|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 28 2015 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 08:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:42 Yoav wrote:On June 28 2015 08:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:23 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2015 08:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 07:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Not sure if it can be simply explained to someone from another country? Yes he did have a connection. + Show Spoiler +There's more if you look. It's not "suddenly too racist", suddenly the racists aren't powerful enough to keep flying it. Reminds me of any other moral panic. Now, sure, it shouldn't have been flying over the city hall (nor should any non-official flag), and it has negative connotations associated with it. But I don't see how saying "this shooter liked a flag, ban the flag!" is any less asinine than "this shooter played Call of Duty, ban Call of Duty!" The confederate flag and Call of Duty are not even remotely comparable in the way that you are trying to compare them and misled outrage. Suffice it to say, you just don't understand the issue so of course it doesn't make sense to you. Gee then, thanks then for taking the time to make people understand how lashing out at an inanimate symbol is such an important matter. I don't see how this is remotely different than any other moral panic ever. Video games make kids violent. D&D turns children into satanists. Rock & Roll is making everyone have sex. Flags are making people racist. Your analogy makes it clear that you do not understand what the Confederate Flag means and how it operates in the public space of the United States, though make no mistake, I can hardly claim to have an expansive knowledge on such a thing either. What I will say is that this is not about moral panic, though there are characteristics that are similar because this is a sudden massive declaration of disapproval predicated on an act of mass violence. But in this case, the public backlash is related to the outcome of a war that played a fundamental role in how the cultural landscape of our country was formed and remains to this day. Naturally, contemporary times help break down borderlines, but the politics of the United States and their almost comical polarity should be evidence enough that this country has an identity problem, and one that almost always looks like one side versus the other when it comes down to it. And, as controversial as it is to lay down before the lordship of a symbol, Americans have a thing for flags; our songs talk about them, our schools place an importance on them, and people can be motivated to pretty extreme feelings when talking about how to treat them. Yes, this may seem foreign to you, but that's part of the point, now isn't it. Maybe my use of the phrase "moral panic" is throwing things off, but I'm not sure what else it would be called. Scapegoating, maybe? It's just like whenever a school shooting is followed up with discussions about which video games the shooter played. It's taking a very serious crime and a very real issue, and grasping at the most visible and easy target to focus attention on. (But also yes, the US seems to have a ridiculous thing for flags in general) This issue took off because of an emotional response people had to an incident. I guess that makes it like certain bad moral panics. Sure. But it also makes it like how Gandhi or Martin Luther King built movements off of small incidents that served to bring into the open the hatred and oppression that was always lurking below the surface. Nothing changed when Rosa Parks refused to move. It was something that had happened a million times before and the issue at its core had been a problem for most of century. But the incident helped make people aware of its injustice. But if you're comparing this current flag issue with those, then they're basically exact opposites. Yes, minor incidents can lead to massive, meaningful movements. But this was a serious incident that lead to a completely meaning less movement. And again, I'm not counting the removal of the flag from the city hall, because that is somewhat meaningful. I'm mostly talking about the nation-wide protest of the flag being anywhere. Didn't we cover that this is a fiction? Wait, are you saying retailers didn't pull confederate flag merchandise, or are you talking about something else?
That's a business decision by a private entity. No one is calling for any type of legislative ban on the thing.
|
On June 28 2015 09:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 08:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:42 Yoav wrote:On June 28 2015 08:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:23 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2015 08:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 07:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Reminds me of any other moral panic.
Now, sure, it shouldn't have been flying over the city hall (nor should any non-official flag), and it has negative connotations associated with it.
But I don't see how saying "this shooter liked a flag, ban the flag!" is any less asinine than "this shooter played Call of Duty, ban Call of Duty!" The confederate flag and Call of Duty are not even remotely comparable in the way that you are trying to compare them and misled outrage. Suffice it to say, you just don't understand the issue so of course it doesn't make sense to you. Gee then, thanks then for taking the time to make people understand how lashing out at an inanimate symbol is such an important matter. I don't see how this is remotely different than any other moral panic ever. Video games make kids violent. D&D turns children into satanists. Rock & Roll is making everyone have sex. Flags are making people racist. Your analogy makes it clear that you do not understand what the Confederate Flag means and how it operates in the public space of the United States, though make no mistake, I can hardly claim to have an expansive knowledge on such a thing either. What I will say is that this is not about moral panic, though there are characteristics that are similar because this is a sudden massive declaration of disapproval predicated on an act of mass violence. But in this case, the public backlash is related to the outcome of a war that played a fundamental role in how the cultural landscape of our country was formed and remains to this day. Naturally, contemporary times help break down borderlines, but the politics of the United States and their almost comical polarity should be evidence enough that this country has an identity problem, and one that almost always looks like one side versus the other when it comes down to it. And, as controversial as it is to lay down before the lordship of a symbol, Americans have a thing for flags; our songs talk about them, our schools place an importance on them, and people can be motivated to pretty extreme feelings when talking about how to treat them. Yes, this may seem foreign to you, but that's part of the point, now isn't it. Maybe my use of the phrase "moral panic" is throwing things off, but I'm not sure what else it would be called. Scapegoating, maybe? It's just like whenever a school shooting is followed up with discussions about which video games the shooter played. It's taking a very serious crime and a very real issue, and grasping at the most visible and easy target to focus attention on. (But also yes, the US seems to have a ridiculous thing for flags in general) This issue took off because of an emotional response people had to an incident. I guess that makes it like certain bad moral panics. Sure. But it also makes it like how Gandhi or Martin Luther King built movements off of small incidents that served to bring into the open the hatred and oppression that was always lurking below the surface. Nothing changed when Rosa Parks refused to move. It was something that had happened a million times before and the issue at its core had been a problem for most of century. But the incident helped make people aware of its injustice. But if you're comparing this current flag issue with those, then they're basically exact opposites. Yes, minor incidents can lead to massive, meaningful movements. But this was a serious incident that lead to a completely meaning less movement. And again, I'm not counting the removal of the flag from the city hall, because that is somewhat meaningful. I'm mostly talking about the nation-wide protest of the flag being anywhere. Didn't we cover that this is a fiction? Wait, are you saying retailers didn't pull confederate flag merchandise, or are you talking about something else? That's a business decision by a private entity. No one is calling for any type of legislative ban on the thing.
And, uh, I didn't talk about any legislative ban...? o_O
|
What's funny is that the retailer retreat from selling confederate merchandise is directly due to the thing many who wave it claim to adore. Free markets, anyone 
|
On June 28 2015 08:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2015 08:12 Gorsameth wrote:On June 28 2015 08:10 killa_robot wrote:On June 28 2015 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 07:43 killa_robot wrote:On June 28 2015 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 05:22 killa_robot wrote:
Kind of funny how people need big issues to happen to actually care about things. What the flag represents has never changed, yet only now people are like "I CAN'T WAIT ANY LONGER", to take it down, lol.
Seems like people just following whatever is popular at the time. People have been talking about it for decades, it was just finally too loud to ignore. Also because of all the attention, the person might not get the book thrown at them like they might have otherwise. Doesn't change the fact that people are overacting here. I agree the flag should be removed from government properties (not sure why it was allowed to begin with), but people are blowing things way out of proportion. Some crazy guy spouts racist crap and shoots up a church, and suddenly the confederate flag is too racist to fly anymore? It shouldn't have been flying to begin with, but that's the sort of connection that was made? How was the flag even brought up? Did the crazy guy have some connection with one? Not sure if it can be simply explained to someone from another country? Yes he did have a connection. + Show Spoiler +There's more if you look. It's not "suddenly too racist", suddenly the racists aren't powerful enough to keep flying it. Are racists that powerful in the states? Do people really find the argument "You can't fly that flag, a racist crazy guy that posed with it killed a whole bunch people in church", so compelling? Sounds more like people are just running high on emotions. "You can't fly that flag (which stands for a government that fought to maintain slavery), a racist crazy guy that posed with it killed a whole bunch people in church" If I'm not mistaken they fly the 'Virginia Battle Flag' which is separate from any official flags of the Confederacy. The battle flag became popular after the war, mainly with veteran's groups. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/8-things-didnt-know-confederate-flag/Edit: later it became popular with segregationists, which is probably where the racist connotations really come from. The KKK used it prominently post-Civil War. They were the first group that used it consistently after the war.
Do you have a source for that? Politifact says: The study [from Georgia's Senate] says that "from the end of the Civil War until the late 1940s, display of the battle flag was mostly limited to Confederate commemorations, Civil War re-enactments, and veterans’ parades. The flag had simply become a tribute to Confederate veterans.
...
We asked K. Michael Prince, author of Rally 'Round the Flag, Boys: South Carolina and the Confederate Flag, if he could pinpoint the root cause behind the raising of the Confederate battle flag in South Carolina.
"As far as I've been able to determine, the bare facts … provide no clear evidence either way," Prince said.
"It's possible that nobody had anything else in mind other than commemorating the war. But we would be remiss not to take the larger context into consideration in judging the meaning of the display," Prince said."
However, in 1948, the meaning of the flag began to change. Source
Both Politifact and PBS seem to be saying that it was used by veteran's groups first :/
|
On June 28 2015 09:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 09:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 28 2015 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 08:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:42 Yoav wrote:On June 28 2015 08:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:23 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2015 08:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The confederate flag and Call of Duty are not even remotely comparable in the way that you are trying to compare them and misled outrage.
Suffice it to say, you just don't understand the issue so of course it doesn't make sense to you. Gee then, thanks then for taking the time to make people understand how lashing out at an inanimate symbol is such an important matter. I don't see how this is remotely different than any other moral panic ever. Video games make kids violent. D&D turns children into satanists. Rock & Roll is making everyone have sex. Flags are making people racist. Your analogy makes it clear that you do not understand what the Confederate Flag means and how it operates in the public space of the United States, though make no mistake, I can hardly claim to have an expansive knowledge on such a thing either. What I will say is that this is not about moral panic, though there are characteristics that are similar because this is a sudden massive declaration of disapproval predicated on an act of mass violence. But in this case, the public backlash is related to the outcome of a war that played a fundamental role in how the cultural landscape of our country was formed and remains to this day. Naturally, contemporary times help break down borderlines, but the politics of the United States and their almost comical polarity should be evidence enough that this country has an identity problem, and one that almost always looks like one side versus the other when it comes down to it. And, as controversial as it is to lay down before the lordship of a symbol, Americans have a thing for flags; our songs talk about them, our schools place an importance on them, and people can be motivated to pretty extreme feelings when talking about how to treat them. Yes, this may seem foreign to you, but that's part of the point, now isn't it. Maybe my use of the phrase "moral panic" is throwing things off, but I'm not sure what else it would be called. Scapegoating, maybe? It's just like whenever a school shooting is followed up with discussions about which video games the shooter played. It's taking a very serious crime and a very real issue, and grasping at the most visible and easy target to focus attention on. (But also yes, the US seems to have a ridiculous thing for flags in general) This issue took off because of an emotional response people had to an incident. I guess that makes it like certain bad moral panics. Sure. But it also makes it like how Gandhi or Martin Luther King built movements off of small incidents that served to bring into the open the hatred and oppression that was always lurking below the surface. Nothing changed when Rosa Parks refused to move. It was something that had happened a million times before and the issue at its core had been a problem for most of century. But the incident helped make people aware of its injustice. But if you're comparing this current flag issue with those, then they're basically exact opposites. Yes, minor incidents can lead to massive, meaningful movements. But this was a serious incident that lead to a completely meaning less movement. And again, I'm not counting the removal of the flag from the city hall, because that is somewhat meaningful. I'm mostly talking about the nation-wide protest of the flag being anywhere. Didn't we cover that this is a fiction? Wait, are you saying retailers didn't pull confederate flag merchandise, or are you talking about something else? That's a business decision by a private entity. No one is calling for any type of legislative ban on the thing. And, uh, I didn't talk about any legislative ban...? o_O
So then what's the problem?
The whole, "Rallying against the flag is useless! We should be talking about real problems!" is cute, but it's an incredibly naive way to look at the world. Symbols have power. This is evident throughout all of human history. Making sure that that flag isn't implicitly sanctioned by the government via putting it on government property is a step towards racial equality.
|
On June 28 2015 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 08:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:42 Yoav wrote:On June 28 2015 08:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:23 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2015 08:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 07:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Not sure if it can be simply explained to someone from another country? Yes he did have a connection. + Show Spoiler +There's more if you look. It's not "suddenly too racist", suddenly the racists aren't powerful enough to keep flying it. Reminds me of any other moral panic. Now, sure, it shouldn't have been flying over the city hall (nor should any non-official flag), and it has negative connotations associated with it. But I don't see how saying "this shooter liked a flag, ban the flag!" is any less asinine than "this shooter played Call of Duty, ban Call of Duty!" The confederate flag and Call of Duty are not even remotely comparable in the way that you are trying to compare them and misled outrage. Suffice it to say, you just don't understand the issue so of course it doesn't make sense to you. Gee then, thanks then for taking the time to make people understand how lashing out at an inanimate symbol is such an important matter. I don't see how this is remotely different than any other moral panic ever. Video games make kids violent. D&D turns children into satanists. Rock & Roll is making everyone have sex. Flags are making people racist. Your analogy makes it clear that you do not understand what the Confederate Flag means and how it operates in the public space of the United States, though make no mistake, I can hardly claim to have an expansive knowledge on such a thing either. What I will say is that this is not about moral panic, though there are characteristics that are similar because this is a sudden massive declaration of disapproval predicated on an act of mass violence. But in this case, the public backlash is related to the outcome of a war that played a fundamental role in how the cultural landscape of our country was formed and remains to this day. Naturally, contemporary times help break down borderlines, but the politics of the United States and their almost comical polarity should be evidence enough that this country has an identity problem, and one that almost always looks like one side versus the other when it comes down to it. And, as controversial as it is to lay down before the lordship of a symbol, Americans have a thing for flags; our songs talk about them, our schools place an importance on them, and people can be motivated to pretty extreme feelings when talking about how to treat them. Yes, this may seem foreign to you, but that's part of the point, now isn't it. Maybe my use of the phrase "moral panic" is throwing things off, but I'm not sure what else it would be called. Scapegoating, maybe? It's just like whenever a school shooting is followed up with discussions about which video games the shooter played. It's taking a very serious crime and a very real issue, and grasping at the most visible and easy target to focus attention on. (But also yes, the US seems to have a ridiculous thing for flags in general) This issue took off because of an emotional response people had to an incident. I guess that makes it like certain bad moral panics. Sure. But it also makes it like how Gandhi or Martin Luther King built movements off of small incidents that served to bring into the open the hatred and oppression that was always lurking below the surface. Nothing changed when Rosa Parks refused to move. It was something that had happened a million times before and the issue at its core had been a problem for most of century. But the incident helped make people aware of its injustice. But if you're comparing this current flag issue with those, then they're basically exact opposites. Yes, minor incidents can lead to massive, meaningful movements. But this was a serious incident that lead to a completely meaning less movement. And again, I'm not counting the removal of the flag from the city hall, because that is somewhat meaningful. I'm mostly talking about the nation-wide protest of the flag being anywhere. Didn't we cover that this is a fiction? Wait, are you saying retailers didn't pull confederate flag merchandise, or are you talking about something else?
And, uh, I didn't talk about any legislative ban...? o_O
I'm saying stores choosing not to sell them is not a "nation wide protest" to remove them from everywhere...
lol @ Jonny's innocently unsure attitude about the flag.
|
On June 28 2015 09:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 09:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 09:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 28 2015 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 08:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:42 Yoav wrote:On June 28 2015 08:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:23 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2015 08:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Gee then, thanks then for taking the time to make people understand how lashing out at an inanimate symbol is such an important matter.
I don't see how this is remotely different than any other moral panic ever. Video games make kids violent. D&D turns children into satanists. Rock & Roll is making everyone have sex. Flags are making people racist. Your analogy makes it clear that you do not understand what the Confederate Flag means and how it operates in the public space of the United States, though make no mistake, I can hardly claim to have an expansive knowledge on such a thing either. What I will say is that this is not about moral panic, though there are characteristics that are similar because this is a sudden massive declaration of disapproval predicated on an act of mass violence. But in this case, the public backlash is related to the outcome of a war that played a fundamental role in how the cultural landscape of our country was formed and remains to this day. Naturally, contemporary times help break down borderlines, but the politics of the United States and their almost comical polarity should be evidence enough that this country has an identity problem, and one that almost always looks like one side versus the other when it comes down to it. And, as controversial as it is to lay down before the lordship of a symbol, Americans have a thing for flags; our songs talk about them, our schools place an importance on them, and people can be motivated to pretty extreme feelings when talking about how to treat them. Yes, this may seem foreign to you, but that's part of the point, now isn't it. Maybe my use of the phrase "moral panic" is throwing things off, but I'm not sure what else it would be called. Scapegoating, maybe? It's just like whenever a school shooting is followed up with discussions about which video games the shooter played. It's taking a very serious crime and a very real issue, and grasping at the most visible and easy target to focus attention on. (But also yes, the US seems to have a ridiculous thing for flags in general) This issue took off because of an emotional response people had to an incident. I guess that makes it like certain bad moral panics. Sure. But it also makes it like how Gandhi or Martin Luther King built movements off of small incidents that served to bring into the open the hatred and oppression that was always lurking below the surface. Nothing changed when Rosa Parks refused to move. It was something that had happened a million times before and the issue at its core had been a problem for most of century. But the incident helped make people aware of its injustice. But if you're comparing this current flag issue with those, then they're basically exact opposites. Yes, minor incidents can lead to massive, meaningful movements. But this was a serious incident that lead to a completely meaning less movement. And again, I'm not counting the removal of the flag from the city hall, because that is somewhat meaningful. I'm mostly talking about the nation-wide protest of the flag being anywhere. Didn't we cover that this is a fiction? Wait, are you saying retailers didn't pull confederate flag merchandise, or are you talking about something else? That's a business decision by a private entity. No one is calling for any type of legislative ban on the thing. And, uh, I didn't talk about any legislative ban...? o_O So then what's the problem? The whole, "Rallying against the flag is useless! We should be talking about real problems!" is cute, but it's an incredibly naive way to look at the world. Symbols have power. This is evident throughout all of human history. Making sure that that flag isn't implicitly sanctioned by the government via putting it on government property is a step towards racial equality.
"And again, I'm not counting the removal of the flag from the city hall, because that is somewhat meaningful. I'm mostly talking about the nation-wide protest of the flag being anywhere."
This is going to go on for a long time if I keep having to reiterate this.
I guess the most succinct way to put it is: 9 people were killed, and it led to a flag being removed from retail stores. Hence my starting point of scapegoating and moral panics.
On June 28 2015 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 08:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:42 Yoav wrote:On June 28 2015 08:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:23 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2015 08:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 07:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Reminds me of any other moral panic.
Now, sure, it shouldn't have been flying over the city hall (nor should any non-official flag), and it has negative connotations associated with it.
But I don't see how saying "this shooter liked a flag, ban the flag!" is any less asinine than "this shooter played Call of Duty, ban Call of Duty!" The confederate flag and Call of Duty are not even remotely comparable in the way that you are trying to compare them and misled outrage. Suffice it to say, you just don't understand the issue so of course it doesn't make sense to you. Gee then, thanks then for taking the time to make people understand how lashing out at an inanimate symbol is such an important matter. I don't see how this is remotely different than any other moral panic ever. Video games make kids violent. D&D turns children into satanists. Rock & Roll is making everyone have sex. Flags are making people racist. Your analogy makes it clear that you do not understand what the Confederate Flag means and how it operates in the public space of the United States, though make no mistake, I can hardly claim to have an expansive knowledge on such a thing either. What I will say is that this is not about moral panic, though there are characteristics that are similar because this is a sudden massive declaration of disapproval predicated on an act of mass violence. But in this case, the public backlash is related to the outcome of a war that played a fundamental role in how the cultural landscape of our country was formed and remains to this day. Naturally, contemporary times help break down borderlines, but the politics of the United States and their almost comical polarity should be evidence enough that this country has an identity problem, and one that almost always looks like one side versus the other when it comes down to it. And, as controversial as it is to lay down before the lordship of a symbol, Americans have a thing for flags; our songs talk about them, our schools place an importance on them, and people can be motivated to pretty extreme feelings when talking about how to treat them. Yes, this may seem foreign to you, but that's part of the point, now isn't it. Maybe my use of the phrase "moral panic" is throwing things off, but I'm not sure what else it would be called. Scapegoating, maybe? It's just like whenever a school shooting is followed up with discussions about which video games the shooter played. It's taking a very serious crime and a very real issue, and grasping at the most visible and easy target to focus attention on. (But also yes, the US seems to have a ridiculous thing for flags in general) This issue took off because of an emotional response people had to an incident. I guess that makes it like certain bad moral panics. Sure. But it also makes it like how Gandhi or Martin Luther King built movements off of small incidents that served to bring into the open the hatred and oppression that was always lurking below the surface. Nothing changed when Rosa Parks refused to move. It was something that had happened a million times before and the issue at its core had been a problem for most of century. But the incident helped make people aware of its injustice. But if you're comparing this current flag issue with those, then they're basically exact opposites. Yes, minor incidents can lead to massive, meaningful movements. But this was a serious incident that lead to a completely meaning less movement. And again, I'm not counting the removal of the flag from the city hall, because that is somewhat meaningful. I'm mostly talking about the nation-wide protest of the flag being anywhere. Didn't we cover that this is a fiction? Wait, are you saying retailers didn't pull confederate flag merchandise, or are you talking about something else? I'm saying stores choosing not to sell them is not a "nation wide protest" to remove them from everywhere...
They didn't just remove them on a whim. It's because the public wanted them gone (directly or indirectly), or the people running the stores saw an attitude toward the symbol where they couldn't sell them.
|
On June 28 2015 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 08:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:42 Yoav wrote:On June 28 2015 08:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:23 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2015 08:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 28 2015 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 07:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Reminds me of any other moral panic.
Now, sure, it shouldn't have been flying over the city hall (nor should any non-official flag), and it has negative connotations associated with it.
But I don't see how saying "this shooter liked a flag, ban the flag!" is any less asinine than "this shooter played Call of Duty, ban Call of Duty!" The confederate flag and Call of Duty are not even remotely comparable in the way that you are trying to compare them and misled outrage. Suffice it to say, you just don't understand the issue so of course it doesn't make sense to you. Gee then, thanks then for taking the time to make people understand how lashing out at an inanimate symbol is such an important matter. I don't see how this is remotely different than any other moral panic ever. Video games make kids violent. D&D turns children into satanists. Rock & Roll is making everyone have sex. Flags are making people racist. Your analogy makes it clear that you do not understand what the Confederate Flag means and how it operates in the public space of the United States, though make no mistake, I can hardly claim to have an expansive knowledge on such a thing either. What I will say is that this is not about moral panic, though there are characteristics that are similar because this is a sudden massive declaration of disapproval predicated on an act of mass violence. But in this case, the public backlash is related to the outcome of a war that played a fundamental role in how the cultural landscape of our country was formed and remains to this day. Naturally, contemporary times help break down borderlines, but the politics of the United States and their almost comical polarity should be evidence enough that this country has an identity problem, and one that almost always looks like one side versus the other when it comes down to it. And, as controversial as it is to lay down before the lordship of a symbol, Americans have a thing for flags; our songs talk about them, our schools place an importance on them, and people can be motivated to pretty extreme feelings when talking about how to treat them. Yes, this may seem foreign to you, but that's part of the point, now isn't it. Maybe my use of the phrase "moral panic" is throwing things off, but I'm not sure what else it would be called. Scapegoating, maybe? It's just like whenever a school shooting is followed up with discussions about which video games the shooter played. It's taking a very serious crime and a very real issue, and grasping at the most visible and easy target to focus attention on. (But also yes, the US seems to have a ridiculous thing for flags in general) This issue took off because of an emotional response people had to an incident. I guess that makes it like certain bad moral panics. Sure. But it also makes it like how Gandhi or Martin Luther King built movements off of small incidents that served to bring into the open the hatred and oppression that was always lurking below the surface. Nothing changed when Rosa Parks refused to move. It was something that had happened a million times before and the issue at its core had been a problem for most of century. But the incident helped make people aware of its injustice. But if you're comparing this current flag issue with those, then they're basically exact opposites. Yes, minor incidents can lead to massive, meaningful movements. But this was a serious incident that lead to a completely meaning less movement. And again, I'm not counting the removal of the flag from the city hall, because that is somewhat meaningful. I'm mostly talking about the nation-wide protest of the flag being anywhere. Didn't we cover that this is a fiction? Wait, are you saying retailers didn't pull confederate flag merchandise, or are you talking about something else? I'm saying stores choosing not to sell them is not a "nation wide protest" to remove them from everywhere... lol @ Jonny's innocently unsure attitude about the flag.
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
Edit: would be accurate if you called it a liberal attitude.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 15 2015 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
....
Seeing how quickly the media moved on when they found out it was a white guy has been pretty comical. You would think this would be an opportunity to see the common thread of mentally unstable people who need help, but I doubt it.
When brown and black people do things like this it will be "a sign of a much larger issue in the ____ community" and when white guys do it, it will be a 'bad apple' or 'isolated incident'.
I guess the media just hasn't yet figured out that the Charleston shooter is white.
Any day now they will, and they story will be buried 
|
On June 28 2015 09:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
....
Seeing how quickly the media moved on when they found out it was a white guy has been pretty comical. You would think this would be an opportunity to see the common thread of mentally unstable people who need help, but I doubt it.
When brown and black people do things like this it will be "a sign of a much larger issue in the ____ community" and when white guys do it, it will be a 'bad apple' or 'isolated incident'. I guess the media just hasn't yet figured out that the Charleston shooter is white. Any day now they will, and they story will be buried
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 28 2015 09:18 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 09:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 15 2015 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
....
Seeing how quickly the media moved on when they found out it was a white guy has been pretty comical. You would think this would be an opportunity to see the common thread of mentally unstable people who need help, but I doubt it.
When brown and black people do things like this it will be "a sign of a much larger issue in the ____ community" and when white guys do it, it will be a 'bad apple' or 'isolated incident'. I guess the media just hasn't yet figured out that the Charleston shooter is white. Any day now they will, and they story will be buried gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
8/8? gr8!!
|
Germany25649 Posts
|
On June 28 2015 02:18 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 01:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 27 2015 17:59 m4ini wrote:On June 27 2015 17:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 27 2015 17:11 Yoav wrote:On June 26 2015 23:23 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2015 23:16 Jormundr wrote:In a landmark opinion, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, handing gay rights advocates their biggest victory yet.
The 5-4 ruling had Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority, with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent. Source Most shocking thing about it is that its actually a 5-4 ruling. America still has a long way to go >< Oh fuck off and be happy it's done. It's nine old fucks in a job given for life; about as conservative a voting pool as could be found. We moved about as fast as Europe on this, and now we're done before you are even close. Enough of the condescension. Yeesh. You realize that the Netherlands was the first country to legalize gay marriage, 14 years ago, right? He said europe, not "netherlands". And in that regard he's right, as sad as it is. Well then all them Americans better stop celebrating because their continent has only just started. To be clear, when I say Europe, I mean EU. The US has no linked legislative or judicial powers with any other state in its continent except Puerto Rico. 28 European states do have common legislative and judicial powers. Your votes in EU elections help to govern every part of them, as my votes in federal elections help to govern the most benighted corners of my political union. Moreover, small states and large states have different issues, and the US's problems look a lot more like the EU's problems than they do like Italy or Denmark or Poland's problems. Not identical mind you, but more on the same level
Except the EU's legislative and executive powers do not include matters such as this one.
edit: why did Paljas get banned for his post and not Jonny for writing the exact same thing first?
edit 2: ok, Jonny has now received a warning, but the warning wasn't there when Paljas posted...
|
On June 28 2015 09:46 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 02:18 Yoav wrote:On June 28 2015 01:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 27 2015 17:59 m4ini wrote:On June 27 2015 17:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 27 2015 17:11 Yoav wrote:On June 26 2015 23:23 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2015 23:16 Jormundr wrote:In a landmark opinion, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, handing gay rights advocates their biggest victory yet.
The 5-4 ruling had Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority, with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent. Source Most shocking thing about it is that its actually a 5-4 ruling. America still has a long way to go >< Oh fuck off and be happy it's done. It's nine old fucks in a job given for life; about as conservative a voting pool as could be found. We moved about as fast as Europe on this, and now we're done before you are even close. Enough of the condescension. Yeesh. You realize that the Netherlands was the first country to legalize gay marriage, 14 years ago, right? He said europe, not "netherlands". And in that regard he's right, as sad as it is. Well then all them Americans better stop celebrating because their continent has only just started. To be clear, when I say Europe, I mean EU. The US has no linked legislative or judicial powers with any other state in its continent except Puerto Rico. 28 European states do have common legislative and judicial powers. Your votes in EU elections help to govern every part of them, as my votes in federal elections help to govern the most benighted corners of my political union. Moreover, small states and large states have different issues, and the US's problems look a lot more like the EU's problems than they do like Italy or Denmark or Poland's problems. Not identical mind you, but more on the same level Except the EU's legislative and executive powers do not include matters such as this one. edit: why did Paljas get banned for his post and not Jonny for writing the exact same thing first? edit 2: ok, Jonny has now received a warning, but the warning wasn't there when Paljas posted...
http://www.liquiddota.com/forum/closed-threads/32696-automated-ban-list-latest-mikejafard?page=1804#36080
A fun thread to skim in its own right  .
|
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, days before he is to formally announce he is running for U.S. president, tweeted a link on Saturday to a website touting his campaign. Featuring the slogan "Telling it like it is," the site, www.chrischristie.com, has slots for supporters to sign up and a button for donations. "Are you ready? Sign up. Donate. And help in our effort to keep #TellingItLikeItIs chrischristie.com," the governor said on Twitter. Christie, 52, is expected to announce on Tuesday that he will seek the Republican nomination for president in 2016, a source familiar with his plans said on Thursday.
Source
|
simplifies me in a weary mood:
![[image loading]](http://neobokrug.the-wastelands.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Rainbow-Puke.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
United States41995 Posts
On June 28 2015 08:12 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 08:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2015 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 07:43 killa_robot wrote:On June 28 2015 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 05:22 killa_robot wrote:
Kind of funny how people need big issues to happen to actually care about things. What the flag represents has never changed, yet only now people are like "I CAN'T WAIT ANY LONGER", to take it down, lol.
Seems like people just following whatever is popular at the time. People have been talking about it for decades, it was just finally too loud to ignore. Also because of all the attention, the person might not get the book thrown at them like they might have otherwise. Doesn't change the fact that people are overacting here. I agree the flag should be removed from government properties (not sure why it was allowed to begin with), but people are blowing things way out of proportion. Some crazy guy spouts racist crap and shoots up a church, and suddenly the confederate flag is too racist to fly anymore? It shouldn't have been flying to begin with, but that's the sort of connection that was made? How was the flag even brought up? Did the crazy guy have some connection with one? Not sure if it can be simply explained to someone from another country? Yes he did have a connection. + Show Spoiler +There's more if you look. It's not "suddenly too racist", suddenly the racists aren't powerful enough to keep flying it. Not everyone who likes the flag is racist though. Yes racists do adhere to it as a symbol, and therefore it is a problem, but a lot of people also identify with that flag and the Confederacy because that's the side that their ancestors fought for. My ancestors fought for Hitler. Maybe some peole shouldn't admire their ancestors
I dunno, vast majority of Germans fought for Germany. Also most soldiers in that war were colossal racists. You can still honour the dead although there is a cutoff when you're Japanese and honouring war criminals.
|
Well "Carly For America" changing their name to "CARLY for America" has got to be the best troll since Trump entered the race.
Should help Bernie make his points about campaign financing though.
|
On June 28 2015 10:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, days before he is to formally announce he is running for U.S. president, tweeted a link on Saturday to a website touting his campaign. Featuring the slogan "Telling it like it is," the site, www.chrischristie.com, has slots for supporters to sign up and a button for donations. "Are you ready? Sign up. Donate. And help in our effort to keep #TellingItLikeItIs chrischristie.com," the governor said on Twitter. Christie, 52, is expected to announce on Tuesday that he will seek the Republican nomination for president in 2016, a source familiar with his plans said on Thursday. Source
Yeah a silly little mistake right out of the gates, but even NJ doesn't like him, and we're used to having/ receiving tactless, arrogant, "fuck you" attitudes. Most of the country will just be offended by how he treats and speaks to people.
|
On June 29 2015 03:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2015 08:12 Paljas wrote:On June 28 2015 08:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2015 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 07:43 killa_robot wrote:On June 28 2015 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2015 05:22 killa_robot wrote:
Kind of funny how people need big issues to happen to actually care about things. What the flag represents has never changed, yet only now people are like "I CAN'T WAIT ANY LONGER", to take it down, lol.
Seems like people just following whatever is popular at the time. People have been talking about it for decades, it was just finally too loud to ignore. Also because of all the attention, the person might not get the book thrown at them like they might have otherwise. Doesn't change the fact that people are overacting here. I agree the flag should be removed from government properties (not sure why it was allowed to begin with), but people are blowing things way out of proportion. Some crazy guy spouts racist crap and shoots up a church, and suddenly the confederate flag is too racist to fly anymore? It shouldn't have been flying to begin with, but that's the sort of connection that was made? How was the flag even brought up? Did the crazy guy have some connection with one? Not sure if it can be simply explained to someone from another country? Yes he did have a connection. + Show Spoiler +There's more if you look. It's not "suddenly too racist", suddenly the racists aren't powerful enough to keep flying it. Not everyone who likes the flag is racist though. Yes racists do adhere to it as a symbol, and therefore it is a problem, but a lot of people also identify with that flag and the Confederacy because that's the side that their ancestors fought for. My ancestors fought for Hitler. Maybe some peole shouldn't admire their ancestors I dunno, vast majority of Germans fought for Germany. Also most soldiers in that war were colossal racists. You can still honour the dead although there is a cutoff when you're Japanese and honouring war criminals.
There's a difference between "honoring dead" (or empathizing with soldiers in a shitty situation) and flying the flag of a wicked cause that decent people may have gotten caught up in though family or national loyalty. Would it honor the German war dead to fly the Nazi flag? No, it would dishonor them by celebrating the evil that caused their suffering and death. The same is true of the Confederates. And let's be real, if the Confederacy had lasted to the 1940s, it wouldn't have been on the right side of that war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wLw3G8D.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XAvAjYe.png)
