I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove by that example. Actual Neo-Nazi white supremacists did that, so he would be the correct target of their vandalism according to their belief system. What we’ve been talking about is vandalism committed against statues who aren’t
opposed to the ideals of the vandals.
That is a very narrow and ultimately false summation of the conversation. Other people are talking here. Whatever you may want your point to be, mine should be obvious. You just have to read what I've said.
Sofa implied anyone annoyed by any statue being destroyed or defaced is pearl clutching. (Its ironic that he's simultaniously defending a stranger's tweet (which WAS a direct responce to the Grant statue incident), but whatever.) So I asked if his admonitions would count if people were upset about a different, even more sympathetic/powerful symbol was destroyed. He didn't answer the question, of course.
Kyle claimed all US historical figures are different flavors of suck. Well, no human is infallable, but apart from that, his statement basically is a lame attempt to leach US History with a gigantic, lame, "whataboutism." There are figures that should be remembered fondly, be it for inspiration or just for the respect some of their actions are due. They are all dead and, in my belief system, don't have any opinions on the fates of their legacy. But symbols have power, and no one should be surprised when anyone, regardless of political slant, gets hit in the feels when people attack them. I mention MLK and John Brown because the point is more obvious with those two. Grant came up in another thread just a month or so ago because there was a documentary about him that came out. To one of your points earlier, I doubt many in the crowd that was tearing down the statue watched it.