"The image does not reflect our values" is a handy way to justify acts of symbolic extirpation of whatever group happens to be in the crosshairs on a given day, without having to explain any tortured so-called reasoning.  In the beginning of an iconoclastic movement, people make at least a token effort to explain that an image is stereotyped or otherwise insulting.  Now all that's necessary is to mutter "image" and "values," then destroy the thing while giving the stink-eye to whoever is presumed to have been associated with erecting it in the first place, or perhaps to anyone who objects or even acts befuddled about the rationale for its destruction.

It's important to conduct these ritual destructions quite often, according to increasingly bewildering standards, in order to keep everyone off balance and remind them who makes the rules.


douglas said...

"...or perhaps to anyone who objects or even acts befuddled about the rationale for its destruction."

The threshold is even lower than that, and could not be lower-
Silence is now insufficiently pious to the zealots of intersectional marxism. There's a sign in a front yard not far from my home that says in large type "Black Lives Matter" and then below it is the line "Silence if Violence". This is, of course, a threat. If you don't support the movement outright, you're a traitor, and it is justified to do violence to you 'in self defense'.
I don't know who lives there. I've considered mailing them a letter, anonymously of course, but haven't done it yet.

It's troubling.

sink dish washing said...

یخچال دیپوینت

ست شیرالات شودر

سینک گرانیتی ظرفشویی

بهترین فر توکار ایرانی

Texan99 said...

Silence is not violence, nor even speech. But it may be irresponsible--so it's incumbent on us to speak up against this lunacy. Cultures don't fare well when people are afraid to speak.

douglas said...

Yeah, I'm going to have to do something. Saw another one pop up yesterday.