Removing people from history

[Arl arse]

How do I go about getting a mortal enemy on here? Is there a formal process or do I just go on Stronts' waiting list?

[Strontium]

How do I go about getting a mortal enemy on here? Is there a formal process or do I just go on Stronts' waiting list?

The only folk I've ever had an issue with on here are those who have launched unprovoked personal attacks on me, and that is utterly without exception.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I don't agree with the students. There would be people around the world who would have a problem with statues of people like Churchill or Nelson and there are people who think Gandhi was racist towards black South Africans or Nelson Mandela was a terrorist yet there will, rightly, be statues of them about. You can't rewrite history. I think there is a big difference in tearing down statues of Hitler in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Nazisim for example and removing a statue of someone who died over a hundred years ago.

I can't say I've given the issue much thought.  I suppose (off the top of my head) that it might depend on who put the statue up.

 

If some dictator or other sort of cunt put up a statue of himself for his own self-aggrandisement, then it's perfectly reasonable for his victims to want to topple the statue at the first opportunity.  

 

If the person has assumed a symbolic status in history, with repercussions into the present, then there may also be a case for removing the statue.  I'd see Rhodes in this category.  At the very least, it's healthy to have the debate about how a post-imperial nation should consider its imperial past and its legacy of racism.

 

Then there are statues of people who may have been (or fancied themselves as) a big noise in their day, but who are better forgotten now.  For example, I wouldn't be surprised if there were statues around Liverpool of people who made their names trading slaves.  There's no debate to be had around the slave trade - everyone accepts it was a cunt's trick - and the long-forgotten people who engaged in it are in no way symbolic of that particular evil today.  In those cases, you might as well leave the statues where they are.

[Rico1304]

I can't say I've given the issue much thought.  I suppose (off the top of my head) that it might depend on who put the statue up.

 

If some dictator or other sort of cunt put up a statue of himself for his own self-aggrandisement, then it's perfectly reasonable for his victims to want to topple the statue at the first opportunity.  

 

If the person has assumed a symbolic status in history, with repercussions into the present, then there may also be a case for removing the statue.  I'd see Rhodes in this category.  At the very least, it's healthy to have the debate about how a post-imperial nation should consider its imperial past and its legacy of racism.

 

Then there are statues of people who may have been (or fancied themselves as) a big noise in their day, but who are better forgotten now.  For example, I wouldn't be surprised if there were statues around Liverpool of people who made their names trading slaves.  There's no debate to be had around the slave trade - everyone accepts it was a cunt's trick - and the long-forgotten people who engaged in it are in no way symbolic of that particular evil today.  In those cases, you might as well leave the statues where they are.

I went to Liverpool Uni and the very first lecture we went to told us the entire city was built on slave money.

[Strontium]

I went to Liverpool Uni and the very first lecture we went to told us the entire city was built on slave money.

Completely true. It was a glorified fishing village until it became one corner of the slave triangle.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

If you're attempting to get banned you can do better than that. Let it all out, man.

He needs to learn from the best.

 

[Hades]

If I do flame out, calling myself 'courageous' because I hold shithouse conservative views on a Liverpool forum, would certainly be included in the rant. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

You can indulge in whatever rape apologetics you like. I will continue to call a rapist a rapist.

Aren't you always the first to squeak your pompous squeak about what a fine libertarian you are, who believes in the fundamental principles of justice for all?

 

And didn't you just call someone else a hypocrite?

 

My head's spinning.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

What a thread this is. Haha.

 

At least you've kept all the hate on here though, not gone running to Twitter and people's employees and that....

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Aren't you always the first to squeak your pompous squeak about what a fine libertarian you are, who believes in the fundamental principles of justice for all?

 

And didn't you just call someone else a hypocrite?

 

My head's spinning.

 

You forgot to mention the atrocities handed down from the Israelis towards Palestine.  Murdering bastards who a certain hypocritical cunt sticks up for because it fits his beliefs. Murder is obviously fine as long as they don't rape them first......which some of the cunts probably do. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

What a thread this is. Haha.

 

At least you've kept all the hate on here though, not gone running to Twitter and people's employees and that....

 

The jury is out, time enough for SD to get someone sacked. 

[Rico1304]

If I do flame out, calling myself 'courageous' because I hold shithouse conservative views on a Liverpool forum, would certainly be included in the rant.

 

Oh you've done that bell end thing again. I didn't say I was courageous I just said I wasn't a coward.

[Strontium]

Aren't you always the first to squeak your pompous squeak about what a fine libertarian you are, who believes in the fundamental principles of justice for all?

 

And didn't you just call someone else a hypocrite?

 

My head's spinning.

Innocent until proven guilty does not mean ignoring overwhelming evidence that someone is a mass rapist. But you can believe that Cosby's 60+ victims are making it up if you want.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

You just express an opinion where you don't vilify people because they are less well off than yourself and don't act selfishly and wait to be criticised for giving a shit about others.

Easy really.

Negged by Stronts - as night follows day.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

The only folk I've ever had an issue with on here are those who have launched unprovoked personal attacks on me, and that is utterly without exception.

Yeah, but according to you, just about everybody has.

[Strontium]

Oh you've done that bell end thing again. I didn't say I was courageous I just said I wasn't a coward.

Next you'll be claiming to ignore people while making dozens of snide comments about them. It's a slippery slope, Rico.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

And, to answer the question, I'd go for David Ben Gurion.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I went to Liverpool Uni and the very first lecture we went to told us the entire city was built on slave money.

Ever been to the Slavery Museum at the Albert Dock?

 

I like that about this city; not airbrushing or burying its history, but confronting it, face-to-face.

[Strontium]

Negged by Stronts - as night follows day.

Anyone who lies about me will be negged.

 

Okay, okay, since I can only give 5 negs a day, about 2% of people who lie about me will get negged.

[Carvalho Diablo]

Shut your fat fucking cake hole you jumped up cunt i'll fucking rape your pillows then knuckle duster you up the shit pipe fucky bollocks. twat.

Never go full gypo.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Is the ignore facility fucked on here? Somebody who's got me on it can still see my posts.

[Carvalho Diablo]

This thread is like an episode of The Soprano's.

[Rico1304]

Is the ignore facility fucked on here? Somebody who's got me on it can still see my posts.

No I can't.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Innocent until proven guilty does not mean ignoring overwhelming evidence that someone is a mass rapist. But you can believe that Cosby's 60+ victims are making it up if you want.

What I believe is irrelevant.  If you've read some stuff from his accusers, then by all means express your views, but caveat them with the fact that he hasn't yet been tried, so the presumption of innocence must stand (rather than couching your views in a dollop of racist snarkiness that's even bad by your standards).

[Guest Pistonbroke]

This thread is like an episode of The Soprano's.

 

full of wannabe hard cases?