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?

[Phage]

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?)

[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?

Quite a difference, actually.

A statue an image of a person. Most often, an homage. An homage which is on constant display.

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?)

A statue is free expression.  It is an expression of the sculpter's ideas.

[Phage]

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.

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?)

A statue is free expression.  It is an expression of the sculpter's ideas.

Yes. One which one has no choice but to view when it is in a public place.

When I visited Paris a few years ago I went to the Rodin museum. There was a Robert Maplethorpe exhibit there. I had no interest in seeing it. I was able to avoid seeing it because it was in a separate part of the museum. It was not in the town square.

[Wookiep]

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.

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?)

A statue is free expression.  It is an expression of the sculpter's ideas.

Forgive my ignorance but I always wondered.. are you DBC? If so, is Augustus planning to show up to counter your argument in some form of Masonic sarcastic shenanigans? :p 

PS- If you're NOT DBC then I hope he shows up soon.

[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?

Quite a difference, actually.

A statue an image of a person. Most often, an homage. An homage which is on constant display.

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?)

A statue is free expression.  It is an expression of the sculpter's ideas.

Yes. One which one has no choice but to view when it is in a public place.

When I visited Paris a few years ago I went to the Rodin museum. There was a Robert Maplethorpe exhibit there. I had no interest in seeing it. I was able to avoid seeing it because it was in a separate part of the museum. It was not in the town square.

So because something is offensive, it should be hidden away in some "museum".

If we did that for everything "offensive", it would be a dystopian world.

Who get's to pick what is and isn't offensive?

Will you speak up if someone finds something you favor, "offensive"?

Will anyone be able to listen at that point?

Some may find complaining, "offensive".

[beez]

 
 

I am, I was, DBCowboy.

[Phage]

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.

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?)

A statue is free expression.  It is an expression of the sculpter's ideas.

Yes. One which one has no choice but to view when it is in a public place.

When I visited Paris a few years ago I went to the Rodin museum. There was a Robert Maplethorpe exhibit there. I had no interest in seeing it. I was able to avoid seeing it because it was in a separate part of the museum. It was not in the town square.

So because something is offensive, it should be hidden away in some "museum".

If we did that for everything "offensive", it would be a dystopian world.

Who get's to pick what is and isn't offensive?

Will you speak up if someone finds something you favor, "offensive"?

Will anyone be able to listen at that point?

Some may find complaining, "offensive".

You asked how a statue is different from a book. How putting a statue in a museum is different from book burning.
Didn't you? I told you.

[Ahabstar]

 
 

I am, I was, DBCowboy.

He missed my Balthazar joke...

But I wasn’t going to out you.

[Lumenari]

When I visited Paris a few years ago I went to the Rodin museum. There was a Robert Maplethorpe exhibit there. I had no interest in seeing it. I was able to avoid seeing it because it was in a separate part of the museum. It was not in the town square.

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?"

[beez]

I addressed that in my OP.

A museum is controlled access.

When you control the objects of expression, then it isn't free.

[beez]

 
 

I am, I was, DBCowboy.

He missed my Balthazar joke...

But I wasn’t going to out you.

Nah, I got a good laugh out of that one.

[Phage]

When I visited Paris a few years ago I went to the Rodin museum. There was a Robert Maplethorpe exhibit there. I had no interest in seeing it. I was able to avoid seeing it because it was in a separate part of the museum. It was not in the town square.

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.

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

[projectvxn]

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.

[Wookiep]

My own personal feelings of "statues" are mixed. I don't see them the same as "book burnings". The bible mentions statues as "graven images", and I just don't care much about them. Many times throughout history, men worshipped statues. Whether it be men of renown or cows, whatever.

If certain communities want to remove them for whatever reason, I don't care. If a state wants to remove a statue of some guy, I don't care either. 

So I get the point of "museums", because cultural history shouldn't be destroyed, but if a piece of concrete, in the form of a man is destroyed, good man or not, who really should care? I you visit parts of the old USSR, you may find some places where Stalin stands tall, while in other parts you will find his statue ripped down on every past street corner it once stood.

But if anyone wants to start burning books, or literally changing historic data to fit one narrative over another, then that IS a commie move in my book
 You can't attempt to erase history just because you disagree with it.

Just my thoughts.

[Ahabstar]

So what happens when people go to Stone Mountain. Because I am sure both that and Mt Rushmore will be the lines in the sand. And they won’t uncross that rubicon...

[beez]

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.

For Gods SAKE!

They tore down a statue of Miguel de Cervantes author of "Don Quixote".

WHY???

[Phage]

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.

For Gods SAKE!

They tore down a statue of Miguel de Cervantes author of "Don Quixote".

WHY???

Ignorance.

But I thought they painted it. Probably thought it was a conquistador.

[projectvxn]

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.

For Gods SAKE!

They tore down a statue of Miguel de Cervantes author of "Don Quixote".

WHY???

Because anything prior to the existence of the revolution can't be tolerated. 

Just see the context under which the Soviets were taught world history. Hell, no Russian had ever had their genome sequenced until 2010 because they deemed genetics to be a capitalist propaganda tool (because evolutionary biology is an affront to collectivist ideological constructs). 

Everything must be reframed to reflect the goodness of The Revolution while decrying and discrediting everything that does not fit. Most physics in the Soviet Union was approved via committee insofar as it obeyed the aims of the Communist Party. They can and do hijack everything in life and force it to conform or die. Not much different than a religion not yet in its reformation period.

[OmegaLogos]

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.