|
On June 26 2015 15:06 419 wrote:
There are irresponsible racial/religious/political remarks/insults/cartoons, all justified in the name of free speech, meant to cause tensions or hate against various communities. Charlie hebdo and many other incidents happened as a result of it.
To the absurdity of that statement.
|
On June 26 2015 17:02 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 13:47 Barrin wrote:
Is there even any precedence for banning any sort of [physical] symbol in the US?
I cannot think of any.
We take "free spech" both liberally and seriously here; even money is considered a form of speech.
What would happen to all the people with confederate flag tattoos if it were a banned symbol? No, can't think of a precedent. I think the USA is heading down the wrong path, a path towards authoritarianism. The real sad thing is how so much media attention was given to this event when there were 54 shootings in Chicago (10 deaths) that weekend and thats "normal" for Chicago. http://gawker.com/5569299/chicagos-weekend-shooting-tally-10-dead-44-injured The shootings happened in the "bad" parts of town (read : black majority).If there's to be a national discussion on a rare racist event as what happened in the church where is the national debate about gang violence in places like Chicago which regularly sees over a dozen dead every weekend? Are the nine black deaths in S.C. worth "more" than the 10 black deaths in Chicago over that weekend? I guess it sells more papers or something.
Yes. It's worth more.
This is a moment in society where these lives were judged to be more valuable than those other lives. If you look at who were the victims of the shooting, they were upstanding figures in society instead of gangland fodder.
|
You can still buy Nazi propaganda and flags, Stalin onesies, Che shirts, and all other sorts of facist, racist, and genocide...ist symbols. Blocking the Confederate flag is just a cheap PR stunt that means nothing.
|
On June 26 2015 20:09 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 17:02 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On June 26 2015 13:47 Barrin wrote:
Is there even any precedence for banning any sort of [physical] symbol in the US?
I cannot think of any.
We take "free spech" both liberally and seriously here; even money is considered a form of speech.
What would happen to all the people with confederate flag tattoos if it were a banned symbol? No, can't think of a precedent. I think the USA is heading down the wrong path, a path towards authoritarianism. The real sad thing is how so much media attention was given to this event when there were 54 shootings in Chicago (10 deaths) that weekend and thats "normal" for Chicago. http://gawker.com/5569299/chicagos-weekend-shooting-tally-10-dead-44-injured The shootings happened in the "bad" parts of town (read : black majority).If there's to be a national discussion on a rare racist event as what happened in the church where is the national debate about gang violence in places like Chicago which regularly sees over a dozen dead every weekend? Are the nine black deaths in S.C. worth "more" than the 10 black deaths in Chicago over that weekend? I guess it sells more papers or something. Yes. It's worth more. This is a moment in society where these lives were judged to be more valuable than those other lives. If you look at who were the victims of the shooting, they were upstanding figures in society instead of gangland fodder.
What happened to #BlackLivesMatter ?
What this white guy did was shocking but you've got far more blacks shot in gang violence every weekend and theres no big outcry in the media/twitter.Pretty sad.
|
On June 26 2015 06:07 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 05:37 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 26 2015 05:29 Sonnington wrote:
My first thought was, "Damn, I better buy some because they're going to go up in price." Then I realized I couldn't buy them nor sell them anywhere. What am I going to do, post them on Craigslist?
The stars and bars is kinda like a swastika. So it's kinda bizarre that they were still flown at state capitols to begin with. In any event, this is the land of the free and home of the brave mother fuckers. We shouldn't prohibit people from buying a flag like they do in Germany. It's not kind of like a swatstika, it's almost exactly the same thing. Both symbols represent white supremacy, the only difference is that one believed in it through extermination and the other through slavery. We don't bat an eye at the idea that Nazi flags are banned in Germany, why should Confederate flags in the United States be any different? Swastika doesnt represnt white supremacy....white people where primary victims of Nazis and they (Nazis) cooperated with Japan and kinda contemplated alliances with Arabs. They were racist right, but not white superamcists.
Only because Germany had lost the war, if they had won the war the death toll would have told a very different story.
|
Nazis were very much white supremacists (Well, "Aryan" supremacists i guess). Pretty much the main teaching of the nazis was the supremacy of the "Aryan race"
The whole deal is a bit more weird then just "white", as it sometimes included a few other factors, and not every white person was equal to a nazi. I think the relationship with Japan was one of the few where non-white people were actually regarded as valuable, mostly because some key nazis were impressed with the imperial japanese "warrior culture". The himalayas were also weirdly involved with aryans if i recall correctly, there was a lot of very nonscientific racial theories underlying nazi culture.
But the main gist of it is that to a Nazi, unless you are of western european descent, which tends to involve being white, you are almost certainly inferior. So i guess Nazis also exclude a lot of white people from their list of worthy people, but to be worthy, you also have to be white.
The whole idea is obviously utterly nonsensical.
|
On June 26 2015 20:48 deth2munkies wrote:
You can still buy Nazi propaganda and flags, Stalin onesies, Che shirts, and all other sorts of facist, racist, and genocide...ist symbols. Blocking the Confederate flag is just a cheap PR stunt that means nothing.
You can still buy confederate items as well, just not flags. Shockingly, the same retailers don't sell Nazi flags as well.
|
On June 26 2015 18:53 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 15:06 419 wrote:
There are irresponsible racial/religious/political remarks/insults/cartoons, all justified in the name of free speech, meant to cause tensions or hate against various communities. Charlie hebdo and many other incidents happened as a result of it.
To the absurdity of that statement.
I made this comment. In what way is this absurd?
I'm not saying charlie hebdo was the sole reason for the killings. Of course the shooters were warped and twisted. But there was a reason why they were the targets. They published satirical anti religion articles that knowing that it would upset and insult a large community, knowing that it would incite hatred. How is that being responsible with what you publish. How was that not linked to the incident.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 12:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 12:08 Cascade wrote:
So all these people that complain about all the social justice warriors, do they identify themselves as social unjustice warriors? I actually struggle to understand how "social justice warrior" can be turned into an insult. People don't want social justice? I just find it a bit odd choice of phrase. I think it's generally the "warrior" part that is the issue. There's a very large, and very serious, difference between fighting for good causes and attacking people who fall somewhere in opposition to your cause. Or, I guess to put it better, bullying is bad, and using good causes as a cheap excuse to be a bully doesn't make it better. That said, you can't bully a corporation.
Yes, it's this right here. Not that people shouldn't push for 'social justice' - just the means and methods by which some people seek it is either hypocritical, childish, outlandish, or some combination thereof.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 13:09 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 12:15 Psychonian wrote:On June 26 2015 12:08 Cascade wrote:
So all these people that complain about all the social justice warriors, do they identify themselves as social unjustice warriors? I actually struggle to understand how "social justice warrior" can be turned into an insult. People don't want social justice? I just find it a bit odd choice of phrase. People use the term to make fun of people who do completely ridiculous things in the name of social justice. It's not that people who are anti-SJW are anti-social justice. It's that they disapprove of the things that people do in the name of social justice, e.g. doxxing, death threats, harassment, etc. social justice lol. whats the difference between social justice and justice, seriously. confederate flag issue has been a complete and utter joke. drummed up by the media just looking for drama. they couldnt let this event pass without getting something out of it. The people of Charleston took the high road, responding with love and forgiveness, the media didn't know how to react, so they went after a flag. Had there been riots in Charleston the race baiters would have been out in full force and we would be listening to Al Sharpton lecture us about white supremacy right now, but since they can't do that they had to go after a freakin flag.
This is a very good point I had not thought of. All I've seen out of Charleston has been a coming-together of the citizens down there, black & white. Peace/unity doesn't usually sell so well.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 12:52 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 12:49 Scarecrow wrote:
Not to turn this thread into one of those, but it's depressing that the reaction to Charleston is to ban a flag rather than the means of the killing. I'd much rather racists have flags than automatics. If anything should be banned, it is the ignorant southern public school curriculum that promotes Confederate apologist and "State's Rights" revisionist history. Just as I was taught back in Virginia. Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Can we add another no-brainer to the curriculum changes? + Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 14:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
straight, cis-gender, white, males, are losing the affirmative action for them that was America for 200+ years, people are going to be grumpy about it.
It's just one of those things. They had a sweet deal, now they have to take a fairer deal. Of course some are going to feel like they are getting the short side ("Why can't I say n****r?!?", "my family was poor too", "women have it easy when..."). They've never actually been on the short side. Any time they get anywhere near it they lose their shit. Look at how they behave at the thought they might have to look a bit harder to find a dumbass symbol of hate.
Stormfront and other supremacy groups are a bastion for SJW-bashers where they all laugh about the absurdity of the complaints of the 'PC' crowd all the while complaining about how a country with disproportionate Christian white male representation in practically any positions of power (especially in the Republican party) is being taken over/ruined by blacks, Muslims, liberals, Mexicans, etc...
It's absurd, it's racist, it's sad.
We all pretend like it's not right out there and people think they are clever using coded language it's what I've come to expect.
Then people who are just ignorant go using the same rhetoric thinking they are being edgy and clever in getting the same message out with the words people accept, usually in the form of an unbelievably stupid question.
(I suppose since I'm 3 of 4 of those I should say "we" instead of "they" for the first paragraph)
My grandparents came to the USA in the early 1900s. My dad is a 1st generation American. I am a 2nd generation American. My bloodlines had not even left Europe until long after the Civil War had ended. Yet I am supposed to be personally remorseful/responsible over slavery (no I don't think it is/was a good thing...) because I am a white male?
+ Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 22:10 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 18:53 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 15:06 419 wrote:
There are irresponsible racial/religious/political remarks/insults/cartoons, all justified in the name of free speech, meant to cause tensions or hate against various communities. Charlie hebdo and many other incidents happened as a result of it.
To the absurdity of that statement. I made this comment. In what way is this absurd? I'm not saying charlie hebdo was the sole reason for the killings. Of course the shooters were warped and twisted. But there was a reason why they were the targets. They published satirical anti religion articles that knowing that it would upset and insult a large community, knowing that it would incite hatred. How is that being responsible with what you publish. How was that not linked to the incident.
Because it implies that you should "think twice" before criticizing any group through pen or crayon, lest you be mowed down at your desk by an AK47.
|
On June 26 2015 20:48 deth2munkies wrote:
You can still buy Nazi propaganda and flags, Stalin onesies, Che shirts, and all other sorts of facist, racist, and genocide...ist symbols. Blocking the Confederate flag is just a cheap PR stunt that means nothing.
Well, i'd say it has to do something with where the flags are sold.. Naziflags are NOT sold in germany, but the confed-flag is no problem.
I just don't really understand the fuzz, you guys are all up and mighty about freedom and so on - but apparently if a company takes their right to not sell a specific thing for whatever reason (it's not like they need to justify it even), bring out the pitchforks.
I'll never understand how that "selective freedom for all!" works.
|
Companies can sell or not sell whatever they please? /end thread?
|
On June 26 2015 23:21 heliusx wrote:
Companies can sell or not sell whatever they please? /end thread?
Its only an issue if you believe "self censorship" is evil and the result of PC bullies, rather than regard for other people.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On June 26 2015 21:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:09 TanGeng wrote:On June 26 2015 17:02 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On June 26 2015 13:47 Barrin wrote:
Is there even any precedence for banning any sort of [physical] symbol in the US?
I cannot think of any.
We take "free spech" both liberally and seriously here; even money is considered a form of speech.
What would happen to all the people with confederate flag tattoos if it were a banned symbol? No, can't think of a precedent. I think the USA is heading down the wrong path, a path towards authoritarianism. The real sad thing is how so much media attention was given to this event when there were 54 shootings in Chicago (10 deaths) that weekend and thats "normal" for Chicago. http://gawker.com/5569299/chicagos-weekend-shooting-tally-10-dead-44-injured The shootings happened in the "bad" parts of town (read : black majority).If there's to be a national discussion on a rare racist event as what happened in the church where is the national debate about gang violence in places like Chicago which regularly sees over a dozen dead every weekend? Are the nine black deaths in S.C. worth "more" than the 10 black deaths in Chicago over that weekend? I guess it sells more papers or something. Yes. It's worth more. This is a moment in society where these lives were judged to be more valuable than those other lives. If you look at who were the victims of the shooting, they were upstanding figures in society instead of gangland fodder. What happened to #BlackLivesMatter ? What this white guy did was shocking but you've got far more blacks shot in gang violence every weekend and theres no big outcry in the media/twitter.Pretty sad.
Well damn.
#BlackLivesMatter.
Have we met our hash tag quota?
|
On June 26 2015 22:41 pNRG wrote:? + Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 22:10 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 18:53 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 15:06 419 wrote:
There are irresponsible racial/religious/political remarks/insults/cartoons, all justified in the name of free speech, meant to cause tensions or hate against various communities. Charlie hebdo and many other incidents happened as a result of it.
To the absurdity of that statement. I made this comment. In what way is this absurd? I'm not saying charlie hebdo was the sole reason for the killings. Of course the shooters were warped and twisted. But there was a reason why they were the targets. They published satirical anti religion articles that knowing that it would upset and insult a large community, knowing that it would incite hatred. How is that being responsible with what you publish. How was that not linked to the incident. Because it implies that you should "think twice" before criticizing any group through pen or crayon, lest you be mowed down at your desk by an AK47.
But it also implies that it is not necessary to watch what you say, because it is perfectly fine to criticise or insult any group for any reason. I think that's wrong.
You should be responsible for what you say, not because you are afraid of getting killed, but because you are respectful to other's beliefs
|
On June 26 2015 21:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 20:09 TanGeng wrote:On June 26 2015 17:02 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On June 26 2015 13:47 Barrin wrote:
Is there even any precedence for banning any sort of [physical] symbol in the US?
I cannot think of any.
We take "free spech" both liberally and seriously here; even money is considered a form of speech.
What would happen to all the people with confederate flag tattoos if it were a banned symbol? No, can't think of a precedent. I think the USA is heading down the wrong path, a path towards authoritarianism. The real sad thing is how so much media attention was given to this event when there were 54 shootings in Chicago (10 deaths) that weekend and thats "normal" for Chicago. http://gawker.com/5569299/chicagos-weekend-shooting-tally-10-dead-44-injured The shootings happened in the "bad" parts of town (read : black majority).If there's to be a national discussion on a rare racist event as what happened in the church where is the national debate about gang violence in places like Chicago which regularly sees over a dozen dead every weekend? Are the nine black deaths in S.C. worth "more" than the 10 black deaths in Chicago over that weekend? I guess it sells more papers or something. Yes. It's worth more. This is a moment in society where these lives were judged to be more valuable than those other lives. If you look at who were the victims of the shooting, they were upstanding figures in society instead of gangland fodder. What happened to #BlackLivesMatter ? What this white guy did was shocking but you've got far more blacks shot in gang violence every weekend and theres no big outcry in the media/twitter.Pretty sad.
You're obviously doing some half assed conservative concern trolling, but Chicago's gang issues, particularly how prevelant they are while having some of the hardest gun laws in the nation, is constantly talked about. Shit it's like the go to trump card for NRA members and conservatives when talking about gun control.
This is obviously getting more play because it's not very often that a white person walks into a black church to murder them all in an effort to ignite a race war
|
Let me preface this with the following:
Retailers have no obligation to carry any item. They can choose what items to stock, what items to list on their websites, and what items to sell. This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech and has absolutely nothing with YOUR ability to own or fly a confederate flag.
In this case, the retailers are choosing not to carry this item because they see it as hateful and they don't want to be associated with it. You will notice Amazon.com also does not sell Nazi flags for the same reason. The confederate flag was created by people who decided to form their own country and declare war against the United States because they believed that they should have the right to enslave another races. I don't know about you but this seems hateful. They are doing so out of their own free will and it is 100% up to them whether they sell these items or not.
Similarly, calls to remove the confederate flag from PUBLIC (government) monuments/places do not impact YOUR right to own a confederate flag and fly it above your house if you so choose. The same way that you're free to fly a Nazi flag.
Watch these, also:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 26 2015 18:46 Musicus wrote:
Not sure what the problem is. A business can choose to display the flag or not. Currently it's a good PR move to remove it. It's not like there is a law that forbids the flag right?
You are correct.
|
I always figured people down here used the flag for convenience. It's ubiquitously understood as an unofficial "flag of the south" that every southerner could rally behind in their mutual dislike of the north. At least that's how people treated it where I grew up. Plenty of black people agreed with our vision of hating the arrogant yankees and flew the flag. But Louisiana is quite a bit different from the rest of the south, I'd be unsurprised if it was a symbol of racism in other southern states
|
here is the shooter's suicide note
nsfw the homepage is nsfw
+ Show Spoiler +http://lastrhodesian.com/data/documents/rtf88.txt
|
On June 27 2015 02:32 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 22:41 pNRG wrote:? + Show Spoiler +On June 26 2015 22:10 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 18:53 SixStrings wrote:On June 26 2015 15:06 419 wrote:
There are irresponsible racial/religious/political remarks/insults/cartoons, all justified in the name of free speech, meant to cause tensions or hate against various communities. Charlie hebdo and many other incidents happened as a result of it.
To the absurdity of that statement. I made this comment. In what way is this absurd? I'm not saying charlie hebdo was the sole reason for the killings. Of course the shooters were warped and twisted. But there was a reason why they were the targets. They published satirical anti religion articles that knowing that it would upset and insult a large community, knowing that it would incite hatred. How is that being responsible with what you publish. How was that not linked to the incident. Because it implies that you should "think twice" before criticizing any group through pen or crayon, lest you be mowed down at your desk by an AK47. But it also implies that it is not necessary to watch what you say, because it is perfectly fine to criticise or insult any group for any reason. I think that's wrong. You should be responsible for what you say, not because you are afraid of getting killed, but because you are respectful to other's beliefs
I grew up in Asia as well. What you describe is not being respectful. It is just conflict avoidance, burying disagreements below the surface to avoid uncomfortable discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
