I am asserting the proposition that Hamilton is art. That proposition then raises the obvious question, should offensive art be banned?
There are legit criticisms of the play, but Hamilton wasn't a slave owner and was anti-slavery. His views were progressive for that time, although his priorities in life was not about fighting against slavery but rather for building the country.
I and almost all liberals agree that it is art. The movement to ban it is miniscule. There is no groundswell to ban it from the left, right, or center.
as a sociological statement, that is accurate. as a moral argument, it is a fine sociological statement.
I am on the side of not banning. So is almost everyone else across the political spectrum. So I'm just not sure what there is to discuss. I have seen people react as if they think all of the left is in favor of censoring everything.
There is the potential that peoples' moral arguments are inconsistent: we seek to ban offensive statuary, including those representing leaders such as Washington, for the offense they give; but then we do not apply the same logic to dramatic art such as Hamilton, despite similar offense. I find that potential inconsistency interesting; and I might consider exploring these cases in class this fall.
So if we want to get rid of Confederate statues we have to also get rid of the 2015 hit musical Hamilton? You always post other people’s **** but never take a stance.
I don't think most people are about not displaying the statue art inside of a museum with a contextual display. They are against the display of the statues in places of honor like parks, town squares etc. The subject of those art statues don't deserve to be in places of honor. Our society has moved on.
No **** Sherlock, welcome to the history of the human race. So are we to not do anything because people are inconsistent?
I’ll add a question since this thread makes no sense Who is offended by Hamilton? It’s theatrical fiction ELI5
Arguments are inconsistent because people debate the opnioms of examples they heard rather than debating the person in front of them and the opinions they specifically hold. People aren't hive minds. Just because someone else said something doesn't mean everyone agrees. Debate the poster that you are engaging with not random people on Twitter and using their words as the words of the poster you are debating.
This is just criticism of the play which I can see her view points. I may not agree with what she points out but what does this have to do with banning controversial art and associating it with the “cancel culture” in this thread.
I guess you might go back and read the thread and linked articles from the beginning, starting with the first post:
