Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

?
So you take something I said, deleted all the surrounding contextualization, and that's your argument? It's not even the worst thing there.
But then, people already were all over Robert E. Lee's Chinese ass, so I guess you got the scraps.

Lol I made my argument, it's your fault for ignoring it
>imblyin I worship fake chinese ass
lmao Robert E. Lee isn't even chinese, you are fake news

The point LW is making is that you keep asserting that there is no value to monuments as long as the information they convey is written down somewhere. If that wasn't what you were trying to say, you communicated it quite badly.

That and it's outright wrong that monuments convey nothing but local opinion. You'd think it'd be self-evident that if a monument could fall out of favour with the locals, that monuments exist independent of what we think of them

I think the confusion stems from me using "documentation" as in, like, something documenting history. Can be stonework monuments like the Ramses statues or Petra, or could be an artifact or something. Not paper. That was fuckin' weird, I was wondering "why the fuck is he going all ape over paper? i never even said paper." Just so happens that a lot of historical documentation today *is* paper. But some aren't! To wit: Documentaries.

A document is a piece of written, printed or digitally stored matter that provides an official record of something. A document is not a statue. A document is not a documentary, a documentary is based on official documents or pictures/interviews of people based off on event. To wit, you're wrong

My argument boils down to "A monument, IN AN OF ITSELF fuck you pyramids you miserable pile of shitty stone, has no historical weight to it, any more than a tasteful vase does. The surroundings of that monument are what make it important (like if it were a Ming vase)."

And my argument is that if you can't see why a miserable pile of shitty stone like a pyramid carries with it the historical weight of its civilization you are willfully ignoring that its existence is itself a relic of history, an object surviving from an earlier time now outdated and lost to its first living witnesses. The surroundings of the present have fuck all to do with what happened in history that made that relic a part of history; a Ming vase is a relic of history no matter what communities it is surrounded by

I could also make the argument that the consideration of the population that monument resides in outweighs the historical weight of it to an extent, but you could argue against that with "BUT ISIS," (though I wouldn't agree, since ISIS aren't exactly the population of the area).

Ignoring the locals ISIS recruited from

And the fact that it's also historically relevant that people feel strongly enough about tearing it down to take it into their own hands after years of governmental deadlock. But those are side-arguments and aren't my main point at all.

People's willingness to destroy monuments legally or illegally has no bearing on whether it's right to destroy monuments anyways

[Neonivek]

The surroundings of the present have fuck all to do with what happened in history that made that relic a part of history; a Ming vase is a relic of history no matter what communities it is surrounded by

Given China... That is HIIIIGHLY debatable.

Then again I'd probably put them in the exception zone.

Then again that also applies to Islamic Countries too... the existence of Pagan temples...

[Loud Whispers]

Given China... That is HIIIIGHLY debatable.

1v1 me blad

Then again I'd probably put them in the exception zone.
Then again that also applies to Islamic Countries too... the existence of Pagan temples...

your arcane insinuations are too powerful for me to comprehend

*EDIT
polite rage is a beautiful thing to behold

[Descan]

again it goes right over his head

literally every point i made he completely misinterprets

hooray, now i feel useless, thanks LW

third times the charm?

[Dunamisdeos]

The point of a monument is to make something that cannot be ignored or overlooked, because it is a giant object that visually reminds you of an event or person. It is a literal physical representation of history. Throwing out a placebo that it's "recorded somewhere" removes any effect it might have in keeping an event within constant remembrance.

It is far more difficult to rewrite the meaning of, say, a public monument with a plaque than a piece of paper or data on a drive in an archive somewhere. The only reason I can think of for removing a monument is specifically to remove it from public consciousness. It is supposed to be jarring. It's meant to remind you of things we know we would otherwise forget. It affects us in ways that simply reading a paragraph cannot.

How many people have you known that say "I'm traveling to the Library of Congress so I can look up otherwise unknown references to atrocities that occurred in my nation so that I can prevent them from occurring again in the future"? I do, however, see lots of people going to Hollywood Cemetery here in Richmond, VA to ponder how horrific the Civil War was. So yes, a monument absolutely has actual historical weight intrinsically associated with it. Saying it doesn't is like saying fire only burns because we associate it with heat.

[Descan]

fuck it, not worth it

[Caz]

I have a decision today to either be quiet and get sober sonehow or to go and do more drugs. Wat do

[Frumple]

Sober has higher chance of being able to reevaluate decision at later date. Probably better choice if you're unsure enough to wonder which way to go.

[Caz]

Sober has higher chance of being able to reevaluate decision at later date. Probably better choice if you're unsure enough to wonder which way to go.

Sounds good to me. I will do this. I fuckin' gotta do this. Cheers bro/gal

[pisskop]

you never go to the grocery store hungry, and similarly you dont decide to quit [drug] while still suffering its immediate effects

[Caz]

you never go to the grocery store hungry, and similarly you dont decide to quit [drug] while still suffering its immediate effects

When do you stop then? When the wds start? Lol

[pisskop]

i mean you gotta clear up your head first.

you dont wanna get into the habit of wishing youd quit while high.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

i remember hallucinating/daydreaming about my life literally being sucked down the bathroom sink when i got high on various things alone.  and i hated the feeling.  then i got sober and just kinda justified it as a bad trip.  dont let quitting be a descision you only acknowledge when your mimd is altered

imean, perhaps a better metaphor is that of sleeping on an angry comment.

i was told as a child to always sleep on a descision to write an angry letter or make a big bold outcry.

back ...  back when internet wasnt as common as now.  back before i knew what an aol disk was

[Yoink]

I have a decision today to either be quiet and get sober sonehow or to go and do more drugs. Wat do

Option 1.
A binge is all well and good from time to time, but if you have to ask the question it probably isn't one of those times. 

[Caz]

Oh yeah, I get what you mean. I've been sober for awhile, just been back on it 'cause shit happened and apparently I can't deal with stress other than drinking myself into a pit. Gotta get it back, it's just hard as fuck and honestly I'm scared of the wds, they are balls

[Hanslanda]

As a Counterpoint to what everyone else is saying I quit cocaine while on a three-month binge so... It's all in your head and biochemistry, so mind over matter and pitch the habit if it's detrimental to you. Don't wait to sober up to realize it's a problem.