Search results for query: *

Uh... Why? That's an odd take.

There's actually both. Plenty of the examples posted so far were done with "due process" rather than at the hands of mobs.

Because more people will oppose the tearing down of less objectionable people?

Well, if you think it's inherently wrong why not stick to arguing that, rather than bringing slippery slope rubbish into it? Also, why is it wrong? If the majority of the public don't want to publicly venerate people who did bad things, then who are you to dictate to them? If you want to...

How is it a gateway though? Why does allowing this which even you are saying isn't bad, mean you have to allow something later that is? Also... George Floyd was a justified shooting? :unsure: Pretty sure that case was neither of those things.

To be clear, are you saying that you don't inherently think this itself is wrong, but you're scared about something that could hypothetically happen in the future?

As for the first part, as I said it's not simply a case of northern leftists trying to force change on the southern right. Generally speaking, people from the effected areas are involved in the efforts. For the latter, I can accept the position that people shouldn't tell others who to venerate...

Maybe don't base your "regional identity" on venerating shit people, and better people won't feel the need. It's also notable that there's almost always plenty of people from the local area who are part of or even leading the efforts. Possibly because they don't like seeing people venerated, who...