Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes and yes.As I understand it, this is what happened in Charlottsville with their statues: the people voted to keep the statues but then voted to not keep it (the city council did):
Straight for Wikipedia:
In April 2016, the City Council decided to appoint a special commission, named the Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Monuments and Public Spaces, to recommend to city officials how to best handle issues surrounding statues of Stonewall Jackson (Thomas Jonathan Jackson) in Court Square and Lee in Lee Park, as well as other landmarks and monuments. Early in November 2016, the Blue Ribbon Commission voted 6–3 to let both statues remain in place.[7] On November 28, 2016, it voted 7–2 to remove the Lee statue to McIntire Park in Charlottesville and 8–1 to keep the Jackson statue in place,[8] delivering a final report with that recommendation to Charlottesville City Council in December.[8]
On February 6, 2017, Charlottesville's five-member City Council voted three votes to two to remove the Lee statue and, unanimously, to rename Lee Park.[9]
In response, a lawsuit was filed on March 20 by numerous plaintiffs, including the Monument Fund Inc, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and descendants of the statue's donor and sculptor, to block the removal of the Lee and Jackson statues. The lawsuit sought a temporary injunction to halt the removal, arguing that Charlottesville City Council's decision violated a state law designed to protect American Civil War monuments and memorials, and that the council had additionally violated the terms of McIntire's gift to Charlottesville of the statue and the land for Lee Park.[10] The city responded by asking that the temporary injunction be denied, arguing that the two statues were not erected to commemorate the Civil War and therefore the Virginia statute protecting war monuments does not apply.[11]
In April 2017, the City Council voted three to two (exactly along the lines of the February vote) that the statue be removed completely from Charlottesville and sold to whoever the Council chooses.[12]
On May 2, 2017, Judge Richard Moore issued a temporary injunction blocking the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue for six months, in the public's interest, pending a court decision in the suit.[11]
Sometime overnight between Friday July 7 and Saturday July 8, 2017, the statue was vandalized by being daubed in red paint.[13] It had been vandalized before; in June 2016 the pedestal was spray painted with the words "Black Lives Matter".[6]
On August 20, 2017, the City Council unanimously voted to shroud the statue, and that of Stonewall Jackson, in black. The Council "also decided to direct the city manager to take an administrative step that would make it easier to eventually remove the Jackson statue."[14] The statues were covered in black shrouds on August 23, 2017.[15] On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore ruled that the City of Charlottesville must remove the black tarps covering the statues, and the city complied removing the shrouds a day later.[16]
In 2018, the monument was placed on the Make It Right Project's[citation needed] list of ten Confederate monuments it most wanted to see removed.[17]
In 2019, Judge Moore ruled that removing the Lee statue would violate a state historic preservation statute. He issued a permanent injunction preventing its removal and extended it to a separate monument to Confederate general Stonewall Jackson that city leaders wanted to get rid of.[18] In 2020, Virginia modified the historic preservation statute that Moore cited to give localities the ability to remove or re-contextualize their Confederate monuments and the plaintiffs in the case asked the judge to partially dissolve the injunction.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee_Monument_(Charlottesville,_Virginia)
In that case, just let the statue be taken down. Let a confederate group buy the statue, and then they can put it up on their property. It becomes private property and no amount of democracy can bring it down under the first amendment.
Not going to happen, most people are sheep.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
still triggered by the oppressed standing up for themselves.
Frankly I'm not but I am tired of the reasons for the "oppressed" being triggered and destroying their communities and crying when it's done.
At least Biden has adopted several/many of Bernie's ideas so even if the "oppressed" have shit leadership someone at the top has at least pieces for meaningful discussion.
That's not all true Cornel West isn't shit leadership but much of the actual BLM is.
Originally posted by snowdragonWhy BLM is being censored and defined as cancel culture.
Frankly I'm not but I am tired of the reasons for the "oppressed" being triggered and destroying their communities and crying when it's done.At least Biden has adopted several/many of Bernie's ideas so even if the "oppressed" have shit leadership someone at the top has at least pieces for meaningful discussion.
That's not all true Cornel West isn't shit leadership but much of the actual BLM is.
Billy Bragg
Over the past decade, the right to make inflammatory statements has become a hot button issue for the reactionary right, who have constructed tropes such as political correctness and virtue signalling to enable them to police the limits of social change while portraying themselves as victims of an organised assault on liberty itself.
Whily's view.
Cancel Culture is just the latest trope. To make them appear victimised and spread their bile and hate.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Why BLM is being censored and defined as cancel culture.Billy Bragg
Over the past decade, the right to make inflammatory statements has become a hot button issue for the reactionary right, who have constructed tropes such as political correctness and virtue signalling to enable them to police the limits of social change while portraying themselves as victims of an organised assault on liberty itself.
Whily's view.
Cancel Culture is just the latest trope. To make them appear victimised and spread their bile and hate.
No, anyone with eyes KNOWS BLM isn't being censored, it's FAR FAR from censored. I challenge you right now to prove that assertion.........the fact is you cannot and neither can Billy Bragg.
There are literally tabs on browers labeled BLM, youtube introduces it on loading the page, it's literally overwhelmed our media atm.
Now you show me how it's censored.
Originally posted by snowdragonyou're right, it is fighting back against the reactionary rights attempts to censor it. The opressed are finding their voice and moderates are supporting them.
No, anyone with eyes KNOWS BLM isn't being censored, it's FAR FAR from censored. I challenge you right now to prove that assertion.........the fact is you cannot and neither can Billy Bragg.There are literally tabs on browers labeled BLM, youtube introduces it on loading the page, it's literally overwhelmed our media atm.
Now you show me how it's censored.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
you're right, it is fighting back against the reactionary rights attempts to censor it. The opressed are finding their voice and moderates are supporting them.
Listen, you read like an activist. I LITERALLY supported a BERNIE platform because it would put power back into the hands of the people and push back on corpratists etc. But BLM only raised their voices because we have an election. They don't push back on homicides in their communities.
The left OWNS the media outlets and controls the narratives.
I also LAUGH at that activist Billy Bragg for thinking Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker need to be censored. They are the guys that for years have spoken against the right but still understand the need for freedom of speech. Your activist is just another voice crying over the liberties ascribed by having freedom of speech.
Originally posted by snowdragonThe left far from owns the media, another rightist 2 + 2 = 5 lie. Murdoch etc. Are far from leftists.
Listen, you read like an activist. I LITERALLY supported a BERNIE platform because it would put power back into the hands of the people and push back on corpratists etc. But BLM only raised their voices because we have an election. They don't push back on homicides in their communities.The left OWNS the media outlets and controls the narratives.
I also LAUGH at that activist Billy Bragg for thinking Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker need to be censored. They are the guys that for years have spoken against the right but still understand the need for freedom of speech. Your activist is just another voice crying over the liberties ascribed by having freedom of speech.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Listen, you read like an activist. I LITERALLY supported a BERNIE platform because it would put power back into the hands of the people and push back on corpratists etc. But BLM only raised their voices because we have an election. They don't push back on homicides in their communities.The left OWNS the media outlets and controls the narratives.
I also LAUGH at that activist Billy Bragg for thinking Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker need to be censored. They are the guys that for years have spoken against the right but still understand the need for freedom of speech. Your activist is just another voice crying over the liberties ascribed by having freedom of speech.
He's a troll, you won't get an honest discussion.