Statues and Sports Team Names

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Gary Childress
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Statues and Sports Team Names

Post by Gary Childress »

Apparently the debate over sports teams has reignited since the George Floyd murder.

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/11/88987402 ... -spreading

To be honest, I don't see what the big deal is with taking down a statue or changing a team name. The Washington Bullets changed their name to the Washington Wizards over the political issue of gun slayings and I don't know that it detracted anything from the team. I remember a quip in one of Noam Chomsky's books comparing the naming of the Washington "Redskins" to naming a sports team from Berlin the "Kikes".

And the confederate statues don't seem to be essential to history. Confederate generals can still be mentioned in history books in the proper context without having statues erected to honor them.
Impenitent
Posts: 3115
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Statues and Sports Team Names

Post by Impenitent »

erasing history is double plus good

steal the Redskins name as well

let the riots burn your utopia

-Imp
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9262
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Gary

Post by henry quirk »

I could not care less about the statues.

If I wanna learn about R. E. Lee, I'll get myself a book.

I have, however, a problem with the way the statues are comin' down.

Seems to me: the voters of a community ought to be decidin' whether a statue in their community stays or goes. They're, after all, payin' for it.

And, understand: when I say voters, I mean voters, not their elected reps on the city council or in the state house. Those folks are mainly motivated by re-election and their loyalties shift with the wind. Not a one is trustworthy. Nor should protestors be allowed to pull them down in the heat of passion (or, on the direction of those financin' the protestors).

No, if the statue of historical figure X becomes problematic, let the voters decide what they wanna do about it by way of the democratic process everyone claims to love so damn much.


As for team names: these are privately owned organizations/businesses. They can call themselves whatever they like (or allow employees [the players] to promote their dumbass politics by kneelin' during the pledge). Me: I decide where I spend my money. If I don't care for sumthin' a business does, I'm not obligated to spend a dime on their products or services.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Gary

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:44 am I could not care less about the statues.

If I wanna learn about R. E. Lee, I'll get myself a book.

I have, however, a problem with the way the statues are comin' down.

Seems to me: the voters of a community ought to be decidin' whether a statue in their community stays or goes. They're, after all, payin' for it.

And, understand: when I say voters, I mean voters, not their elected reps on the city council or in the state house. Those folks are mainly motivated by re-election and their loyalties shift with the wind. Not a one is trustworthy. Nor should protestors be allowed to pull them down in the heat of passion (or, on the direction of those financin' the protestors).

No, if the statue of historical figure X becomes problematic, let the voters decide what they wanna do about it by way of the democratic process everyone claims to love so damn much.


As for team names: these are privately owned organizations/businesses. They can call themselves whatever they like (or allow employees [the players] to promote their dumbass politics by kneelin' during the pledge). Me: I decide where I spend my money. If I don't care for sumthin' a business does, I'm not obligated to spend a dime on their products or services.
I'm confused. So, in other words, you believe that if 51% of people want something that is detrimental to 49%, then that's OK? You'll stick up for the 51%. But if 51% of people voted for socialism in your neck of the woods, I assume you would not say, "let the voters decide what they wanna do about it by way of the democratic process everyone claims to love so damn much."

Is that correct?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9262
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Gary

Post by henry quirk »

you believe that if 51% of people want something that is detrimental to 49%, then that's OK?

No. Gimme an example (not the statues...those things aren't detrimental to anyone ['cept mebbe the idiot who pulls one down on himself]).


You'll stick up for the 51%.

Not really. I'm not the one who claims to love democracy. I'm the one who holds them to their own standard.


But if 51% of people voted for socialism in your neck of the woods, I assume you would not say, "let the voters decide what they wanna do about it by way of the democratic process everyone claims to love so damn much."

Absolutely, if the majority wants communism (and let's not fuck around with words...communism is what we're talkin' about) then they should have it.

I, however, will not abide.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Gary

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:45 am you believe that if 51% of people want something that is detrimental to 49%, then that's OK?

No. Gimme an example (not the statues...those things aren't detrimental to anyone ['cept mebbe the idiot who pulls one down on himself]).


You'll stick up for the 51%.

Not really. I'm not the one who claims to love democracy. I'm the one who holds them to their own standard.


But if 51% of people voted for socialism in your neck of the woods, I assume you would not say, "let the voters decide what they wanna do about it by way of the democratic process everyone claims to love so damn much."

Absolutely, if the majority wants communism (and let's not fuck around with words...communism is what we're talkin' about) then they should have it.

I, however, will not abide.
What do you mean by "communism", though?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9262
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Gary

Post by henry quirk »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:54 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:45 am you believe that if 51% of people want something that is detrimental to 49%, then that's OK?

No. Gimme an example (not the statues...those things aren't detrimental to anyone ['cept mebbe the idiot who pulls one down on himself]).


You'll stick up for the 51%.

Not really. I'm not the one who claims to love democracy. I'm the one who holds them to their own standard.


But if 51% of people voted for socialism in your neck of the woods, I assume you would not say, "let the voters decide what they wanna do about it by way of the democratic process everyone claims to love so damn much."

Absolutely, if the majority wants communism (and let's not fuck around with words...communism is what we're talkin' about) then they should have it.

I, however, will not abide.
What do you mean by "communism", though?
The leash around the neck; the direction of others, for others; the subsuming of one into the many; the diminishment of man and elevation of men; turning person into cog; community as entity, man as cell.

I coulda gave you some dry definition, but mine is to the point.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Gary

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:04 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:54 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:45 am you believe that if 51% of people want something that is detrimental to 49%, then that's OK?

No. Gimme an example (not the statues...those things aren't detrimental to anyone ['cept mebbe the idiot who pulls one down on himself]).


You'll stick up for the 51%.

Not really. I'm not the one who claims to love democracy. I'm the one who holds them to their own standard.


But if 51% of people voted for socialism in your neck of the woods, I assume you would not say, "let the voters decide what they wanna do about it by way of the democratic process everyone claims to love so damn much."

Absolutely, if the majority wants communism (and let's not fuck around with words...communism is what we're talkin' about) then they should have it.

I, however, will not abide.
What do you mean by "communism", though?
The leash around the neck; the direction of others, for others; the subsuming of one into the many; the diminishment of man and elevation of men; turning person into cog; community as entity, man as cell.

I coulda gave you some dry definition, but mine is to the point.
If someone created a sports team called the "Henry Quirk (insert something you would find slanderous or insulting here)", would you be upset if the name got changed? Or if someone erected a statue of Karl Marx in your neighborhood, would you complain if it got torn down? Or would you think the people who tore it down were the smart ones or finally came to their senses?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9262
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Statues and Sports Team Names

Post by henry quirk »

If someone created a sports team called the "Henry Quirk (insert something you would find slanderous or insulting here)", would you be upset if the name got changed?

If I had a team, I'll name it whatever the hell I want & change the name as I please. If someone used my name to make a buck and weren't payin' me: I'd sue their asses good (or, mebbe, bring my complaint to their doorstep).


Or if someone erected a statue of Karl Marx in your neighborhood, would you complain if it got torn down? Or would you think the people finally came to their senses?

If my neighbor, on his dime, erected a statue of Karl: that's his business.

If my town wanted to erect a statue of Karl: I'd vote against it, if I had the chance. And if they actually erected one: I finagle it so I wouldn't pay for it (yes, tax evasion/cheatin' is wrong: I don't care).
Gary Childress
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Statues and Sports Team Names

Post by Gary Childress »

And mind you, I'm not saying it's a high crime to be mistaken about things. I've been mistaken plenty before, but I don't think we should complain about the people who are putting this kind of pressure on sports teams or toppling statues of people who tried to literally divide our country over something that defies our very constitution. It seems like we should be approving of it.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Statues and Sports Team Names

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:20 am If someone created a sports team called the "Henry Quirk (insert something you would find slanderous or insulting here)", would you be upset if the name got changed?

If I had a team, I'll name it whatever the hell I want & change the name as I please. If someone used my name to make a buck and weren't payin' me: I'd sue their asses good (or, mebbe, bring my complaint to their doorstep).


Or if someone erected a statue of Karl Marx in your neighborhood, would you complain if it got torn down? Or would you think the people finally came to their senses?

If my neighbor, on his dime, erected a statue of Karl: that's his business.

If my town wanted to erect a statue of Karl: I'd vote against it, if I had the chance. And if they actually erected one: I finagle it so I wouldn't pay for it (yes, tax evasion/cheatin' is wrong: I don't care).
So in other words you wouldn't approve if those things happened, and I don't blame you. I probably wouldn't either. So I don't think we should disapprove of the Confederate statues being torn down or the pressure to rename sports teams.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9262
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

R.I.P. Gary

Post by henry quirk »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:22 am ...I don't think we should complain about the people who are putting this kind of pressure on sports teams or toppling statues of people who tried to literally divide our country over something that defies our very constitution. It seems like we should be approving of it.
I ain't complainin', Gary.

Team names: I don't care.

Statues: I don't care (just don't promote democracy then indulge anti-democracy impulses, cuz then you're a hypocrite and a hooligan).

I'll say this, in conclusion: history is what is it...the men and women who do and did remarkable things weren't saints, they were, they are, just people. Take them as they are and were.

And: if you really believe the nonsense goin' on today has anything to do with statues or history or black lives or anti-fascism, well, good luck to you.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

R.I.P. Henry

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:37 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:22 am ...I don't think we should complain about the people who are putting this kind of pressure on sports teams or toppling statues of people who tried to literally divide our country over something that defies our very constitution. It seems like we should be approving of it.
I ain't complainin', Gary.

Team names: I don't care.

Statues: I don't care (just don't promote democracy then indulge anti-democracy impulses, cuz then you're a hypocrite and a hooligan).

I'll say this, in conclusion: history is what is it...the men and women who do and did remarkable things weren't saints, they were, they are, just people. Take them as they are and were.

And: if you really believe the nonsense goin' on today has anything to do with statues or history or black lives or anti-fascism, well, good luck to you.
OK. Fair enough.
commonsense
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Statues and Sports Team Names

Post by commonsense »

America was founded on beliefs and values, among which is the belief that all are created to be on equal footing. The founders intended to include only men who were white, but along the way we have become woke to the rightness of including women and peoples of color.

Name-changing and statue-displacing are consistent with America’s founding values. Opposition to the replacement of team names and the removal of Confederate statues is not supported by the beliefs and values of America.

Because such opposition is not patriotic, those who are so inclined—even if they are the majority—are living in the wrong place. They should shut up, or leave, or work to get the values of our nation officially changed.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9262
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

RO

Post by henry quirk »

commonsense wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:15 pm America was founded on beliefs and values, among which is the belief that all are created to be on equal footing. The founders intended to include only men who were white, but along the way we have become woke to the rightness of including women and peoples of color.

Name-changing and statue-displacing are consistent with America’s founding values. Opposition to the replacement of team names and the removal of Confederate statues is not supported by the beliefs and values of America.

Because such opposition is not patriotic, those who are so inclined—even if they are the majority—are living in the wrong place. They should shut up, or leave, or work to get the values of our nation officially changed.
History (good & bad) is. We ought to know it, not white wash it or negate it.

As I say: if a community prefers to keep its statues, then that's what ought to happen.

But, again, none of this crap is about the statues. If it were: the Frederick Douglas statue would still stand.

Team names: again, prvate concerns. If the owner of the Redskins has a change of heart and decides to stick with redskins then that's how it's gonna be. Those who find the name racist are not obliged to spend money on tickets or merchandise. And if the name change happens, those who think it's a pussy, virtue signal aren't obligated to spend money on tickets or merchandise.

But, it's not really about racist team names or organizations.

It's not really about systemic racism.

-----

They should shut up

As a free man: I'll speak my mind as I choose, as I expect you will, as the protestors do (loudly, annoyingly, with infantile volume), so: you can kiss my monkey ass, Robot Overlord.

-----

America: the reality of it has never met up with the ideal proposed. Three steps forward, two steps back; meander like a pinball; get it right then get it wrong: this is America.

Like the fella said...

There's this passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

I been saying that shit for years. And if you heard it, that meant your ass. I never gave much thought to what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this morning made me think twice. See, now I'm thinking, maybe it means you're the evil man, and I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or, it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.
Post Reply