|
Mexico2170 Posts
There is a difference. For example (i don't mean this, its just an example). I can say that I don't like homosexuals, and that would be like, my opinion, I'm not insulting anyone, Its just free speech. Or I could say that homosexuals are despicable people that make me sick, and I'd punch them in the face if I had the opportunity. This second one is not free speech, its licentiousness, its being mean, its not respecting other people, and people who believe insult others is part of their "freedom of speech" don't know what that truly means.
Those charlie hebdo guys posted an image of muhammed kissing another man. They shouldn't have been killed, I'm not justifying the muslims, but that wasn't right either.
Talking about the confederate flag, altough I'm not from the US I find it crazy that people keep using one of the flags of the losing faction of a civil war that happened 150 years ago. Its ridiculous, and more if its associated with racism. It shouldn't be displayed in public, specially on goverment buildings. And the goverment shoudl actively look to deincentivice its use, however they shouldn't ban it.
Also, Apple banning civil war games from its app store its stupid too.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
The flag does symbolise the South in its totality. It includes the numerous black population. It includes the racist rednecks. Including the distain for northern folks. It include the southern culture.
The flag also means different things to different people. Its association with racism is very deep for some folks. But the problem with this sort of symbolism depends on how it is used. The symbol itself does nothing.
Banning the symbolism doesn't do very much to solve the underlying problems.
|
United States7483 Posts
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
People should say what they want. It means others can correct your misguided notions when you say something stupid, before you act on it. It also means you can correct other's misguided ideas before they act on them.
Society develops off of the shared discourse of ideas. If you refuse to share ideas because you are worried about conflict, there can be no discourse of that idea, and nothing improves.
Everyone has the right to have an opinion, and I respect that. I do not have to respect the opinion itself. Respect people, not their ideas.
|
Well its also a matter of freedom that companies can remove symbols or whatever if they want to.
|
On June 27 2015 05:52 Redox wrote:
Well its also a matter of freedom that companies can remove symbols or whatever if they want to.
Agreed. Besides I'm sure you can still buy a confederate flag somewhere.
|
On June 27 2015 05:39 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a difference. For example (i don't mean this, its just an example). I can say that I don't like homosexuals, and that would be like, my opinion, I'm not insulting anyone, Its just free speech. Or I could say that homosexuals are despicable people that make me sick, and I'd punch them in the face if I had the opportunity. This second one is not free speech, its licentiousness, its being mean, its not respecting other people, and people who believe insult others is part of their "freedom of speech" don't know what that truly means.
Those charlie hebdo guys posted an image of muhammed kissing another man. They shouldn't have been killed, I'm not justifying the muslims, but that wasn't right either.
Talking about the confederate flag, altough I'm not from the US I find it crazy that people keep using one of the flags of the losing faction of a civil war that happened 150 years ago. Its ridiculous, and more if its associated with racism. It shouldn't be displayed in public, specially on goverment buildings. And the goverment shoudl actively look to deincentivice its use, however they shouldn't ban it.
Also, Apple banning civil war games from its app store its stupid too.
Umm no. Free speech includes insulting people.
So many people don't grasp the concept of the first amendment in America. It's quite staggering how many people are completely wrong and misinformed on the matter. Freedom of Speech doesn't include the freedom to not be insulted or offended. So many think my first amendment rights stop where your feelings begin and that's dead wrong. If that was the case the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK would be illegal groups. Those groups are protected under the first amendment even if all they do is hurt people's feelings and offend. It is their constitutional right to exist and spout bullshit, anyone who tries to infringe on those rights gets sued and lines their pockets. Charlie Hebdo did nothing wrong. They were openly expressing their ideas. No one deserves to die solely based on their ideas and words. Expressing your thoughts, feelings, and ideas on the open marketplace of free ideas is what it is about. Someone else can tell you your ideas are stupid as fuck and you're an asshole and that's their right, it isn't their right to assault or kill you. Good ideas eventually start to win out and old stupid ideas fall by the wayside. But its only an open marketplace for free exchange if all ideas are allowed, no matter how awful or how offensive.
People can fly their confederate flag on private property all they like. The constitution says so. I can hate the flag all I want just as I hate the KKK and the WBC, but they're allowed to do that and I agree they should be allowed to do it on their own property. Just because you personally dislike something doesn't mean you don't support someone's right to do it. There are plenty of things I don't personally agree with but support the right to. Plus the confederate flag is a great way to identify idiots!
Retailers have every right to sell or not sell whatever they like for whatever reason they like. They don't have to stock a flag, they don't have to stock your favorite brand of socks, or my preferred shampoo. The government can't and isn't telling them what to stock, they're doing it on their own whether by choice of appealing to the public.
Flying the confederate flag on government property can be seen as endorsing of the flag and what it stands for. The government shouldn't be giving a thumbs up to the civil war south, slavery, or hatred. Removal of the flag has nothing to do with the first amendment.
|
On June 27 2015 04:39 FFGenerations wrote:here is the shooter's suicide note nsfw the homepage is nsfw + Show Spoiler +http://lastrhodesian.com/data/documents/rtf88.txt
Thanks for this.
Hmm, nice to see that he didn't sound like a complete lunatic... I dunno, at least he had a basis for his arguments, instead of silly like that guy who killed 7 women because he couldn't get them to like them.
I think this is a pretty common unspoken viewpoint in Slovakia to gypsies from what I've seen. Seems like it's something that's gaining more traction in Europe... Every single white person I've talked to that immigrated from Western Europe to Canada is always telling me they left because of an increasing Muslim or Black population (in Canada they are integrated better I think). Anti-immigration laws are only going to get stronger with time in Europe.
|
"no one doing anything but talking on the internet." Is a pretty sober viewpoint indeed. Anyone can basically brainwash themself into strong beliefs about anything backed up with hobby science.
If you know where to look you can always find someone to reinforce your beliefs no matter what they might be.
|
On June 27 2015 05:13 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 02:32 DucK- wrote: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.
On June 27 2015 05:50 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 02:32 DucK- wrote: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 People should say what they want. It means others can correct your misguided notions when you say something stupid, before you act on it. It also means you can correct other's misguided ideas before they act on them. Society develops off of the shared discourse of ideas. If you refuse to share ideas because you are worried about conflict, there can be no discourse of that idea, and nothing improves. Everyone has the right to have an opinion, and I respect that. I do not have to respect the opinion itself. Respect people, not their ideas.
No one is saying you cannot talk about race or religion. You simply shouldn't be insulting them. Constructive discussions don't involve insults. You are not respecting a person if what you're doing is simply mocking or derogatory remarks/illustrations on things they view important, especially if you know you would hurt them. You can call anyone's mom on a street a whore/slut or whatever, that doesn't mean you should be doing it.
On June 27 2015 05:39 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a difference. For example (i don't mean this, its just an example). I can say that I don't like homosexuals, and that would be like, my opinion, I'm not insulting anyone, Its just free speech. Or I could say that homosexuals are despicable people that make me sick, and I'd punch them in the face if I had the opportunity. This second one is not free speech, its licentiousness, its being mean, its not respecting other people, and people who believe insult others is part of their "freedom of speech" don't know what that truly means.
Those charlie hebdo guys posted an image of muhammed kissing another man. They shouldn't have been killed, I'm not justifying the muslims, but that wasn't right either.
Talking about the confederate flag, altough I'm not from the US I find it crazy that people keep using one of the flags of the losing faction of a civil war that happened 150 years ago. Its ridiculous, and more if its associated with racism. It shouldn't be displayed in public, specially on goverment buildings. And the goverment shoudl actively look to deincentivice its use, however they shouldn't ban it.
Also, Apple banning civil war games from its app store its stupid too.
Exactly.
On June 27 2015 06:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:39 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a difference. For example (i don't mean this, its just an example). I can say that I don't like homosexuals, and that would be like, my opinion, I'm not insulting anyone, Its just free speech. Or I could say that homosexuals are despicable people that make me sick, and I'd punch them in the face if I had the opportunity. This second one is not free speech, its licentiousness, its being mean, its not respecting other people, and people who believe insult others is part of their "freedom of speech" don't know what that truly means.
Those charlie hebdo guys posted an image of muhammed kissing another man. They shouldn't have been killed, I'm not justifying the muslims, but that wasn't right either.
Talking about the confederate flag, altough I'm not from the US I find it crazy that people keep using one of the flags of the losing faction of a civil war that happened 150 years ago. Its ridiculous, and more if its associated with racism. It shouldn't be displayed in public, specially on goverment buildings. And the goverment shoudl actively look to deincentivice its use, however they shouldn't ban it.
Also, Apple banning civil war games from its app store its stupid too. Umm no. Free speech includes insulting people. So many people don't grasp the concept of the first amendment in America. It's quite staggering how many people are completely wrong and misinformed on the matter. Freedom of Speech doesn't include the freedom to not be insulted or offended. So many think my first amendment rights stop where your feelings begin and that's dead wrong. If that was the case the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK would be illegal groups. Those groups are protected under the first amendment even if all they do is hurt people's feelings and offend. It is their constitutional right to exist and spout bullshit, anyone who tries to infringe on those rights gets sued and lines their pockets. Charlie Hebdo did nothing wrong. They were openly expressing their ideas. No one deserves to die solely based on their ideas and words. Expressing your thoughts, feelings, and ideas on the open marketplace of free ideas is what it is about. Someone else can tell you your ideas are stupid as fuck and you're an asshole and that's their right, it isn't their right to assault or kill you. Good ideas eventually start to win out and old stupid ideas fall by the wayside. But its only an open marketplace for free exchange if all ideas are allowed, no matter how awful or how offensive. People can fly their confederate flag on private property all they like. The constitution says so. I can hate the flag all I want just as I hate the KKK and the WBC, but they're allowed to do that and I agree they should be allowed to do it on their own property. Just because you personally dislike something doesn't mean you don't support someone's right to do it. There are plenty of things I don't personally agree with but support the right to. Plus the confederate flag is a great way to identify idiots! Retailers have every right to sell or not sell whatever they like for whatever reason they like. They don't have to stock a flag, they don't have to stock your favorite brand of socks, or my preferred shampoo. The government can't and isn't telling them what to stock, they're doing it on their own whether by choice of appealing to the public. Flying the confederate flag on government property can be seen as endorsing of the flag and what it stands for. The government shouldn't be giving a thumbs up to the civil war south, slavery, or hatred. Removal of the flag has nothing to do with the first amendment.
I don't deny that they have this right. What I'm saying is this right should be restricted or amended, because it is a selfish policy that does more harm than good to the public.
|
On June 27 2015 15:59 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 06:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 27 2015 05:39 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a difference. For example (i don't mean this, its just an example). I can say that I don't like homosexuals, and that would be like, my opinion, I'm not insulting anyone, Its just free speech. Or I could say that homosexuals are despicable people that make me sick, and I'd punch them in the face if I had the opportunity. This second one is not free speech, its licentiousness, its being mean, its not respecting other people, and people who believe insult others is part of their "freedom of speech" don't know what that truly means.
Those charlie hebdo guys posted an image of muhammed kissing another man. They shouldn't have been killed, I'm not justifying the muslims, but that wasn't right either.
Talking about the confederate flag, altough I'm not from the US I find it crazy that people keep using one of the flags of the losing faction of a civil war that happened 150 years ago. Its ridiculous, and more if its associated with racism. It shouldn't be displayed in public, specially on goverment buildings. And the goverment shoudl actively look to deincentivice its use, however they shouldn't ban it.
Also, Apple banning civil war games from its app store its stupid too. Umm no. Free speech includes insulting people. So many people don't grasp the concept of the first amendment in America. It's quite staggering how many people are completely wrong and misinformed on the matter. Freedom of Speech doesn't include the freedom to not be insulted or offended. So many think my first amendment rights stop where your feelings begin and that's dead wrong. If that was the case the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK would be illegal groups. Those groups are protected under the first amendment even if all they do is hurt people's feelings and offend. It is their constitutional right to exist and spout bullshit, anyone who tries to infringe on those rights gets sued and lines their pockets. Charlie Hebdo did nothing wrong. They were openly expressing their ideas. No one deserves to die solely based on their ideas and words. Expressing your thoughts, feelings, and ideas on the open marketplace of free ideas is what it is about. Someone else can tell you your ideas are stupid as fuck and you're an asshole and that's their right, it isn't their right to assault or kill you. Good ideas eventually start to win out and old stupid ideas fall by the wayside. But its only an open marketplace for free exchange if all ideas are allowed, no matter how awful or how offensive. People can fly their confederate flag on private property all they like. The constitution says so. I can hate the flag all I want just as I hate the KKK and the WBC, but they're allowed to do that and I agree they should be allowed to do it on their own property. Just because you personally dislike something doesn't mean you don't support someone's right to do it. There are plenty of things I don't personally agree with but support the right to. Plus the confederate flag is a great way to identify idiots! Retailers have every right to sell or not sell whatever they like for whatever reason they like. They don't have to stock a flag, they don't have to stock your favorite brand of socks, or my preferred shampoo. The government can't and isn't telling them what to stock, they're doing it on their own whether by choice of appealing to the public. Flying the confederate flag on government property can be seen as endorsing of the flag and what it stands for. The government shouldn't be giving a thumbs up to the civil war south, slavery, or hatred. Removal of the flag has nothing to do with the first amendment. I don't deny that they have this right. What I'm saying is this right should be restricted or amended, because it is a selfish policy that does more harm than good to the public.
It is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most important right that exists. Without freedom of speech there are no other rights. It is the absolute pinnacle of importance. It protects the public from actual harm, not this hurt feelings BS. It will never be changed, certainly not in my lifetime.
|
How long until flag makers take up arms against this flagrant injustice?
|
On June 27 2015 17:21 Dagobert wrote:
How long until flag makers take up arms against this flagrant injustice?
How long until the US stops caring about flags so much in general?
|
On June 27 2015 17:21 Dagobert wrote:
How long until flag makers take up arms against this flagrant injustice?
Vexillologists of the world, UNITE
|
I don't get how this lasted 12 pages, the entire case of the "confederate flag" is a pretty open and shut case. Firstly, a bit of history is important. Confederate flags were not really waved post Civil War. Why? Well, any flag from the confederacy was one dealing with the South separating from the North. This general rule followed until the civil rights movement around the 50s/60s where the battle flag was raised. More specifically, it was used to intimidate black people, show the hatred for civil rights, and so forth.
Even the statue that the stupid flag was raised for in front of the SC capitol was a direct reaction to the civil rights movement. You can read more about it here: http://www.scpronet.com/point/9909/p04.html , Furthermore, discussion for that flag to be removed is literally decades old. Anyone who thinks that flag should be waving in front of government property doesn't understand how the government works.
More on topic however, now that this is out of the way, is that yes, Wal-Mart and any other company can ban it. Is it reactionary? yes. are they doing this for easy points with their consumers? of course! look at who their base is: mostly lower class people and guess how many people in the lower class are black? well... a lot.
|
This reminds me of the movie Independence Day but instead of people going after the mother ship they chase around all the tiny ships instead. No one wants to talk about the big problem, just argue semantics with one another.
|
On June 27 2015 18:07 ARGLyov wrote:I don't get how this lasted 12 pages, the entire case of the "confederate flag" is a pretty open and shut case. Firstly, a bit of history is important. Confederate flags were not really waved post Civil War. Why? Well, any flag from the confederacy was one dealing with the South separating from the North. This general rule followed until the civil rights movement around the 50s/60s where the battle flag was raised. More specifically, it was used to intimidate black people, show the hatred for civil rights, and so forth. Even the statue that the stupid flag was raised for in front of the SC capitol was a direct reaction to the civil rights movement. You can read more about it here: http://www.scpronet.com/point/9909/p04.html , Furthermore, discussion for that flag to be removed is literally decades old. Anyone who thinks that flag should be waving in front of government property doesn't understand how the government works. More on topic however, now that this is out of the way, is that yes, Wal-Mart and any other company can ban it. Is it reactionary? yes. are they doing this for easy points with their consumers? of course! look at who their base is: mostly lower class people and guess how many people in the lower class are black? well... a lot.
I suspect when the OP abandoned the thread it was pretty much done with. Still haven't decided whether I'm surprised at TL's response to it or not though.
|
On June 27 2015 05:46 TanGeng wrote:
The flag does symbolise the South in its totality. It includes the numerous black population. It includes the racist rednecks. Including the distain for northern folks. It include the southern culture.
The flag also means different things to different people. Its association with racism is very deep for some folks. But the problem with this sort of symbolism depends on how it is used. The symbol itself does nothing.
Banning the symbolism doesn't do very much to solve the underlying problems.
You could even say the banning is purely symbolic.
Seems like a way for media and government to look like they're serious about racism without addressing the root of the problem. Charleston didn't happen because of a flag.
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 27 2015 05:39 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a difference. For example (i don't mean this, its just an example). I can say that I don't like homosexuals, and that would be like, my opinion, I'm not insulting anyone, Its just free speech. Or I could say that homosexuals are despicable people that make me sick, and I'd punch them in the face if I had the opportunity. This second one is not free speech, its licentiousness, its being mean, its not respecting other people, and people who believe insult others is part of their "freedom of speech" don't know what that truly means.
Those charlie hebdo guys posted an image of muhammed kissing another man. They shouldn't have been killed, I'm not justifying the muslims, but that wasn't right either.
Talking about the confederate flag, altough I'm not from the US I find it crazy that people keep using one of the flags of the losing faction of a civil war that happened 150 years ago. Its ridiculous, and more if its associated with racism. It shouldn't be displayed in public, specially on goverment buildings. And the goverment shoudl actively look to deincentivice its use, however they shouldn't ban it.
Also, Apple banning civil war games from its app store its stupid too.
Sorry, but saying you don't like homosexuals IS an insult. An idea isn't more or less insulting based off of the fact that it's just your opinion. It's still free speech, but that doesn't make it less of an insult. You are stating you don't like people based on who they are. That's an insult. Sometimes it's a good thing to be insulting, sometimes it isn't, but trying to pretend it isn't an insult is silly.
Ideas are not sacred, the virtue of being an opinion does not make an idea sacred.
|
On June 29 2015 07:41 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:39 [Phantom] wrote:
There is a difference. For example (i don't mean this, its just an example). I can say that I don't like homosexuals, and that would be like, my opinion, I'm not insulting anyone, Its just free speech. Or I could say that homosexuals are despicable people that make me sick, and I'd punch them in the face if I had the opportunity. This second one is not free speech, its licentiousness, its being mean, its not respecting other people, and people who believe insult others is part of their "freedom of speech" don't know what that truly means.
Those charlie hebdo guys posted an image of muhammed kissing another man. They shouldn't have been killed, I'm not justifying the muslims, but that wasn't right either.
Talking about the confederate flag, altough I'm not from the US I find it crazy that people keep using one of the flags of the losing faction of a civil war that happened 150 years ago. Its ridiculous, and more if its associated with racism. It shouldn't be displayed in public, specially on goverment buildings. And the goverment shoudl actively look to deincentivice its use, however they shouldn't ban it.
Also, Apple banning civil war games from its app store its stupid too. Sorry, but saying you don't like homosexuals IS an insult. An idea isn't more or less insulting based off of the fact that it's just your opinion. It's still free speech, but that doesn't make it less of an insult. You are stating you don't like people based on who they are. That's an insult. Sometimes it's a good thing to be insulting, sometimes it isn't, but trying to pretend it isn't an insult is silly. Ideas are not sacred, the virtue of being an opinion does not make an idea sacred.
You have the freedom to insult others. I have the freedom to call you a bigot. America!
|
On June 26 2015 18:04 Velr wrote:
Uhm... Shot people due to gang shootings or "normal" crime are obviously not the same as a fucking bigot entering a church killing innocent people because he didn't like their skin color.
Both things are bad, but one is clearly worse, if you can't see that I don't know what else to tell you.
The only reason why there is gang violence in Chicago is because of the systematic disenfranchisement of the black minority race as a whole. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't some black folks who aren't part of the problem (as in they are simply too lazy, make too many stupid decisions, etc.) however I could argue that the gang violence is a much worse and much bigger problem, especially considering that the only reason why these gangs exist is because the fact that whites systematically have been attempting to disenfranchise African Americans forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
