"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."
~ Wikipedia
In the wake of the whole protest in Charlottesville, anyone on social media has no doubt seen the array of memes that people are posting, both "for" and "against", the recent removal of certain Civil War related statues/monuments., etc. Welp, the above gem of a meme is one such meme.
Okay, point by point:
"Gonna" isn't a word, you *insipid morons.
*Yes, this is a nit pick and has nothing to do with a straw man. And yes, calling someone a "moron" is itself a fallacy, namely, an ad hominem. However, the insult isn't the extent of my argument, as I'm including reasoned arguments along with it. In other words, the personal insult is not in lieu of an argument, so not technically an ad hominem.
Next, the statues aren't being removed "for no reason"; they're being removed and some relocated because they represent a part of history in which a part of America was advocating (and fighting for) the right to not only own other human beings, but to beat them should they act up or show defiance. Saying that the statues are being removed for "no reason", besides being untrue and intellectually lazy, is a way to make it easier to refute, hence, the straw man fallacy. You make your opponent's argument sound "silly," then it's easier to criticize.
Other arguments:
"By taking the statues down, your erasing history!" (misspelling intentional)
Nope, you can't "erase" history. 'Ever heard of books? Libraries? Museums?
"The Great Pyramids of Giza were built by slaves, too. Let's remove them!"
Okay, fine. Move to Egypt, apply for citizenship, and then petition to have them removed. 'Probably won't succeed, mind you, since there was such a thing as "obligatory labor" in that era, which is akin to when the Amish here in the U.S. raise a new barn. The community joins in to see it through. In this scenario, no one is owned and no one is beaten or lynched if they flat-out refuse to help. So, yeah, this sort of false equivalence isn't going to fly.
Other false equivalence:
"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides" ~ Donald Trump, POTUS
There aren't "many sides" in this particular case, there are only two sides:
1) White Supremacists, and 2) people against White Supremacists.
Yes, I'm afraid that's it. There are those whose mission is to prevent equal rights and beliefs for anyone non-white, and there are whose mission is to ensure those same rights for ALL people, regardless of skin-color. Which side are you on?