this point to even produce a coherent sentence.