Rantt is correct! You probably don’t realise the irony of your words: “When you can’t separate fact from fiction, you are at the whim of those presenting you with information, unable to recognize whatever agenda they may have.”

You are clearly a victim of this befuddlement, and are unable to separate fact from fiction. You say “If We Ignore Our History, We Are Doomed To Repeat It” then propose that we tear down statues commemorating the past. You say “Yes, there’s literally no difference between President George Washington, a man who helped found this nation, and Robert E. Lee, a man who led a hate-fueled rebellion aimed at destroying it.” Arguably, President Lincoln destroyed the old United States when he imposed federal laws over the rights of the individual States, replacing the the loose collective of Sovereign States with a Federal USA where States have very limited separate rights. But the point here is not about politics, it is about racism: you want to tear down the statue of a revered Confederate hero because he fought to defend a Confederacy that had its economy based on slave labour. Then morally George Washington is the same: he was a slave-owner himself, as was every signatory of the Declaration of Independence. This is the point Donald Trump tried to make: You cannot judge Robert E. Lee or George Washington by the ethical standards of today. If you start this revision of History, you will have to tear down every statue in America, and erase the entire edifice of Mt Rushmore!

As for your suggestion that we should sign a petition to replace the statue of a war hero with that of a road-rage/neoNazi’s victim, I think that is unwise. If we start building statues to victims, what does that say about us as a society? Statues should inspire future generations, and much as I regret her death, getting run over by a neo-nazi is much the same as getting run over by an Islamic extremist in Europe: it is pitiful, a cause for sorrow, but it is not heroic.

And that brings me to your worst example yet: “If, for example, a politician presents you with an emotional appeal saying that Syrian refugees present a great threat to national security, and you don’t have the context to know how utterly illogical that statement is, how can you possibly vote in your best interest?” That is arrant nonsense: you can argue that the immigrant ban on people from failed states is an overreaction, but it is quite logical.

Europe opened their gates to millions of Syrian refugees, and have since suffered bombings, knife attacks and vehicular murders all over Europe. Don’t you think it possible that if we ignore Europe’s recent history, we will be doomed to repeat it? Trump applied the precautionary principle to the threat of Islamic insurgents infiltrating America by hiding among refugees. That is his job as President: To protect innocent American citizens is his first duty.

I work in IT, Community volunteer interested in Politics, support Capitalism as the best economic system for lifting people out of poverty, Skeptical scientist.

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store