The difference between a book and a statue

[beez]

I have an issue.  Well, many, but that's beside the point.

For weeks now, the narritive has been that knocking down statues is justified because racism.  And that's confused me.  

Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That used to be the rallying cry of freedom lovers everywhere.
But now it's "I disapprove of what you say and it offends me, so shut the hell up!"
Statues are an object of free expression.  Same as the written word.  What is the difference between a statue and a book?  Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.
So I see the statue topplers the same as book burners.

Now some are also saying, "HEY!  Just put the statues in a museum!"  

Really.

A fricking museum.  What museum?  When?  Are you going to control the hours it is open, the days the museum is open?
So now we have authoritarians dictating where and when free expression can be expressed.
Which stops making free expression. . . .free.
Which is what they ultimately want.
I'd like to hear others opinions.  Am I right?  Wrong?

Explanation: Welcome to the back wall of the theater @beez ok ...

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

― Frank Zappa

Personal Disclosure: Destroying statues would clearly equate to book burning. Limiting access just exposes that we aint totally free and I suggest we avoid ANARCHY eh.

Historic Art and Books are not like air ... they're not ubiquitous and are not required for survival and hence are limited in nature and scope already and one must spend energy to avail oneself of their precious gemstone like stories.

If thats to be in a muesum / library then so be it. Their safety would be greatly assured then.

You can always commission a sculpture and have it on your own private lands for your own private pleasure. Nobody is stopping that.

So I think yes you have a point but no you are wrong by being slightly misguided and falling for hyperbole.

Please prove me wrong ok. Cheers.

I don't think I'm falling for hyperbole, I may be accused of it (obviously) but I have always tried to stay on the side of more freesoms rather than less.

[Ninurta]

So the separate part of the museum was not a place that the public could go to?

And are not Libraries open to the public?

Also...
Are not statues considered works of art?
But some need destroyed now because... feelz?
So Piss Jesus good, Andrew Jackson bad?

Where in the Constitution does it say "I have the right not to be offended?"

Yes. If one wanted to see the exhibit, one could go see it.
If one wants to read a book, one may choose to do so.

I want to get drunk and go see the statue at 3 am, maybe hang a pair of panties over it's head. Which museum allows that? 'Cause if folks are intent on censoring it away from public view, that's the museum I'm gonna need it to be in.

.

[Phage]

So the separate part of the museum was not a place that the public could go to?

And are not Libraries open to the public?

Also...
Are not statues considered works of art?
But some need destroyed now because... feelz?
So Piss Jesus good, Andrew Jackson bad?

Where in the Constitution does it say "I have the right not to be offended?"

Yes. If one wanted to see the exhibit, one could go see it.
If one wants to read a book, one may choose to do so.

I want to get drunk and go see the statue at 3 am, maybe hang a pair of panties over it's head. Which museum allows that? 'Cause if folks are intent on censoring it away from public view, that's the museum I'm gonna need it to be in.

.

The one round the corner from the library with that book you want to read.

[Lumenari]

Yes. If one wanted to see the exhibit, one could go see it.
If one wants to read a book, one may choose to do so.

The claim was that removing a statue to a museum is the same as book burning. It isn't.

It is removing information from the public eye.

I personally don't see a difference.

To me it is just the left wanting to white-wash their American history.

Much like they have already done in our public schools.

So we can certainly agree to disagree... but I see an agenda unfolding.

[Phage]

Yes. If one wanted to see the exhibit, one could go see it.
If one wants to read a book, one may choose to do so.

The claim was that removing a statue to a museum is the same as book burning. It isn't.

It is removing information from the public eye.

I personally don't see a difference.

To me it is just the left wanting to white-wash their American history.

Much like they have already done in our public schools.

So we can certainly agree to disagree... but I see an agenda unfolding.

The difference is that you choose to read a book. You're free to do so.

You should also be free to view a statue of an advocate for slavery and a traitor to his country, if you want to. I should be free to not do so.

Put it in museum. I don't see the problem.

[Ninurta]

I want to get drunk and go see the statue at 3 am, maybe hang a pair of panties over it's head. Which museum allows that? 'Cause if folks are intent on censoring it away from public view, that's the museum I'm gonna need it to be in.

.

The one round the corner from the library with that book you want to read.

Well Phage, it looks like my cloaking device is working, and you don't know where I live - there's not a museum within 150 miles of here, and certainly none for a much greater distance that is open at 3 am..

We do have a few of those nefarious statues that come to life in the night time to enslave black folks, though.

I don't go to the library, either - I keep what I need to read close to hand, or have it delivered to my mail box. I dunno if any of those statues would fit into the mailbox, though...

... but censorship is censorship. Once they get rid of the statues, the books in the mailbox will probably be next.

.

[Phage]

I want to get drunk and go see the statue at 3 am, maybe hang a pair of panties over it's head. Which museum allows that? 'Cause if folks are intent on censoring it away from public view, that's the museum I'm gonna need it to be in.

.

The one round the corner from the library with that book you want to read.

Well Phage, it looks like my cloaking device is working, and you don't know where I live - there's not a museum within 150 miles of here.

We do have a few of those nefarious statues that come to life in the night time to enslave black folks, though.

I don't go to the library, either - I keep what I need to read close to hand, or have it delivered to my mail box. I dunno if any of those statues would fit into the mailbox, though...

... but censorship is censorship. Once they get rid of the statues, the books in the mailbox will probably be next.

.

Maybe, if you're lucky, your town will have a Mapplethorpe exhibition at city hall. Uncensored.

[Ninurta]

Maybe, if you're lucky, your town will have a Mapplethorpe exhibition at city hall. Uncensored.

Not likely - folks around here think Mappelthorpe is some kind of syrup.

And we don't even have a City Hall, just a County Courthouse.

.

[Lumenari]

The difference is that you choose to read a book. You're free to do so.

You should also be free to view a statue of an advocate for slavery and a traitor to his country, if you want to. I should be free to not do so.

Put it in museum. I don't see the problem.

Tell students in school that they can choose to read the book or not and still pass the class.

So for you, all statues torn down thus far are of people who advocate for slavery and are traitors to their country?

Like that TOTAL stain on American history, Gandhi?

And when do these statues get the time to advocate for all these things?

Do they come alive at night and do a meetup?

And once again, please point out for me anywhere in our laws in the United States that you HAVE the right to not be offended, so destroying property is the proper response?

[Sublimecraft]

I have an issue.  Well, many, but that's beside the point.

For weeks now, the narritive has been that knocking down statues is justified because racism.  And that's confused me.  

Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That used to be the rallying cry of freedom lovers everywhere.
But now it's "I disapprove of what you say and it offends me, so shut the hell up!"
Statues are an object of free expression.  Same as the written word.  What is the difference between a statue and a book?  Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.
So I see the statue topplers the same as book burners.

Now some are also saying, "HEY!  Just put the statues in a museum!"  

Really.

A fricking museum.  What museum?  When?  Are you going to control the hours it is open, the days the museum is open?
So now we have authoritarians dictating where and when free expression can be expressed.
Which stops making free expression. . . .free.
Which is what they ultimately want.
I'd like to hear others opinions.  Am I right?  Wrong?

Apparently Jesus statues, which came about because of a book, makes Sean King get all triggered therefore whitey Jesus must pay.

Interesting developement.

[Lumenari]

Apparently Jesus statues, which came about because of a book, makes Sean King get all triggered therefore whitey Jesus must pay.

Interesting developement.

Has anyone told Sean King that Jesus wasn't white?

[Sublimecraft]

Apparently Jesus statues, which came about because of a book, makes Sean King get all triggered therefore whitey Jesus must pay.

Interesting developement.

Has anyone told Sean King that Jesus wasn't white?

Sean King is one of the whitest black fellas I've ever seen virtue signal - he's next level bullshit.

[Lumenari]

Sean King is one of the whitest black fellas I've ever seen virtue signal - he's next level bullshit.

So an impressive virtue signaler... in THIS day and age?

I'll have to check him out the next time I'm not sober.

Just for the entertainment value.

[Phage]

The difference is that you choose to read a book. You're free to do so.

You should also be free to view a statue of an advocate for slavery and a traitor to his country, if you want to. I should be free to not do so.

Put it in museum. I don't see the problem.

Tell students in school that they can choose to read the book or not and still pass the class.

So for you, all statues torn down thus far are of people who advocate for slavery and are traitors to their country?

Like that TOTAL stain on American history, Gandhi?

And when do these statues get the time to advocate for all these things?

Do they come alive at night and do a meetup?

And once again, please point out for me anywhere in our laws in the United States that you HAVE the right to not be offended, so destroying property is the proper response?

Vandalism is a crime. Please point out where I have defended it.

I was addressing the claim that statues are the same as books.

Never mind.

[guohua]

I have an issue.  Well, many, but that's beside the point.

For weeks now, the narritive has been that knocking down statues is justified because racism.  And that's confused me.  

Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That used to be the rallying cry of freedom lovers everywhere.
But now it's "I disapprove of what you say and it offends me, so shut the hell up!"
Statues are an object of free expression.  Same as the written word.  What is the difference between a statue and a book?  Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.
So I see the statue topplers the same as book burners.

Now some are also saying, "HEY!  Just put the statues in a museum!"  

Really.

A fricking museum.  What museum?  When?  Are you going to control the hours it is open, the days the museum is open?
So now we have authoritarians dictating where and when free expression can be expressed.
Which stops making free expression. . . .free.
Which is what they ultimately want.
I'd like to hear others opinions.  Am I right?  Wrong?

Quite a difference, actually.

A statue an image of a person. Most often, an homage. An homage which is on constant display. Whether or not you care to see it, it's there.

A book is a collection of ideas. A collection which one may choose to delve into, or not.

If one wants to see a statue of an advocate for slavery and a traitor to his country, he should be free to do so. In a museum.

(Where the hell am I supposed to insert my reply? Before the quote, or after?)

You're doing Great My friend, after the Quotes are most common.
Any Other Questions,,, Big Boy,,,,,

[guohua]

It's not that I don't understand the disdain for what we find to be repugnant to our moral compass today. However, applying today's standards to the late 18th century is stupid, shows a lack of education and the outrage is a sign of emotional immaturity. 

They decontextualize everything, apply their own labels, and expect everyone else to conform to their view of reality. The 1619 Project is a very good example of Marxist decontextualization of American history. Destroying statues and other symbols they deem unacceptable is simply another form of bringing the fire to ideas and concepts repugnant to their ideology. This was never about the affront to our moral compass as a nation. This is about erasing our nation entirely as an idea and replacing it with a communist dictatorship. 

They are burning the book of America.

Exactly Correct, In My Humble Opinion 

[Antisthenes]

I guess if we're discussing the Confederate effigies which would seem to be the lion share of what's being destroyed, my opinion would be if you want the thing on private property then that should be your right and business. But it also seems out of place to have them on public prooerty. I mean, they were seditionists so why would we have their presence on Public grounds. I can think of no other Country that has Statuary or Portraiture of people that commited treason against the present regime. I mean, I don't see any statues of the Shah in Iran?

[Antisthenes]

I guess if we're discussing the Confederate effigies which would seem to be the lion share of what's being destroyed, my opinion would be if you want the thing on private property then that should be your right and business. But it also seems out of place to have them on public prooerty. I mean, they were seditionists so why would we have their presence on Public grounds. I can think of no other Country that has Statuary or Portraiture of people that commited treason against the present regime.

[Ninurta]

I guess if we're discussing the Confederate effigies which would seem to be the lion share of what's being destroyed, my opinion would be if you want the thing on private property then that should be your right and business. But it also seems out of place to have them on public prooerty. I mean, they were seditionists so why would we have their presence on Public grounds. I can think of no other Country that has Statuary or Portraiture of people that commited treason against the present regime. I mean, I don't see any statues of the Shah in Iran?

I'm curious as to the route you took to work out "treason" and "sedition" - aren't those crimes committed against one's OWN government?

The Confederacy was not the US - that's why the US invaded them.

.

[guohua]

OK grabbing my popcorn, this is about to get good