Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On the Tearing Down of Statues
“Every statue of an old and all-too-human benefactor or hero that comes tumbling down is a memorial raised to our intolerance, our unwillingness to forgive. We find fault where there is fault to find, and we are glad to find it, because we have so little that is virtuous and beautiful to show on our own account.” – Anthony Esolen
Published in General
I don’t like that the internet makes it so easy for people to clamor above their weight class.
The problem in the current political climate though is the same people who are the most emphatic about tearing down the Confederate statues are also the ones who would like to follow that up by tearing down the statues of the Founding Fathers. That’s why extra caution has to be taken when engaging in Civil War cancel culture — you might be able to justify renaming a military base that carries the name of an unsuccessful Confederate general merely because of location 100-plus years ago, but lots of folks who would go along with that wouldn’t simply stop there, as the above noted instances with Lincoln in both Boston and San Francisco indicate (those people are proving Trump right when he said call to remove the Confederate statues wouldn’t simply stop at removing the Confederate statues).
One dead white male statue is much like another.
Exactly. I wonder how the supporters of tearing down Confederate statues feel about the left’s sights now on other statues like Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Columbus, the Virgin Mary, even Jesus. The “slippery slope” argument is a valid one in many cases . . .
I remember once a friend conversing with me about some social issue and I said, in effect, but if they want this now, they’ll want this other thing next. And he objected that that’s a slippery slope argument and therefore invalid. Well, I was right about what they wanted next, but his use of the slippery slope argument ignores intended incremental changes that would be objected to if forced all at once.
Your friend’s dismissal of the Slippery Slope argument shows his rhetorical prowess, not any weakness of your point of view on the social issue. There is no social issue in which the left has failed to use a slippery slope approach successfully. Like Gay Marriage? Like Abortion? Like Mail In Balloting?
I propose new rules such that two data points indicates a Forced March which completely negates the Slippery Slope objection.
I’ve heard too often “The slippery slope argument is a fallacy.” Say what? I believe it’s much more often true than false . . .
As is often the case, what is deemed to be “fallacy” in “pure logic” can be quite true in the real world.
Slippery Slope should be renamed The Thomas Sowell “And Then What” March.
I am done with the statue fight. Same with the naming stuff. But I do not like the double standard. So in fairness to all I want ALL statues to be torn down. Not a one should stand. If it can be tore down because if offends somebody then it should be tore down because it offends me. As for schools. Let’s take away their names and just give them numbers. They want to tear down America, fine, I want to help. Lets burn this land to the ground and salt the earth afterward.