Score one (more) for the uneducated

SouthernN'Proud

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
I have far to go still.

Hate crime

I have issues with someone who calls himself a "buff" and does not know what the hell he is talking about:

Civil War Buff Jeff Rundell visited it to see the damage. "Being a Civil War buff, I'm no fan of the Confederacy and what they fought for, but I think it is appalling to desecrate a monument for any reason," he said.
Click to expand...

Then there are those enlightened souls among us:

Marjorie Reeves takes it personally. "It's my history," she says. She moved here from Alabama and is President of the local Daughters of the Confederacy. She's not entirely surprised by what happened, since it was also vandalized 18 years ago.
Click to expand...


Wonder if there's a correlation with this statement:

"This state has been less friendly than any state I've lived in."
Click to expand...

Of course, I'm sure finding these vandals is real high on the priority list in Hug-A-Tree USA. Too bad it wasn't a MLK statue, the freakin' National Guard would be dispatched.
 
Desecrating a war memorial :(

I'm wondering if she's right and thay whoever did this didn't know what 'specifically' they were doing.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
I have issues with someone who calls himself a "buff" and does not know what the hell he is talking about:
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your points, but this statement reeks of "you're an asshole and incapable of rational thought if you don't agree with me"-itis.
 
One can be a 'buff' in anything and yet not be a fan of, nor agree with it.

Does one have to agree with the ancient Druids in order to be a buff of Stonehenge?

..of Cromwell in the English Civil War?

..of either side in the Boxer Rebellion?

'Buff'itude can take many forms... only one of them follows the path that you describe.
 
Inkara1 said:
I agree with most of your points, but this statement reeks of "you're an asshole and incapable of rational thought if you don't agree with me"-itis.
Click to expand...


Opinions vary. Facts don't. I've chronicled them here. For whatever reason(s), most choose to remain in their bubble of misinformation. That is why I chose the word uneducated. I could have been much more inflammatory, and chose not to do so. Maybe I should stop being more considerate than the masses.
 
unclehobart said:
One can be a 'buff' in anything and yet not be a fan of, nor agree with it.

Does one have to agree with the ancient Druids in order to be a buff of Stonehenge?

..of Cromwell in the English Civil War?

..of either side in the Boxer Rebellion?

'Buff'itude can take many forms... only one of them follows the path that you describe.
Click to expand...

I was of the impression that if one considers and refers to oneself as a "buff" on anything, they know it thoroughly. From every angle. For instance, I consider myself a Manson "buff". I have read everything I have ever seen printed about him and his followers, both persecutory and complimentary.

Hence, if one is to be a "buff" of the War Of Northern Aggression, one would know what happened outside the 11th grade history textbook. Heck, I know some of it and I don't even consider myself more than a passing student of the era. I am still learning about it every day. There's a lot more to know about what transpired than a single, summarizing sentence or three.

At least, if you really want the truth, there is.

Anyone who reads the article instinctively knows what the feller was talking about. You knew it as soon as your knee jerked. I believe I have amply acquitted the argument for accurate historical reporting; I shant do so now.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Not really. ;) It did get top billing for a bit, though.


Hate is hate, though...and should never be allowed to grow to fruition.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true. – Martin Luther King
 
It in no way states what he does or does not know about the Confederacy. Perhaps he is against states rights and individuality and all of the things that you know and hold dear. Perhaps he knows exactly what you know and yet deep down doesn't like it. Your argument would have us believe that since he does not like the Confederacy that he is automatically misinformed.
 
unclehobart said:
Your argument would have us believe that since he does not like the Confederacy that he is automatically misinformed.
Click to expand...
Hence, my diagnosis of "you're an asshole and incapable of rational thought if you don't agree with me"-itis.
 
Intellectually, that holds water.

Realistically, we all know better.

Take your typical schmoe off the street and ask him/her what the Confederacy stood for. We all know what 95% of the answers will be. I'll take my odds that I am right here and avoid petty semantic word games.

I'll go one further. Assume for one minute that y'all are right, and that this feller does know some real facts. After 140 years of propoganda, blind prejudice, and concerted outright discrimination, amost 39 of which I have personally endured, AND after tolerating the ceaseless whining of every other position, I'll take my fair turn to be a little lopsided and act like every other "offended" minority on this issue. I have the right to play that card once in a while if I have to endure it out of everyone else all the time, right?

But I think the odds are clearly indicitave that this feller falls into the 95% catagory. Confederate history ain't likely to occupy much priority in Seattle, since it doesn't in Birmingham.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top