It’s called a name, and names have real meaning, because they’re created with social agreements. Paper money, too, is valuable only because we agree to do so.
Ergo,
Saying “all this hullabaloo over a bunch of green paper” about money is… both true in a physical sense and misses the mark in a sociopolitical sense.
Saying “a giant rock causes harm” is both true in the physical sense and misses the mark in a sociopolitical sense.
Capitulating to the lowest common denominator is a recipe for disaster. The self-anointed who feign outrage over an inanimate object are just chasing power.
>The self-anointed who feign outrage over an inanimate object are just chasing power.
What power do you believe the Wisconsin Black Student Union, campus planning committee and Wisconsin Involvement Network (Wunk Sheek) are chasing, and why do you believe it was necessary for them to conspire to pretend to be upset about this inanimate object?
What do you believe this cabal's true end goal is, now that the rock has been moved and nothing stands in their way?
waiting in the wings for the right opportunities to ratchet themselves up to positions of real authority, given the current population size. Even if everyone in the entire state of Wisconsin is perfectly well intentioned, which I highly doubt, not everyone on Earth is.
Or.... maybe the story is exactly as it appears: a student coalition petitioned to have the rock removed because it reminded them of a racist element of the school's past, and were successful. Maybe there is no Robespierre secretly gathering power and sharpening the guillotine, and no slippery slope towards the cultural Marxist dystopia Hacker News always seems to believe the world is tumbling headlong into.
It's pretty simple. Demonstrate that their voices are heard and action taken as a result, and move on to something else. Yesterday, a rock; today, a portrait; tomorrow, a person.
But don't you find it odd that an Indigenous student group would be involved in an elaborate, multi-stage plot to "remove" people? It seems like the sort of thing they would be against, on principle.
So either the rock is meaningless, in which case... "more" power to them?
...or it's removal is meaningful, in which case they were right?
Either way: they have some not entirely implausible story of it being a symbol of something universally abhorred.
You are getting emotional in your indignation over their emotion. But then... that's it, isn't it? So you're grasping at straws trying to find some sinister motive in their actions, and base your argument on the absolute meaninglessness of the McMuffin at the center of it, and how you couldn't care less about it's whereabouts. But in the end, your argument comes back to "this doesn't matter".
So they kinda win by default, overwhelmingly, even if one were to agree that it's meaningless?
The rock isn’t _meaningless_, it’s inanimate. (Nice try at reframing though). As a 2 billion year old inanimate object, any racist qualities are obviously extrinsic. So those that find offense sufficient to want to remove the rock are themselves, assigning meaning to the words of an obscure article written over 100 years ago.
What is not meaningless is the time and resources redirected towards the rocks removal. Those are taxpayer funds btw, as this is a state university.
It’s perfectly congruent to feel indignation about the wasteful spending of public funds, without legitimizing the frivolous ‘outrage’ at the center of it.
Ergo,
Saying “all this hullabaloo over a bunch of green paper” about money is… both true in a physical sense and misses the mark in a sociopolitical sense.
Saying “a giant rock causes harm” is both true in the physical sense and misses the mark in a sociopolitical sense.