To feel emotional at the slave trader statue

[Millicent10]

being pulled down earlier.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52954305

This says so much and the symbolism of throwing it in the river is such a suitable ending. Reminds everyone what happened to so many slaves.

What can be done about the Bible and it's followers, as it condones slavery, or Islam, given that Muhammad was a slave-owner?
It seems slavery apologists are everywhere.

@TiddlestheCat @hypernormal

It really is dire. It is post after post of hectoring dictates. It's not a discussion. It's a diatribe which is designed to entrench and divide. Douglas Murray nailed it when he described the two simultaneous, impossible commands. You must understand! You will never understand! It's the same slogans, a tautology which is becoming ever more shrill and incoherent.

I only managed the first few pages of this depressing, anti-democratic thread.
A thought for those of you applauding the actions of the 'demonstrators' because you agree with what they did.
If you think mob rule and illegal direct action are the way to go... remember there is more than one mob, and the next one might do things you don't like, as in really don't like.
What will you say to them?

If you think mob rule and illegal direct action are the way to go

@LarryTheLurker

Some of the rhetoric is astounding. Compile a list of things to smash. This is Year Zero and its evangelicals see things with Manichean certainty...

@BovaryX and others

It really is dire. It is post after post of hectoring dictates. It's not a discussion. It's a diatribe which is designed to entrench and divide.

Here, here

It is post after post of hectoring dictates.

Yeah from you.

“Hyper-liberals are the true bigots of our time... an army of political puritans is on the march in Britain and America.”

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hyper-liberals-are-the-true-bigots-of-our-time-hvt3s6jsr

An accurate description of much of this thread...

this is a good example of “hyper-liberalism” in action. The British philosopher John Gray defined the phenomenon as an extreme liberalism whose adherents have grown so intolerant of opposition, shielded in universities and in workplaces from other views, that they have moved far beyond liberalism to become illiberal. Convinced they are right, they become hysterical on encountering disagreement..A phrase attributed to a conservative writer during the French Revolution springs to mind. “Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children,” wrote Jacques Mallet du Pan, explaining the tendency of revolutionary movements to become so zealous that the fanatics who led the first phase are deemed insufficiently fanatical by those leading the second and are eliminated in the name of the revolution

You win $5! I am Douglas Murray!

I love this city. Leading the way, as usual.

whose adherents have grown so intolerant of opposition, shielded in universities and in workplaces from other views,

They’re literally protesting against racism towards black people 😂 why should we be tolerant of the ‘opposition’?

100% agree with @twilightpeace

@TwilightPeace ... because history?

Am in Bristol and here's what I don't understand - there have been petitions to take it down for ages.

So what was the opposition? Not Bristol City Council as far as I'm aware?

Merchant Venturers?

I don't get why this statue is supposedly important as a piece of history. It was put up to glorify a man and it was torn down to end that. The history remains and would be better represented by something alluding to the slaves, not their masters.

why should we be tolerant of the ‘opposition’?

Exactly, I mean whut - since when should we just tolerate racist views? It should be called out.

why should we be tolerant of the ‘opposition’?

Because that way lies tyranny.

What you've seen in this thread from some is that it is not enough to support the removal of the statue, but you have to wholeheartedly support it being torn down by a group of protestors and thrown in the dock. Anything less is 'suspect' and suggests you must be a racist.

There are loads of examples in history where those who were not sufficiently on the 'right side' ended up dead - French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Cultural Revolution. Ok, these are extreme examples, but politics that assume that only a core of true believers are 'pure' tend not to be attractive politics for many.

Because that way lies tyranny

What if the opposition has the vile views though?
Someone on the thread (can't find now) said the people who hid Anne Frank were breaking the law.
Similarly, people hiding runaway slaves instead of reporting them to the authorities were breaking the law too.
Should they have been sympathetic/tolerant to the opposition?
Just because it's law doesn't mean it's always "right."

What if the opposition has the vile views though?

But if we do just take a breather on this thread, I think most people are falling into two groups

1. The protestors were right to tear down the statue
2. While the statue should have been removed, but in a planned legal way.

(I don't think anyone has suggested that the statue was fine as it is).

Is the second view point here really so vile? We're not talking about defending the Nazis, but rather we are talking about the best way to remove a statue.

(point 2 was not expressed grammatically, but I think it's clear - the statue should have been legally).

Aagghhh! Point 2, the statue should have been removed legally.

@BlackKite I (and a few others) tried arguing point 2 yesterday in this thread but you’re wasting your time. The same people are still here shouting. Have you been told to go and educate yourself yet?