Trump by name......

No, that's just you being sensitive.

And, I've gotta say, your Dukes of Hazzard thing has got to be one of the most bizarre posts I've ever read on the internet. Which is some feat!

As a little boy, the Robert E Lee was the only frame of reference I had for the Confederate flag, and also General Robert E Lee. But, y'know, then I read a book

 

I used to love Dukes of Hazzard. I was always the blonde one (Luke?) in games. Daisy Duke was also obviously confusing to my young developing brain. Had no idea about the background of the confederate flag and the American civil war.
Now...yeah...that stuff ain't cool.

 

I don't care about flags or statues, but for those who do, you have to ask the question of what a public monument or flag means to them. Is it merely a record of history, or does it symbolise some kind of virtue or value for them? I'd argue the latter.

If we knocked Nelson off his column and replaced him with Saddam Hussein, would people say "hey, they're both just historical figures, what does it matter"?

Oh, and the Confederate flag, or "blood stained banner", was designed during the American Civil War. It didn't exist before.

 

When a society changes its rulers, gods or values, they knock down the old icons and replace them with new ones. There isn't enough space to leave all the statues ever made up, and I don't think we should be so sentimental about the past. Have statues of people that reflect the values of the time.

Oh, and Turing was eventually pardoned: Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing - BBC News

I suspect the government's argument had much more to do with money than historical truth, as Turing's pardon led to this: 'Alan Turing law': Thousands of gay men to be pardoned - BBC News

 

I don't really think that Republican condemnations amount to much when they're engaging in suppression of minority votes, weakening supervision on law enforcement, deemphasizing federal investigation on white supremacy groups, etc., etc.

I think the Republicans are turning against him because he's produced an incompetent and dysfunctional White House, but I don't think this represents a rejection of his platform. The cabinet repeatedly exploding seems more a function of Trump himself and the Russia investigation than it does Republicans expressing outrage; not getting his bills passed depends on a rare few Republican senators who are... not exactly popular at the moment within their party.

But this issue isn't what I was commenting on, my point was that white supremacists represent a mainstream within the Republican party, one that's not simply confined to Trump. I don't think that you can necessarily make the jump from "Trump is not mainstream" to "Trump supporters are not mainstream" without defining a sizable chunk of Republican voters as not mainstream voters. To me this seems intellectually dishonest.

 

So the thing is... we're not talking about eight hundred years ago here. I think there's a dominant and active strand of white supremacy within American politics that can directly be traced back to the civil war and slavery. It's not like these people or their attitudes went away. One of the thoughts that stuck with me is "What would it be like to be a black teenager and go to Nathan Bedford Forrest high school?" Until 2014, that was the name of a school in Jacksonville, FL, named after a Confederate general famous for murdering black prisoners of war and founding the KKK. I don't think that kind of thing is inert or sanitized.

 

I feel this is one of the best responses one can use when talking about "heritage" and what ever else stupid crap they cling to.

 

Hell, in rural England you still find people who think that the wrong side won in our civil war!

 

Well this seems relevant.....

 

This seems like you don't want to continue the discussion. Fair enough. Regardless though, white supremacists occupy the highest levels of our government and remain an animating force for the Republican party. Jeff Sessions wasn't born in 2016 in a Trump Palace. Neither was Steve King. Or Steve Bannon. Or Stephen Miller.

What's with these Steves???

 

From what I've read I don't quite agree with the conclusion you're making. A lot of that proposed legislation comes from people protesting via blocking interstates, highways, and major roads to get attention. These are instances where it's possible for people to be in emergencies, or even something as simple as "if you don't show up to work on time today you're fired."

There is absolutely no excuse for what happened in Virginia with the guy plowing into protesters. They were not blocking a road in the same way I believe the legislation is trying to address. From the video I saw there were also plenty of side roads to go around the protesters. You can't even defend yourself saying "I thought that's what a new law meant I could do" or "I was scared." It was malicious, unwarranted, and disgusting. I think the cartoon and the point it brings up tries to merge an entirely different issue with what happened, and I think it's misleading.

I have never met a Steve in my life that I liked.

 

I don't think it's ever OK to knowingly, Drive your car into people.

Even if you are late for work.

Iirc the storys about ambulances being blocked were listed as fake on snopes too.

 

John oliver's bit on charlotteville, white nationalists and trump.

(warning slight bad language at the end)

 

Criminal use of a Black Sabbath sample, but it's been over 20 years since I listened to PWEI, so kudos for the nostalgia trip!