Macmillamacmillan Sayings With Missing...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Should He Be Given Jail Or A Bigger Hammer?
104 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by royfromaus. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No. I agree vandalism isn't the way forward, but also that people are not being listened to, so it's a little debatable, as legally, it seems to be seen as part of a legitimate protest against hate crimes (not saying right or wrong, just what it looks like).
Maybe the answer is just to remove all statues now, and be more careful about what has a tribute (rather than who).
Maybe the answer is just to remove all statues now, and be more careful about what has a tribute (rather than who).
pixie - // it seems to be seen as part of a legitimate protest against hate crimes (not saying right or wrong, just what it looks like).
Maybe the answer is just to remove all statues now, and be more careful about what has a tribute (rather than who). //
Both those points speak to the development of society in a negative way.
The notion of 'hate crime' is achingly right-on, and equally nonsensical, because it doesn't really mean anything.
No crime is committed through love and largesse, so therefore, any crime at all is, by definition, a 'hate crime'.
But actually, it's a woke catch-all phrase for any circumstance in which the woke can bring their peculiar mixture of self-pity and offence-on-behalf-of-strangers to the party.
That in turn has enjoyed a modern spin whereby if something is deemed to be a 'hate crime', it simply gets a swerve from the legal processes that govern the rest of us.
To remove all statues would be to give in to this ludicrous and dangerous re-writing of history, and should be discouraged at all costs.
Maybe the answer is just to remove all statues now, and be more careful about what has a tribute (rather than who). //
Both those points speak to the development of society in a negative way.
The notion of 'hate crime' is achingly right-on, and equally nonsensical, because it doesn't really mean anything.
No crime is committed through love and largesse, so therefore, any crime at all is, by definition, a 'hate crime'.
But actually, it's a woke catch-all phrase for any circumstance in which the woke can bring their peculiar mixture of self-pity and offence-on-behalf-of-strangers to the party.
That in turn has enjoyed a modern spin whereby if something is deemed to be a 'hate crime', it simply gets a swerve from the legal processes that govern the rest of us.
To remove all statues would be to give in to this ludicrous and dangerous re-writing of history, and should be discouraged at all costs.
Like I say, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, that just seems to be the legal view?
That seems a bit biased though.... that not wanting a statue is woke and attention-seeking.... but wanting it, isn't actually the same thing.
I can and will admire whoever I want to, I don't need to impress it on the rest of the world, so it obviously goes both ways.
The question should be- would you still put it up today? If not, removing it is obviously sensible. Nothing can or will erase history or art, that is a real red herring. This is purely about whether the 67 million odd people in the country, wish to venerate somebody.
And no matter who it is... the answer is always likely to be no. So, why incite trouble?
That seems a bit biased though.... that not wanting a statue is woke and attention-seeking.... but wanting it, isn't actually the same thing.
I can and will admire whoever I want to, I don't need to impress it on the rest of the world, so it obviously goes both ways.
The question should be- would you still put it up today? If not, removing it is obviously sensible. Nothing can or will erase history or art, that is a real red herring. This is purely about whether the 67 million odd people in the country, wish to venerate somebody.
And no matter who it is... the answer is always likely to be no. So, why incite trouble?
Of course it’s easy to separate the artist from the person if you haven’t been personally affected.
That stands to reason.
Ignoring for the sake of the argument that he was found not guilty, and therefore did nothing wrong (although I think there’s definitely ‘something’ there - although I’d blame the parents who allowed their children, for money, to stay with him ) I love Michael Jackson with an all encompassing passion, but if he had been found guilty, would I still like his music? Yes, most likely, because I would have separated the artist from the act, and because I and mine hadn’t been affected.
Jamirquoi (I can never spell it) squarely hits my music bone - I saw them in Verona and it was the best concert I’ve ever been to - and I’ve been to a lot. JK though is a *** of the highest order, a truly horrible person, but it doesn’t stop me loving the music.
Until this thread I had no ideal who Gill was, but now I do know, without doubt he was a sick b. a.stard, and I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss if the statue went.
But…
Vilifying a poster for expressing the opinion that it’s possible to objectively appreciate the work of somebody who was bad, and then turning it into a vilification because of an horrible personal experience, is just about the weakest argument I’ve ever seen on AB.
That stands to reason.
Ignoring for the sake of the argument that he was found not guilty, and therefore did nothing wrong (although I think there’s definitely ‘something’ there - although I’d blame the parents who allowed their children, for money, to stay with him ) I love Michael Jackson with an all encompassing passion, but if he had been found guilty, would I still like his music? Yes, most likely, because I would have separated the artist from the act, and because I and mine hadn’t been affected.
Jamirquoi (I can never spell it) squarely hits my music bone - I saw them in Verona and it was the best concert I’ve ever been to - and I’ve been to a lot. JK though is a *** of the highest order, a truly horrible person, but it doesn’t stop me loving the music.
Until this thread I had no ideal who Gill was, but now I do know, without doubt he was a sick b. a.stard, and I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss if the statue went.
But…
Vilifying a poster for expressing the opinion that it’s possible to objectively appreciate the work of somebody who was bad, and then turning it into a vilification because of an horrible personal experience, is just about the weakest argument I’ve ever seen on AB.
Deskdiary, thankyou for your support - much appreciated.
It is interesting to read the perspective from someone not directly involved in the punting of a distressing scenario, immediately followed by summary and utterly inaccurate judgment.
I shall be considering my position very carefully on terms of engaging with the AN'er concerned moving forward.
It is interesting to read the perspective from someone not directly involved in the punting of a distressing scenario, immediately followed by summary and utterly inaccurate judgment.
I shall be considering my position very carefully on terms of engaging with the AN'er concerned moving forward.
Just replying to OP. He should be jailed. I gather that he (and a lot of people) object to Gill's proclivities - I do myself - but if you start judging art on the morality of it's creator.... you are on a slippery slope. Byron? So many. I was trying to think of single examples, but there are too many in all fields. The creation must not be conflated with the creator. It's the same basis as Islamists destroying very ancient statues because they think their creators evil and Buddhas being destroyed by the Chinese.
Well, that's my view anyway.
Well, that's my view anyway.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.