Protesters attempt to tear down statue of Andrew Jackson in DC

[Windwalker]

We must agree to disagree about that.
I find it useful.
1) It ends an argument, thereby preventing descent into repetitive bickering.
2) I suggests friendly punctuation, ie, no hard feelings about disagreeing.

Respectfully, no, we do not agree to disagree. If I say that too, then we agree. If just one person in a discussion says it, then it's generally understood as a cop out. If the other person doesn't want to further argue their point, then the correct language to use is, "I don't want to discuss this any further." That is accurate, and inoffensive to both parties. Now it's up to the other person to either honor that, or not.

Trust me, it's not about you personally. But I've seen this misused too often. So, I had to look it up to as to why this irks me so much. Agree to Disagree:

"Agree to disagree" or "agreeing to disagree" is a phrase in English referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s). It generally occurs when all sides recognise that further conflict would be unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable. They may also remain on amicable terms while continuing to disagree about the unresolved issues.​

So, when someone pulls out that phrase during the middle of a discussion and speaks it for the other person, it is not a resolution where both parties feel they have reached an impasse. When someone just says that, they are putting lipstick on a pig. The truth is that one person wants to stop discussing it, and tries to make it sound like both parties should agree we are at an impasse.

What is heard by the other party who gets cut off in discussing their point, having this phrase thrown at them when they made no such agreement themselves, is "I don't want to have to defend my opinions. You just need to accept we have valid opinions and we need to tolerate them." It's disingenuous. It's insincere. And that is why I hate it. Both parties must actually agree, or that phrase is utterly self-serving and meaningless.

RF is chock full of arguments which end in hostilities.
We should avoid that.

I agree. But that phase should be asked of the other person, "Do you agree that we are at an impasse?" Otherwise the honest thing to say is this: "I don't want to keep debating this any longer". That's truthful. If the other person is not part of "agreeing to disagree", then there that is not the phrase to be used. It's disingenuous.

I'm not proposing building new statues to evildoers.
This is about how to address long standing ones which are being reconsidered.

That is true. I think considering it's history and place in our cultural mythologies, I think it could serve some good to add the other faces as part of that narrative. Cast in bronze is a powerful symbol.

I propose a new view of statues, ie, one of education & shame.
Honor....I never much cared for that theme anyway.
Shame is so much more interesting & compelling.
Caersi's disgrace in the Walk Of Shame (Game Of Thrones)
really affected me. Such grisly power of that moment.

Detente!

I personally thinking shaming others, while perhaps satisfying for the victim, has limited effectiveness in changing people's hearts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Statues get attention.

Jack the Ripper
Theodore Kaczynski
Charles Manson
Robert Bundy
John Wayne Gacey
Benedict Arnold
Marie Antoinette
Richard the Lionheart
Vlad Dracul III
Hitler
Pol Pot
Stalin
Saddam Hussein
Frued
Einstein
Darwin
Most of them never had any statues, and to my knowledge there are very few of any of them in existence (Jack/Jill the Ripper especially since we don't even know who that was). But they arent forgotten. Some of them we can even just say their last name. And we know them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Respectfully, no, we do not agree to disagree. If I say that too, then we agree. If just one person in a discussion says it, then it's generally understood as a cop out. If the other person doesn't want to further argue their point, then the correct language to use is, "I don't want to discuss this any further." That is accurate, and inoffensive to both parties. Now it's up to the other person to either honor that, or not.

Trust me, it's not about you personally. But I've seen this misused too often. So, I had to look it up to as to why this irks me so much. Agree to Disagree:

"Agree to disagree" or "agreeing to disagree" is a phrase in English referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s). It generally occurs when all sides recognise that further conflict would be unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable. They may also remain on amicable terms while continuing to disagree about the unresolved issues.​

So, when someone pulls out that phrase during the middle of a discussion and speaks it for the other person, it is not a resolution where both parties feel they have reached an impasse. When someone just says that, they are putting lipstick on a pig. The truth is that one person wants to stop discussing it, and tries to make it sound like both parties should agree we are at an impasse.

What is heard by the other party who gets cut off in discussing their point, having this phrase thrown at them when they made no such agreement themselves, is "I don't want to have to defend my opinions. You just need to accept we have valid opinions and we need to tolerate them." It's disingenuous. It's insincere. And that is why I hate it. Both parties must actually agree, or that phrase is utterly self-serving and meaningless.


I agree. But that phase should be asked of the other person, "Do you agree that we are at an impasse?" Otherwise the honest thing to say is this: "I don't want to keep debating this any longer". That's truthful. If the other person is not part of "agreeing to disagree", then there that is not the phrase to be used. It's disingenuous.


That is true. I think considering it's history and place in our cultural mythologies, I think it could serve some good to add the other faces as part of that narrative. Cast in bronze is a powerful symbol.

At this point, I think we're agreeing to agree.

I personally thinking shaming others, while perhaps satisfying for the victim, has limited effectiveness in changing people's hearts.

Change....that is the role of the illuminating plaques.
People (those who read) discover uncomfortable info.
Hearts do change.

 

[Revoltingest]

Jack the Ripper
Theodore Kaczynski
Charles Manson
Robert Bundy
John Wayne Gacey
Benedict Arnold
Marie Antoinette
Richard the Lionheart
Vlad Dracul III
Hitler
Pol Pot
Stalin
Saddam Hussein
Frued
Einstein
Darwin
Most of them never had any statues, and to my knowledge there are very few of any of them in existence (Jack/Jill the Ripper especially since we don't even know who that was). But they arent forgotten. Some of them we can even just say their last name. And we know them.

In Andrew Jackson's case, most don't know of the evil
he wrought. History books didn't & don't do the job.
My proposal would begin to correct that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In Andrew Jackson's case, most don't know of the evil
he wrought. History books didn't & don't do the job.
My proposal would begin to correct that.

How about we start by destroying his statues and removing him from the $20 and proudly proclaim the United States of America does not honor genocidal *****?

 

[Windwalker]

At this point, I think we're agreeing to agree.

If you agree to not use agree to disagree unless both of agree to that, than we agree. Agreed?

Change....that is the role of the illuminating plaques.
People (those who read) discover uncomfortable info.
Hearts do change.

I see the point. Yes. I think to realize we have acted shamefully can motivate change. But I think "shaming" other people is less about them, and more about the shamer shaming. As the mob casts rotten fruit at you, that's more about retribution and vengeance, not trying to help the other person's sense of awareness.

I suppose the real question is, what is the most effective way to raise self-awareness in others? Is it shaming them, or something less violent?

 

[Revoltingest]

How about we start by destroying his statues and removing him from the $20 and proudly proclaim the United States of America does not honor genocidal *****?

Great....just great....avoid acknowledging that he
even existed, let alone what he did, both good & evil.
History rots in unread textbooks.

 

[Flame]

Get Custer's statue next. That human pile of fecal matter doesn't deserve any honor. Hopefully this wave will get them to rename Custer and Custer State Park.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you agree to not use agree to disagree unless both of agree to that, than we agree. Agreed?

Nope.
I'll continue to disagree about agreeing to disagree.
Hey, at least I don't gussy it up with "respectfully" disagreeing.

I see the point. Yes. I think to realize we have acted shamefully can motivate change. But I think "shaming" other people is less about them, and more about the shamer shaming. As the mob casts rotten fruit at you, that's more about retribution and vengeance, not trying to help the other person's sense of awareness.

I suppose the real question is, what is the most effective way to raise self-awareness in others? Is it shaming them, or something less violent?

My work of shame for Jackson is not a general thing.
We have a statue that's long existed in that location.
It sends a message we no longer want. So in this
particular case, I propose shaming the original message.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

History rots in unread textbooks.

How many people have seen a statue of Alexander the Great? Despite that, several have attempted to be the next Alexander the Great. Hannibal of Carthage is remembered sans statues. Most of us have never seen the Spartan Statues that commemorate the Battle of Thermopolyae, but the story of the 300 Spartans is well known.

 

[Revoltingest]

How many people have seen a statue of Alexander the Great? Despite that, several have attempted to be the next Alexander the Great.

Had they done that because they wanted to be him?
Or cuz they independently wanted to do something he
happened to have done, ie, conquer all they can see?

Hannibal of Carthage is remembered sans statues. Most of us have never seen the Spartan Statues that commemorate the Battle of Thermopolyae, but the story of the 300 Spartans is well known.

Cuz of the movie.
Know of one showing Andrew Jackson's darker side?
This still isn't an argument against my art proposal for the existing statue.

 

[Stevicus]

How many people have seen a statue of Alexander the Great? Despite that, several have attempted to be the next Alexander the Great. Hannibal of Carthage is remembered sans statues. Most of us have never seen the Spartan Statues that commemorate the Battle of Thermopolyae, but the story of the 300 Spartans is well known.

Not sure about statues, but Alexander the Great had a number of cities named after him.

Although Jackson had cities named after him as well.

 

[Windwalker]

Nope.
I'll continue to disagree about agreeing to disagree.

Do you disagree that both parties have to agree to disagree, as the common use of it states? Or do you prefer your own agreement for the other person, whether they agree to disagree or not? For me, I'll agree to let you agree, before I agree that we disagree. I'll let you have control of your own agreeing. I would hope you would agree with that as well, since it is the only agreeable way to agree to disagree.

Hey, at least I don't gussy it up with "respectfully" disagreeing.

No, you just take control away from the other person, quite disagreeably so.

My work of shame for Jackson is not a general thing.
We have a statue that's long existed in that location.
It sends a message we no longer want. So in this
particular case, I propose shaming the original message.

I expect a full mock up of your shaming statue, not to mock it, but to ensure it properly elicits mockery of Jackson.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not sure about statues, but Alexander the Great had a number of cities named after him.

Although Jackson had cities named after him as well.

Of course. However the discussion revolves around statues. There are just too many very easy examples to the contrary for them to be a necessity for remembering history. Such as Germany. No statues of any Nazis. All displays of Nazi symbols and paraphernalia is illegal. The Nazi party is banned, and joining is prohibited. They have not forgotten why they did any of that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Get Custer's statue next. That human pile of fecal matter doesn't deserve any honor. Hopefully this wave will get them to rename Custer and Custer State Park.

I'm sure a few people would get a like to get a few wacks against the Crow Nation as well.

Cherokee and Crow. Talk about Bad blood.

 

[Shaul]

Take down the statues of Andrew Jackson? Well, he did found the Democrat party...

 

[Stevicus]

Trump seems serious about sending anyone to jail for defacing or vandalizing statues.

Trump vows jail for 'anarchists' toppling monuments, warns protesters trying to establish 'Black House Autonomous Zone'

President Donald Trump has warned protesters who tried to topple a statue of President Andrew Jackson and build a "Black House Autonomous Zone" near the White House that there will be "serious" consequences.

After weeks of railing against city officials in Seattle for allowing protesters to make an "autonomous zone" there, Trump tweeted Tuesday morning "there will never be" one in the nation's capital as long as he's president and vowed that any more attempts "will be met with serious force!"

"We are looking at long term jail sentences for these vandals, hoodlums, anarchists and agitators. Some people don't like that language, but that's what they are: Bad people. They don't love our country, and they're not taking down our monuments," he said. "I just want that to be clear."

Trump had tweeted he'd already "authorized" the federal government to "arrest anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument, statue or other such Federal property in the U.S."

I guess they could get up to ten years in prison just for defacing a statue.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you disagree that both parties have to agree to disagree, as the common use of it states? Or do you prefer your own agreement for the other person, whether they agree to disagree or not? For me, I'll agree to let you agree, before I agree that we disagree. I'll let you have control of your own agreeing. I would hope you would agree with that as well, since it is the only agreeable way to agree to disagree.

Neither side needs to agree.
It's enuf if one side does.
But tis best if both do.

I expect a full mock up of your shaming statue, not to mock it, but to ensure it properly elicits mockery of Jackson.

You will be disappointed.
I've been unable to raise any funding yet.