San Francisco to paint over historic George Washington mural

[TU Curmudgeon]

We should be preserving this sort of thing.

"That's where we were then. This is where we are now. We're not perfect, but at least we don't have chattel slavery now."

Yep, as the enlightened cynic would say

"We've come a long way from when women were regarded as property and not allowed to vote and from when only the rich actually had any chance for obtaining political office, and when people were actually allowed to own other people, and when even the dimmest bulb in the upper crust had the opportunity for a good education and when only the incredibly outstanding in the remainder of society had the opportunity for a good education, and where immigrants were scorned and derided as carriers of disease and inherently vicious criminals and when the government didn't hesitate to send American military forces out to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, and ..."
​

 

[Harshaw]

"Whatabouting" is defined as saying that something that "our guys" did is OK because "their guys" did it too and it is perfectly horrible that "their guys" did it.

Pointing out that BOTH sides are WRONG when they do the same thing is NOT "whatabouting".

Possibly it still hasn't percolated through to you that BOTH the "liberals" (whatever that means) NOW, and the "conservatives" (whatever that means) THEN object to the same piece of art on the same grounds AND that BOTH the "conservatives" (whatever that means) NOW, and the "liberals" (whatever that means) THEN defend the same piece of art on the same grounds.

As before

I just can't see the difference between "'Left-wing' (whatever that is) Orwellian nonsense" and "'Right-wing' (whatever that is) Orwellian nonsense" (especially when both the "'Left-wing' (whatever that is) Orwellian nonsense" and the "'Right-wing' (whatever that is) Orwellian nonsense" are being propounded for IDENTICAL reasons.
​

You appear to be able to tell how one type of "Orwellian nonsense" IS NOT really "Orwellian nonsense" while the identical type of "Orwellian nonsense" IS really "Orwellian nonsense" - and seem to be able to base that differentiation on whether you agree or disagree with the political alignment of the persons spouting the "Orwellian nonsense".

When did I ever say any of that "right-wing" Orwellian nonsense is OK? Or "not really" Orwellian?

I didn't. Not ever. Not once. And not even impliedly.

But that isn't the topic. The topic is the Orwellian nonsense going on in SF. Can you discuss that without trying to say "they do it, too!"? It doesn't look like you can. Thus, you're whatabouting your own thread. For reasons which are unclear.

 

[Doc91478]

San Fran has seceded from the United States long ago so it makes sense that nothing relating to our great nation remains in that dump.


San Fran/liberal logic tells us that George Washington = bad, and hairy homos in assless chaps twerking in front of little kids = good.

~~~~~~
Too bad the latest earthquakes didn't sink San Francisco into the bay. For that matter all of California sliding into the deep Pacific.

 

[Sabre]

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” ― George Orewell

From 1984:

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

When did I ever say any of that "right-wing" Orwellian nonsense is OK? Or "not really" Orwellian?

I didn't. Not ever. Not once. And not even impliedly.

But that isn't the topic. The topic is the Orwellian nonsense going on in SF. Can you discuss that without trying to say "they do it, too!"? It doesn't look like you can. Thus, you're whatabouting your own thread. For reasons which are unclear.

If you cannot tell the difference between

What A is doing is "Orwellian nonsense" and what B is doing is "Orwellian nonsense" and they are BOTH wrong to be indulging in "Orwellian nonsense".
​

and

What A is doing is "Orwellian nonsense" and what B is doing is "Orwellian nonsense" BUT it's OK for A to indulge in "Orwellian nonsense" because B is indulging in completely unacceptable "Orwellian nonsense".
​

there isn't much point in continuing.

If you somehow think that me saying the first actually means that I am saying the second then there is even less point.

Let me use up a bit of bandwidth to indulge in a little typographical emphasis so you might get my point.

What I am saying is

What A is doing is "Orwellian nonsense" and what B is doing is "Orwellian nonsense" and they are BOTH wrong to be indulging in "Orwellian nonsense".
​

is that slightly clearer?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

~~~~~~
Too bad the latest earthquakes didn't sink San Francisco into the bay. For that matter all of California sliding into the deep Pacific.

Your desire for the deaths of 39,560,000 people has been duly noted.

 

[Harshaw]

If you cannot tell the difference between

What A is doing is "Orwellian nonsense" and what B is doing is "Orwellian nonsense" and they are BOTH wrong to be indulging in "Orwellian nonsense".
​

and

What A is doing is "Orwellian nonsense" and what B is doing is "Orwellian nonsense" BUT it's OK for A to indulge in "Orwellian nonsense" because B is indulging in completely unacceptable "Orwellian nonsense".
​

there isn't much point in continuing.

If you somehow think that me saying the first actually means that I am saying the second then there is even less point.

Let me use up a bit of bandwidth to indulge in a little typographical emphasis so you might get my point.

What I am saying is

What A is doing is "Orwellian nonsense" and what B is doing is "Orwellian nonsense" and they are BOTH wrong to be indulging in "Orwellian nonsense".
​

is that slightly clearer?

Dude. That's not the point. The point is, you couldn't talk about what A is doing without bringing up what B is doing.

Why not?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Dude. That's not the point. The point is, you couldn't talk about what A is doing without bringing up what B is doing.

Why not?

Because it is relevant.

If "Dork A" accuses "Dork B" of being a dork, that doesn't mean that we have to ignore the fact that "Dork A" is a dork when we agree with them that "Dork B" is a dork.

That, essentially, is what those who take the position "The only thing of any relevance here is whether "Dork B" is a dork.". Of course, those who see themselves in the position of "Dork A" are the most likely to be vociferous that it is totally irrelevant whether "Dork A" is a dork or not.

 

[Harshaw]

Because it is relevant.

If "Dork A" accuses "Dork B" of being a dork, that doesn't mean that we have to ignore the fact that "Dork A" is a dork when we agree with them that "Dork B" is a dork.

That, essentially, is what those who take the position "The only thing of any relevance here is whether "Dork B" is a dork.". Of course, those who see themselves in the position of "Dork A" are the most likely to be vociferous that it is totally irrelevant whether "Dork A" is a dork or not.

It isn't relevant. It's just whataboutism. What's happening in SF is Orwellian whether or not anyone else has done something Orwellian. That you need to bring up some other "side" in order to discuss it is a reflection on you, and nothing or no one else.

We're done here.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It isn't relevant.

Our opinions vary.

It's just whataboutism.

Only to someone who doesn't know what "whataboutism" actually is.

What's happening in SF is Orwellian whether or not anyone else has done something Orwellian.

A statement which I have never disputed.

That you need to bring up some other "side" in order to discuss it is a reflection on you, and nothing or no one else.

And the fact that you chose to totally ignore the fact that that "Orwellian nonsense" is common to BOTH the "liberals" (whatever that means) AND the "conservatives" (whatever that means) says - what - about you?

We're done here.

Quite understandably. I want to discuss what is wrong with the WHOLE society and you only want to discuss what is wrong with "Them".