Arlington Cemetery is on land once owned by General Lee. Maybe we should destroy it too.

:(

Who need statues anyway… https://imgflip.com/i/1udbh2

Who needs star fleet? ;)

the second civil war is about destroying or preserving American greatness, plain and simple

How do you know they were "leftist thugs"? Chicago police currently list the vandalism as being under investigation, and the identity of the vandal(s) as unknown.

Taking away the loser's participation trophies isn't erasing history. You want to learn about history, go to a museum, don't throw a temper tantrum over monuments that were erected for people who defended slavery.

Taking down a statue doesn't erase history... That's idiotic.

Except there was more to it than just slavery. I don't know if you know this, but Lincoln say said that he would reunite America, even if it meant making slavery illegal.

sorry. there's just too much 'argument by extremes' on this site.

The whole memorial argument is "argument by extremes." An unrepentant leader of a morally unjust cause? That might not describe the Confederate Lee, but it certainly does describe the Union general Sheridan, who forced women and children out of their homes in winter, and burned their houses down, along with 400 square miles of the Shenandoah Valley, and went on to say later in life, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." How can we justify taking down the statue of Lee, while allowing Sheridan to have a statue in Washington DC? Where are the bleeding hearts now?

Bleeding hearts don't get the concept that since the Union won—in effect, eliminating slavery—it doesn't matter. Lincoln could've imprisoned African-Americans in the name of "national security" and still be regarded as a saint because he would be harming his own people. Harming your kind is okay; harming people outside your own kind is not okay, according to radical left-wing hypocrisy.

wars are where heroes shine, but also where a-holes are allowed (and often encouraged) to do their evil. let's not see this problem as having a simple right-or-wrong-answer solution. there are heroes and a-holes on both sides.

I agree, and my comments should not be misinterpreted as some absurd attempt to defend the Confederacy. There are indeed heroes and a-holes on both sides, but only one side's statues are being removed. That will cause problems.

thanks

This is just how SJWs argue, and it's unfortunately the only way to communicate with them.

I will concede your point, provisionally.

The kind of ignorant, over-reacting conservatives your meme describes are a fringe element of the right. The kind of emotionally-driven, irrational liberals my meme describes, are the mainstream of the left.

Upvote back atcha.

The funny part is, it wasn't always that way. 30 years ago, the nutjob extremist kooks were on the fringe on *both* sides. It has been my observation that in the intervening decades, the extremist kooks have taken over the narrative on the left, and the rational left has done nothing to stop them, in fact they encourage them. The extremist kooks on the right are usually attacked and condemed by the left AND the rational right, and made to scurry back to the fringe where they belong.

All you have to do, is look at this current debate. Folks on the right condemn the alt-right AND the Antifa. Folks on the left condemn the alt-right, but find disingenuous ways to excuse or justify the Antifa.

Again, merely my observation.

show them how to argue intelligently.

and i disagree really. putting all of your sparring partners in one 'sjw' or 'libtard' or 'contard' (or whatever) box is another way of avoiding factual argument. if you feel strongly about your point of view, convince people with facts and logic.

I don't put all of my "sparring partners" into one box. But I also know better than to capture my opponents rook when the game we're playing is checkers.

The tactic of "arguing by extremes" and by extension, using emotion rather than reason to make your point(s), which was referenced by someone above, is one favored by a particular ideological segment that coincidentally happens to live in a particular box. But I certainly didn't put them there.

ok, but if you restrict the other 'segment', in your mind, to emotion only and not intellect, then you're dehumanizing them. and that's the first step to mistreating them and worse.

For some reason, it won't let me "reply" to you, thisspaceavailable. I think there may be a finite number of indents allowed?

Anyway, I'm not sure what "other" segment you may be referring to, because I'm not the one doing the restricting. When people act or react emotionally and irrationally, they reveal themselves to be emotionally driven people. If an attempt is made to appeal to their reason, and they demonstrate not to have any reason, then there you are. It isn't me doing it.

When you say "four" and someone jumps all the way ahead to "nine" in a blatant attempt to ellicit an emotional response from you, they've made it quite clear that they are not interested in being challenged on logical grounds, they want to pit their emotions against yours.

It's not that they don't possess intellect per se, but it's never been honed, exercised, sometimes even used at all. It's in atrophy, like a limb that's been too long in a cast. They've let other people spoon-feed them their world view because it's easier. Critical thinking is difficult. Sometimes you have to do scary things, like re-evaluate your preconceived ideologies when new information is obtained. But they don't want to have to do that. They like their world just the way it is, and any challenge to that in any way is an aggression against them personally, and they react accordingly.

When I observe that reaction, it's pretty clear what I'm dealing with.

They have neither the ability, nor the desire to "argue intelligently". Reason, logic, and facts are wasted on them, because everything is driven by the evocation of emotion. What makes you angry, what makes you sad, what makes you happy, but never, ever what makes you THINK. Actions are meaningless, only intentions matter.

It's all about feelings with these people. Critical thinking is a skill that requires the use of an organ that has been allowed to atrophy. All their lives they've been shielded from conflict, from criticism, and from anything and everything that might threaten the blissful pocket utopia created for them by overanxious, coddling parents. The line between speech and violence was blurred for their protection, and now they cannot see a distinction between the two. All their decisions, opinions, philosophies, and ideologies come from their heart, because their brain was a tool they were never taught how to properly use.

They can only speak the language of raw emotion, and if you mean to communicate with them at all, then that's the language you must use.

Well, they can't all be smart like me. :D

I'm sorry your experience with the conservatives you've encountered has been so negative, but I'm gratified that you're still willing to consider that they might be the exception, rather than the rule.

I've met the same kind of conservatives you're talking about, but they truly are the minority of the movement. They get the bulk of the screen time because the propaganda arm of the DNC (that's 'news media', for the rest of you) loves to paint conservatives in a bad light. Given the choice, they'll always pick the slack-jawed yokel to represent our side.

Check this out when you have a minute:
imgflip.com/i/1qbz14

Sure people on both sides can be "like this". But that isn't what MauiOnion said.

But SJW behavior isn't normally attributed to people with conservative ideology, because generally speaking, conservatives don't encourage emotionally-driven, irrational thinking.

He wants to equivocate in order to justify, and I reject the assertion because it is demonstrably false.

Religion and politics go together like ammonia and chlorine.

If that's the baseline you're using to judge what it means to be a conservative, then I'm actually kind of relieved. Conservatism is not about religion, has nothing to do with religion, isn't based on religion, but all too often gets hijacked by religion. When people start mixing religion and politics, get clear because it's a recipe for an ideological WMD.

For example; I am a conservative, I am a Christian, and I am pro-life. But I am NOT pro-life because I am a Christian. I AM pro-life because I am a conservative, because conservatives believe in civil rights (yes, you heard me right), civil rights which are denied to the unborn.

You want to have a religious discussion? I can do that. You want to have a political discussion? I can do that too. But I cannot do both at the same time. No one can. People who try, fail.