LeninSeatle

That's Jenny, not Blondie. But i guess at least I have someone to call now.

Oh crap. What's the area code?

Evanescence

Sorry, I couldn't resist the implication.

Lol. Armstrong.

30 years before walking on the moon, he was one helluva jazz musician.

It's not a government installed statue. It was a private art installation. It's up for sale AND the mayor called for it's removal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin,_Seattle

You're welcome.

Irrelevant. Your side can't claim a moral high ground when you support statues like that. You b**ch about 'evil' and yet are fine with that. Oh, and the satanic Baphomet statue your side supported standing next to the Ten Commandments. Regardless of it being public or private, don't claim you are against Confederate statues because they are 'evil'.

No it's totally relevant. You're comparing apples and oranges. The Lenin statue was not installed and paid for with tax dollars. It's a private art piece on private retail property. Confederate statues are on public land. The taxpayers and voters have spoken.

Religious statues of any sect have no place on government property (in my opinion) but if you allow one you have to allow all.

And who thinks statues are "evil?" LOL ...stupid maybe....not evil.

Oh please, all the liberals have done is call them evil. Chelsea Clinton just called it memorializing the devil. I am fine removing them, I don't care, just be consistent.

This is why in a free anbd tolerant society you can't tolerate intolerance, may it be southern baptists, alt-right, nazis, fundamentalist catholics or fundamentalist muslims...

I find it somewhat intriguing that all your examples are alt-right groups.

I wonder if that was an oversight on your part, or if you think that the alt-right is the root of all intolerance, and any intolerance from the alt-left is either imaginary, or justified.

Not trying to pick a fight, just think it begs the question...

Seeing as how the alt-right is made up of LITERAL NAZIS and the KKK with a dash of Westboro Baptists, and the alt-left is a made up term...

Point with alt-left is that I think alt-left itself doesn't exist. It's a definition that descends from a typical attitude of far-right propaganda that tries to put the violence of the oppressor and the violenc of thos defending themselves or sombody from the oppression on the same plan. That would be like saying that the violence of a rapist is on the same plan of the violence of the raped trying to defend him/herself, or he violence of the cop trying to stop tha rapist. I don't think right wing, nor conservatism, nor right in general are the root of all violence. I define right, though, whatever ideology implies the right of a single or a few to dispose the lives of others for their own private egoistic interest, in other words social egoism or social irresponsibility. This doesn't necessarily imply violence, but generally generates injustice, wich on the long term generates oppression and a reaction to that.

The alt-right (being a generalized, all-inclusive term for various supremacist movements of every stripe and type from race to religion), is a collection of tiny extremist fringe movements that no one takes seriously, because they are not a threat to anyone. They are groups of lunatics who's world-view is best ignored as much as those who think space aliens are running the government from the shadows, or that stellar cartography can predict the future.

The radical left (alt-left, antifa, etc., call it what you will) on the other hand, are an absolutely real, clear and growing danger to liberty, free speech, free thought, and rational discourse. They commit destructive and violent reprisals against any who speak out in opposition to their goals and agenda, preferring to stamp out and silence any criticism under their boot rather than convince anyone using reason and logic. They're not righteous because their cause is just, they're righteous because if you're not on board, then you're a fascist who ought to be extinguished.

And with all due respect, anyone who seriously tries to spin history and offer up a blood-soaked maniac like Vladimir Lenin as some kind of "hero of the oppressed", might as well be defending Hitler's rise to power. After all, he too has a self-styled 'champion of the worker class'. Anyone who earnestly believes that is probably too far gone to brought back to reality by the likes of me. I have neither the skill or the inclination.

I only hope that someday the alt-left (or whatever) will at last be seen for the half-rabid, sociopathic maniacs they truly are, and be fully repudiated, marginalized, and condemned to the status of obscure historical curiosity the way their right-wing counterparts have rightfully been. Once or twice a year they can gather up their hundreds and march with their signs and slogans, scream and yell and throw things, and then go away again until the next time. And all us rational folk can roll our eyes and laugh at them like the zoo animals they are.

Wow, this is interesting. I didn't realize that. So, first of all I'd put Islam on itself, 'cause it's very difficult to enclose it in our western categories, so it won't really fit neither right or left.

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance. I can be critical of an ideology, mock it, ridicule it, condemn it, and tolerate it all at the same time.

What we should NOT tolerate nor accept, is violence. The increasingly popular idea that speech and violence are one and the same thing, and that violence is acceptable if the cause is just, MUST be soundly rejected, condemned, and met with lawful consequence where applicable.

I disagree on that. I think what should not be tolerated is any action that tends to reduce freedom and equality, aka OPPRESSION. Violens in generally considered negative because it is an instrument to offend, take out freedom, threaten the life of somebody and similar. But the point is not violence itself, it is oppression, or injustice if you prefer. If a cop has to use violence to stop a rapist from raping a woman, his violence is totally justified and acceptable. Washington had to use violence to make the US colonies an colonists free from an unjust tyranny of the British monarchy. Do you think in a general and aprioristic rejection of violence, you'd prefer to be ruled by Queen Elizabeth now? This is why I think it is not acceptable to compare Lenin, who was the head of a revolution that abolished a violent and oppressive monarchy to liberate miserable peasants totally neglected by the Czarist state and give them freedom and wealth to whatever confederate general who basically fought for the right of millionaire land owners to use other human beings as objects for their profit, denying them freedom education and basic wealth.

And Sheridan forced women and children from their homes and burned then down because he was prick. So Lenin was a killer, the Confeds were oppressors and Sheridan was a prick. Next.

Lenin liberated the what, now?

Are we talking about the same Lenin? Vladimir Lenin? Are we talking about the same Lenin who seized power in a savage and bloody coup, and then set up a regime under which oppression was raised to an art form? The same Lenin who, along with his protege Stalin, murdered their political enemies, dissidents, critics, and pretty much anyone who didn't kiss their Bolshevik asses, and in such numbers that even Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse Tung combined would be hard-pressed to match their body count? That Lenin?

Are you, with respect, out of your mind?

I this is your view I dont' think there's any room for discuzzion any further. And it's a pity, because I'm european. In Europe, we take history very seriously, probably because ours is long and complicated. Being the son of a far right fascist idiot man (I'm italian, so I'm talking about real, authentic Mussolini's fascismo) and of a catholic conservative but very intelligent woman, I know the distorted view of history far-right people has. I dela with that every day, and I know it would be an exhausting an useless discussion to try and make you understand the views we have in Europe HAVING EXPERIENCED soviet control of our Communist Party, and and the many benefic effects it had on our country, and the nasty effect it had on our freedom, general wealth and civil rights when the Soviet Union fell and no power could any more arginate the far right influences of US on our real daly lives.
I'll leave you with your beliefs, since you evidently don't mean them as negotiable at any level, but I'll leave you with a little story to hopefully make you think a little that outside of propaganda narratives, stuff is not so black and white as they generally try to brainwash us they are.
As I mentioned before, my mother is a catholic consevative. She has been a doctor all her life, and a very good one. Very straight work ethics, convinced being a doctor is a mission, not a job and so on. She was the daughter of a very poor family of serf peasants. After the war, my grandpa was a catholic and didn't like commies, so he refused to contribute to the birh of the communist italian party by donating wheat and other stuff to the party, and some commies bullied them for a while for this, including property damages, quite serious in the poverty of those times. For this reason nobody ever liked the communists in mum's family.
Despite all that, though, my mother has admitted all her life that without the social changes brought by communists an socialists in Italy, che would'nt have been able to become the good doctor she always was (free university, free high schools, study purse for the poors, and guaranteed minimum wage since the beginning of work as examples). So, you see, you should know things from a wider spectrum and accept half measures, to really understand history or people, or people's motivations.

Very good point, and I can see why you remained anonymous, whoever you are - well done!

Liberals: We should not have statues dedicated to people who betrayed our country by seceding. Why would you want to support traitors?

Also Liberals: We hope California is able to leave the union because Trump.

They can take Illinois, New York, and a couple others with them, too...

Their contradictory incoherence being made fun of you mean? My bad, continue with the dumb

its more like cognitive dissonance coupled with confirmation bias