Major companies are choosing to ban content and/or remove merchandise that contain the confederate flag.
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace. They're also blocking advertisements involving the flag. They say, "We have determined that the Confederate flag violates our Ads policies, which don't allow content that's generally perceived as expressing hate toward a particular group."
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
Major online merchant websites like eBay and Amazon have already taken the step of banning merchandise relating to the flag.
I basically ranted on PC related issues in the spoiler below. You can read this and address if you like or just discuss the primary topic of the flag. Edit: Spoilered this + Show Spoiler +
I'm personally fed up with how PC the American society has become. For a nation that is supposed to be free, we are sure being hypocrites. People want to tear down monuments of generals who fought in the south because it is offensive to minorities. In Atlanta, Georgia a fireman was fired because he doesn't support homosexuality. ( Source ) Are we losing our minds in this nation or am I the age where I'm paying attention better and this has always been happening?
Even Hilary Clinton has been accused of insulting minorities for saying "All lives matter" in her latest speech. Written news from Black Republican Herman Cain
You're not allowed to say "all lives matter" because the left has established a mantra - with a hashtag, even, and nothing could make a mantra more official than that - of declaring that #blacklivesmatter. You have to say it right. You have to say it the way they want you to say it. No variations allowed. Professor Judith Butler of UC Berkeley explains why there can be no exceptions to the speech code:
“When some people rejoin with ‘All Lives Matter’ they misunderstand the problem, but not because their message is untrue,” she wrote. “It is true that all lives matter, but it is equally true that not all lives are understood to matter which is precisely why it is most important to name the lives that have not mattered, and are struggling to matter in the way they deserve.”
Here is a compilation of what those generals were fighting for, in their own words and the words of the statesmen of the time (spoiler: it's to maintain slavery as in institution).
Well are we talking about the Confederate flag or all PC issues? Because they are different topics and rabbit holes to go down into.
My take is that people who claim the Confederate flag is nothing but a symbol of Southern pride and patriotism are either lying to themselves or everyone else. The battle flag wasn't even used very much by the Confederacy, and was only proudly put on display as a response to the civil rights movement in the 1960's, so claiming that flying it is some sort of tribute to your ancestors is laughable, unless those ancestors were racist. There is no excuse for it to be flying over government buildings or in public spaces, because it is the symbol of a nation that rebelled against the United States and lost. I cannot think of any country in the world that proudly displays symbols associated with a rebellious faction 150 years after that faction was put down.
However, it is a person's right to display this flag on their property, and if they want to do so they need to be able to get it somewhere. In the same vein, it is a business' right to carry Confederacy memorabilia, and they did so right up until it no longer benefit them from a financial and PR standpoint. I think the flag is fine on war monuments and in historical contexts, because removing it from those contexts is bordering on revisionist history and I'd rather not people forget the Civil War. But there is a fine line between showing and depicting Civil War imagery and endorsing the Confederacy. Fine enough that I think it is inappropriate to claim that war memorials or historical depictions of the flag are racist.
Also, Apple removing all Civil War games due to their depiction of the flag is ridiculous. US History is important, and the Confederacy is a part of our history whether we like it or not, just like slavery, the trail of tears, Japanese internment, and the atomic bomb. Games that simulate the Civil War or depict that part of US History should not be prohibited from depicting something as simple as a flag, unless that symbol is used in an active endorsement of slavery or racism.
On June 26 2015 04:09 ZasZ. wrote: Well are we talking about the Confederate flag or all PC issues? Because they are different topics and rabbit holes to go down into.
My take is that people who claim the Confederate flag is nothing but a symbol of Southern pride and patriotism are either lying to themselves or everyone else. The battle flag wasn't even used very much by the Confederacy, and was only proudly put on display as a response to the civil rights movement in the 1960's, so claiming that flying it is some sort of tribute to your ancestors is laughable, unless those ancestors were racist. There is no excuse for it to be flying over government buildings or in public spaces, because it is the symbol of a nation that rebelled against the United States and lost. I cannot think of any country in the world that proudly displays symbols associated with a rebellious faction 150 years after that faction was put down.
However, it is a person's right to display this flag on their property, and if they want to do so they need to be able to get it somewhere. In the same vein, it is a business' right to carry Confederacy memorabilia, and they did so right up until it no longer benefit them from a financial and PR standpoint. I think the flag is fine on war monuments and in historical contexts, because removing it from those contexts is bordering on revisionist history and I'd rather not people forget the Civil War. But there is a fine line between showing and depicting Civil War imagery and endorsing the Confederacy. Fine enough that I think it is inappropriate to claim that war memorials or historical depictions of the flag are racist.
Also, Apple removing all Civil War games due to their depiction of the flag is ridiculous. US History is important, and the Confederacy is a part of our history whether we like it or not, just like slavery, the trail of tears, Japanese internment, and the atomic bomb. Games that simulate the Civil War or depict that part of US History should not be prohibited from depicting something as simple as a flag, unless that symbol is used in an active endorsement of slavery or racism.
I agree with this. Don't fly it above government buildings, but don't ban history. That is why I'm outraged. How are better then any other tyrannical nation if we bury our past?
edit: Spoilered my PC rant above to keep the topic to one subject.
Just remember, the flag that we know as Confederate Flag is one of many flags used during that war. And it only became well known as the Confederate Flag during the 1950-60s along side the civil rights movement.
Also, after 9/11, TV shows pushed back episodes having to do with bombings and plane crashes. Radios changed their play lists. After most school shooting the same things happened. Its not like we don't listen to those songs any more those episodes were never shown. People will be able to buy these flags again, but maybe not at Walmart.
I concur. Apple banning history based games from the app store because they depict the flag is insanity. These games don't seek to glorify anything, they're just trying to have some semblance of historical accuracy.
And banning a flag that symbolises racial hate whilst allowing Mein Kampf or the Qu'ran to be sold just doesn't make sense to me. At least the flag, unlike these books, doesn't actively incite hate and violence.
Now what I do agree with is banning the states from portraying it, of course.
User was warned for this post: please don't put Mein Kampf and the Qu'ran in the same category
I agree with your overall feeling that we are becoming WAY too PC in most areas. People just seek things out to be offended by. Some people risk losing their jobs if they aren't PC enough - all it takes is a flood of "offended" people complaining on tweeter or fbook and tossing around a few hashtags.
PC has taken over for honesty/truth. When a spade is a spade, it should be called a spade.
On June 26 2015 04:32 Souma wrote: Companies are free to ban what they want from their stores if people are free to celebrate bigotry.
People sort of forget that one. I love how people worship the free market right up until the point where they don't get exactly what they want. Then its all the fault of PC people being offended and not controlling their feelings. Of course, the people who are complaining about the flag not being sold are also offended.
I concur. Apple banning history based games from the app store because they depict the flag is insanity. These games don't seek to glorify anything, they're just trying to have some semblance of historical accuracy.
And banning a flag that symbolises racial hate whilst allowing Mein Kampf or the Qu'ran to be sold just doesn't make sense to me. At least the flag, unlike these books, doesn't actively incite hate and violence.
Now what I do agree with is banning the states from portraying it, of course.
books can be studied and can actually add information even if the book is inflammatory. you can't learn anything from a flag.
personally the only problem I have with it is apple banning any games about the civil war. that seems a little ridiculous.
On June 26 2015 04:32 Souma wrote: Companies are free to ban what they want from their stores if people are free to celebrate bigotry.
People sort of forget that one. I love how people worship the free market right up until the point where they don't get exactly what they want. Then its all the fault of PC people being offended and not controlling their feelings. Of course, the people who are complaining about the flag not being sold are also offended.
That's not necessarily the case. Stores have a right to (not)sell what they want. The problem is that major retailers in this case are determining what's best for the people by controlling market availability for a particular item. If they had such hard feelings to the flag, then why were the selling it for the past 10, 20, 30+ years? Now in just a week all retailers decided to just wipe the merchandise for the sake of public appeal.
edit: To get deeper politically, retailers might have a lot less choice about what is put on there shelves if the TPP goes through. But that's another monster for another day that we the people don't get a choice on anyway.
On June 26 2015 04:27 Plansix wrote: Just remember, the flag that we know as Confederate Flag is one of many flags used during that war. And it only became well known as the Confederate Flag during the 1950-60s along side the civil rights movement.
Also, after 9/11, TV shows pushed back episodes having to do with bombings and plane crashes. Radios changed their play lists. After most school shooting the same things happened. Its not like we don't listen to those songs any more those episodes were never shown. People will be able to buy these flags again, but maybe not at Walmart.
The analogy with 9/11 is a little spotty. Popular culture refrained from terrorism/plane crash imagery after 9/11 out of sensitivity for that tragedy and probably also to prevent the inevitable PR backlash if they went ahead with it. The current outcry over the Confederate flag is only tangentially related to the Charleston shooting, this animosity towards the symbol has existed for a long ass time. I grew up in Virginia (not even the deep south) and currently live in Colorado. I have had to explain to people over the last week or so that there are many people that proudly fly the Confederate flag in the south and they are flabbergasted.
The sting of 9/11 dulled after a while and people were able to enjoy movies and songs about the attack or terrorism/plane crashes in general. It's been 50 years since the Confederate flag became a symbol of racism to many, and with the attention it has gotten recently I don't see that outrage going away any time soon. The "has it been enough time since shit went down" discussion doesn't work for the Confederate flag, I don't think.
I concur. Apple banning history based games from the app store because they depict the flag is insanity. These games don't seek to glorify anything, they're just trying to have some semblance of historical accuracy.
And banning a flag that symbolises racial hate whilst allowing Mein Kampf or the Qu'ran to be sold just doesn't make sense to me. At least the flag, unlike these books, doesn't actively incite hate and violence.
Now what I do agree with is banning the states from portraying it, of course.
books can be studied and can actually add information even if the book is inflammatory. you can't learn anything from a flag.
personally the only problem I have with it is apple banning any games about the civil war. that seems a little ridiculous.
There are like 20 different Confederate Flags they could use and a lot of them would be more historically accurate.
On June 26 2015 04:32 Souma wrote: Companies are free to ban what they want from their stores if people are free to celebrate bigotry.
People sort of forget that one. I love how people worship the free market right up until the point where they don't get exactly what they want. Then its all the fault of PC people being offended and not controlling their feelings. Of course, the people who are complaining about the flag not being sold are also offended.
That's not necessarily the case. Stores have a right to (not)sell what they want. The problem is that major retailers in this case are determining what's best for the people by controlling market availability for a particular item. If they had such hard feelings to the flag, then why were the selling it for the past 10, 20, 30+ years? Now in just a week all retailers decided to just wipe the merchandise for the sake of public appeal.
edit: To get deeper politically, retailers might have a lot less choice about what is put on there shelves if the TPP goes through. But that's another monster for another day that we the people don't get a choice on anyway.
Public appeal is important. The shit storm surrounding the flag right now makes it toxic to sell, and Walmart et al can save face with many people by refusing to carry its likeness. You can call that catering to the PC crowd, but it is ultimately an act of the free market. These retailers have decided that the profits they make from Confederate flags are not worth the customers they may stand to lose by carrying Confederate flags.
I concur. Apple banning history based games from the app store because they depict the flag is insanity. These games don't seek to glorify anything, they're just trying to have some semblance of historical accuracy.
And banning a flag that symbolises racial hate whilst allowing Mein Kampf or the Qu'ran to be sold just doesn't make sense to me. At least the flag, unlike these books, doesn't actively incite hate and violence.
Now what I do agree with is banning the states from portraying it, of course.
books can be studied and can actually add information even if the book is inflammatory. you can't learn anything from a flag.
personally the only problem I have with it is apple banning any games about the civil war. that seems a little ridiculous.
There are like 20 different Confederate Flags they could use and a lot of them would be more historically accurate.
yeah but then people would probably get confused and complain that the flags didn't look right. I'm not saying they can't use a different flag just saying that using the flag to represent what it actually is generally agreed upon to represent (the confederacy in this case) shouldn't be a problem.
I concur. Apple banning history based games from the app store because they depict the flag is insanity. These games don't seek to glorify anything, they're just trying to have some semblance of historical accuracy.
And banning a flag that symbolises racial hate whilst allowing Mein Kampf or the Qu'ran to be sold just doesn't make sense to me. At least the flag, unlike these books, doesn't actively incite hate and violence.
Now what I do agree with is banning the states from portraying it, of course.
books can be studied and can actually add information even if the book is inflammatory. you can't learn anything from a flag.
personally the only problem I have with it is apple banning any games about the civil war. that seems a little ridiculous.
There are like 20 different Confederate Flags they could use and a lot of them would be more historically accurate.
That isn't the point though is it? It is appropriate to use the flag in question in this specific context. The fact that they could have used others is not terribly relevant.
On June 26 2015 04:39 pNRG wrote: I agree with your overall feeling that we are becoming WAY too PC in most areas. People just seek things out to be offended by. Some people risk losing their jobs if they aren't PC enough - all it takes is a flood of "offended" people complaining on tweeter or fbook and tossing around a few hashtags.
PC has taken over for honesty/truth. When a spade is a spade, it should be called a spade.
Your last sentence is interesting, because that is exactly what people are doing. The Confederate flag is a symbol of racism, and people are finally calling it out for that on a large scale. A spade is a spade. Apparently, it would be PC to let South Carolina continue to fly it on government property without calling the symbol what it is.
I agree that for the most part PC culture is out of control, but I did not think the Confederate flag was an example of such until people started advocating its removal from war memorials, museums, and depictions of historical events (games). That's silly and bordering on dangerous revision of history.
On June 26 2015 04:32 Souma wrote: Companies are free to ban what they want from their stores if people are free to celebrate bigotry.
People sort of forget that one. I love how people worship the free market right up until the point where they don't get exactly what they want. Then its all the fault of PC people being offended and not controlling their feelings. Of course, the people who are complaining about the flag not being sold are also offended.
That's not necessarily the case. Stores have a right to (not)sell what they want. The problem is that major retailers in this case are determining what's best for the people by controlling market availability for a particular item. If they had such hard feelings to the flag, then why were the selling it for the past 10, 20, 30+ years? Now in just a week all retailers decided to just wipe the merchandise for the sake of public appeal.
edit: To get deeper politically, retailers might have a lot less choice about what is put on there shelves if the TPP goes through. But that's another monster for another day that we the people don't get a choice on anyway.
The majority of retailers have determined what is best for them and their business. They have decided they don't want to be associated with that item any more given what it represents. They are not making decisions for people, they decisions for themselves and what sort of business they want to be.
You can still get the flag, just not at those retailers.
I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
I concur. Apple banning history based games from the app store because they depict the flag is insanity. These games don't seek to glorify anything, they're just trying to have some semblance of historical accuracy.
And banning a flag that symbolises racial hate whilst allowing Mein Kampf or the Qu'ran to be sold just doesn't make sense to me. At least the flag, unlike these books, doesn't actively incite hate and violence.
Now what I do agree with is banning the states from portraying it, of course.
books can be studied and can actually add information even if the book is inflammatory. you can't learn anything from a flag.
personally the only problem I have with it is apple banning any games about the civil war. that seems a little ridiculous.
There are like 20 different Confederate Flags they could use and a lot of them would be more historically accurate.
That isn't the point though is it? It is appropriate to use the flag in question in this specific context. The fact that they could have used others is not terribly relevant.
The Battle flag of the Army of Tennessee is one of many flags. That specific flag isn't the national flag of the Confederate States of America. It is, no way, accurate unless you are depicting a specific army from Tennessee and every other army also uses their own flag.
The flag we know as the Confederate Flag became known for what ti si today during the 50s-60s. Parts of it were added to the Georgia state flag after Brown vs the Board of Education.
On June 26 2015 04:55 oBlade wrote: I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
Let's be real here, who is praising Walmart et al for "doing the right thing?" Everyone sane and reasonable knows that this decision impacts their bottom line and that is why they made it. Everyone has known this flag is a symbol of racism for the last 50 years but only recently are major corporations removing it from the shelves as a direct response to the shit storm. They're not protecting you from anything, but making an inventory decision like when they decide to stop carrying that brand of laundry detergent because it isn't cost effective to put on the shelves.
...this is just a pitiful excuse to not address the real and much more sensitive problem. guns. it's just my opinion and i don't wanna start a gun control discussion but i'm just gonna say that i don't expect a drop in murder rate because of flag banning.
I concur. Apple banning history based games from the app store because they depict the flag is insanity. These games don't seek to glorify anything, they're just trying to have some semblance of historical accuracy.
And banning a flag that symbolises racial hate whilst allowing Mein Kampf or the Qu'ran to be sold just doesn't make sense to me. At least the flag, unlike these books, doesn't actively incite hate and violence.
Now what I do agree with is banning the states from portraying it, of course.
books can be studied and can actually add information even if the book is inflammatory. you can't learn anything from a flag.
personally the only problem I have with it is apple banning any games about the civil war. that seems a little ridiculous.
There are like 20 different Confederate Flags they could use and a lot of them would be more historically accurate.
That isn't the point though is it? It is appropriate to use the flag in question in this specific context. The fact that they could have used others is not terribly relevant.
The Battle flag of the Army of Tennessee is one of many flags. That specific flag isn't the national flag of the Confederate States of America. It is, no way, accurate unless you are depicting a specific army from Tennessee and every other army also uses their own flag.
They could make a game where the nazis fight the confederacy and it would be completely historically inaccurate, but it would still be fine to display both flags in that context. That was my point.
The flag was just one symbol of racism prevalent in the South. There are racist symbols and dedications all over the South. This blatant display of racism we saw in SC in the church was just the incident needed to tide the typical "racism isn't a big problem" responses when people point out the racist propaganda in the South (and elsewhere).
Pretending "it's just a piece of fabric" or "It's a sign of historical pride" is so unbelievably ignorant I can't believe people here are saying it too.
I love this flag from a purely aesthetical POV, so it always makes me sad when I'm reminded of what it symbolizes for Americans ):
@GreenHorizons : well, it is in fact a sign of historical and cultural pride (you said it yourself by saying that it is one the many symbols of racism in the South), like all flags. Which, however, doesn't necessarily make it OK to display it or to support the values and policies that were/are defended by the people displaying it.
On June 26 2015 05:23 OtherWorld wrote: I love this flag from a purely aesthetical POV, so it always makes me sad when I'm reminded of what it symbolizes for Americans ):
@GreenHorizons : well, it is in fact a sign of historical and cultural pride (you said it yourself by saying that it is one the many symbols of racism in the South), like all flags. Which, however, doesn't necessarily make it OK to display it or to support the values and policies that were/are defended by the people displaying it.
What I meant was people who claim the historical aspect isn't the one mentioned about it's popularity surge as a symbol of resisting civil rights.
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.
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?
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?
The best part is that they aren't even banned. Companies are just deciding not to sell them because they don't want to be associated with the symbol any more. There is nothing prohibiting them from doing so.
On June 26 2015 05:29 Sonnington wrote: 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.
We shouldn't prohibit people from buying a flag like they do in Germany.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is any call for prohibiting its sale. Companies are simply choosing to no longer sell it.
It is an important distinction to make. It is not illegal for someone to fly a Confederate flag from their car or their front porch, and I don't think it should be. But it seems more than a little strange (and in poor taste) to fly it on public property or from government buildings, when it is not only a symbol of racism but a symbol of a rebellion that was defeated 150 years ago. The Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and the people that think it does are the racists we are currently talking about.
The Swastika is a good analogy, because it had a positive meaning long before Hitler but was appropriated and made widely known for a different, more sinister use. Sorry, but the Swastika will forever be associated with Nazi Germany just like the Confederate flag will always be associated with racism. As they say, perception is reality.
Although the analogy breaks down when you consider that Nazi Germany was under the entire world's scrutiny, while the Confederate flag is an American problem. Given the stigma surrounding Germany after the war, I can't really fault them for trying to eradicate any Nazi symbolism in the wake of WWII. I do think banning the Confederate flag in every form would be a mistake.
While I support banning confederate flags from any government buildings (biggest no brainer of all time), this whole "Apple banning civil war games" is so fucking dumb lol.
Most people also forget that four states in the Union had legalized slavery. It's just a interesting fact many people seem to gloss over talking about the Civil War
Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and the people that think it does are the racists we are currently talking about.
Technically not. But you might be surprised how many still support the idea. I see it on a daily basis.
I'm not surprised at all, I've seen it myself. The fact that so many people with that opinion still exist is part of the reason we are having this discussion at all. There's no reason to identify or sympathize with a 150-year old failed secession other than you wish it were the "good ole times," and we all know what that means.
On June 26 2015 05:29 Sonnington wrote: 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.
We shouldn't prohibit people from buying a flag like they do in Germany.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is any call for prohibiting its sale. Companies are simply choosing to no longer sell it. They have that freedom.
Are you looking at twitter? National burn the confederate flag day #burnthatflag. The major retailers didn't stop selling it on principal. They stopped selling it to garner favour from the trend.
I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
The whole flag thing is ludicrous. Should the state take it down on its buildings? Yes of course. Should major retailers stop selling it? Who cares, that's their choice.
The whole flag discussion seems so off base because the real discussion should be about how utterly retarded guns are.
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.
I once served in a state that captured a southern state's battle standard and refused to ever return it. I'm quite proud of that and am a true American staunch pro-Unionist.
Fuck Confederate traitors and their sympathizers. Fuck slavers, their supporters, and all the historical revisionists who have been working to erase the reality of their history. Fuck that flag.
On June 26 2015 04:55 oBlade wrote: I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
Let's be real here, who is praising Walmart et al for "doing the right thing?" Everyone sane and reasonable knows that this decision impacts their bottom line and that is why they made it. Everyone has known this flag is a symbol of racism for the last 50 years but only recently are major corporations removing it from the shelves as a direct response to the shit storm. They're not protecting you from anything, but making an inventory decision like when they decide to stop carrying that brand of laundry detergent because it isn't cost effective to put on the shelves.
It's not a simple "inventory decision" in the cases of Apple. Amazon, eBay, and Google. I'm not interested in what fabric a supermarket chooses to buy from a factory and sell. I care about things like this:
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace.
You should also care about what huge tech companies, that control markets and information and place themselves between you and the world, are doing.
On June 26 2015 04:55 oBlade wrote: I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
Let's be real here, who is praising Walmart et al for "doing the right thing?" Everyone sane and reasonable knows that this decision impacts their bottom line and that is why they made it. Everyone has known this flag is a symbol of racism for the last 50 years but only recently are major corporations removing it from the shelves as a direct response to the shit storm. They're not protecting you from anything, but making an inventory decision like when they decide to stop carrying that brand of laundry detergent because it isn't cost effective to put on the shelves.
It's not a simple "inventory decision" in the cases of Apple. Amazon, eBay, and Google. I'm not interested in what fabric a supermarket chooses to buy from a factory and sell. I care about things like this:
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace.
You should also care about what huge tech companies, that control markets and information and place themselves between you and the world, are doing.
Maybe inventory was the wrong word for it since it implies that Confederate merchandise is taking up space that a different product could occupy. Obviously that isn't the case with online retailers, I doubt there are warehouses full of Confederate gear that they are trying to free up. But these companies are making an economic decision to remove the symbol from their stores because they feel the profits from selling the merchandise aren't worth the negative PR from carrying the merchandise in the first place. That is their right. It's hard to recognize because the free market is acting as a force for positive social change in this case, but that's what it is. If the majority of Americans didn't find the flag to be a racist symbol, these companies would have no reason to stop selling them.
EDIT: To clarify, I agree that banning the flag from anything but government and public property is a mistake and a revision of history, and that Apple's response was heavy-handed, unnecessary, and dangerous as a precedent. The flag has a place in history and in depictions of the Civil War, and it existing in those places is not racist by nature unless it is used that way.
the Confederacy and what it stood for in terms of freedom of expressing an opinion on racial as well as economic views was a beautiful thing, and the civil war was incredibly important for the development of the modern US.. banning the flag associated with the Confederacy is a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction to a shooting that, while sad, means little compared to what the civil war was about... Honestly I fail to see the connection between the flag and the "rising racial tensions" at all, I know southerners love to remember their heritage (and rightfully so), but I have never heard of a direct connection until now..
I'm not even American, but the US used to stand as a paragon of free speech and relative freedom of action. Look at what is happening now.. I'm not saying it should be illegal for stores to not carry the flag, I'm saying that it's a shitty attitude for the news (and people in general) to say "I don't like this thing, so you shouldn't have it." What SJWs don't seem to understand is that as much of a right as they have to call people names and cling to their icons and flags of inclusiveness, so to can the "racists" and "shitty" people.. If someone shoots up a church after holding a Confederacy associated flag, that doesn't rebuke the entire validity of the civil war.. It's bad when I'm siding with biggots and racists when I think that diversity is preferable, but tbh they have less idiotic ideas when it comes to freedom of speech..
Except its not the flag for Confederacy and never. Its a flag for one specific army that was then appropriated by racists who didn't like that they couldn't have black and white water fountains any more.
Walmart and Apple are exercising their right of free speech by saying "we are not selling this any more." Not selling a product isn't taking away anyone right to free speech. In the US, we are still all about it.
Also, LOL at the non-ironic use of SJW. The true boggy man that has come to take away your video games and racist flags.
On June 26 2015 06:18 Endymion wrote: the Confederacy and what it stood for in terms of freedom of expressing an opinion on racial as well as economic views was a beautiful thing, and the civil war was incredibly important for the development of the modern US.. banning the flag associated with the Confederacy is a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction to a shooting that, while sad, means little compared to what the civil war was about... Honestly I fail to see the connection between the flag and the "rising racial tensions" at all, I know southerners love to remember their heritage (and rightfully so), but I have never heard of a direct connection until now..
I'm not even American, but the US used to stand as a paragon of free speech and relative freedom of action. Look at what is happening now.. I'm not saying it should be illegal for stores to not carry the flag, I'm saying that it's a shitty attitude for the news (and people in general) to say "I don't like this thing, so you shouldn't have it." What SJWs don't seem to understand is that as much of a right as they have to call people names and cling to their icons and flags of inclusiveness, so to can the "racists" and "shitty" people.. If someone shoots up a church after holding a Confederacy associated flag, that doesn't rebuke the entire validity of the civil war.. It's bad when I'm siding with biggots and racists when I think that diversity is preferable, but tbh they have less idiotic ideas when it comes to freedom of speech..
No one has proposed a law anywhere that would make the flag illegal to own. While the shitstorm started after the Charleston shootings, it was in direct response to the fact that the Confederate flag, a symbol of slavery and racism to many Americans, continued to fly at full-staff over government property in South Carolina while the US and SC flags were lowered to half-staff in response to the tragedy. Now, they were physically unable to lower the Confederate flag to half-staff because of the way it was attached to the pole, but it brought up the relatively good question of why the fuck that thing is flying over government property in the first place when it was the symbol of a defeated secession attempt from 150 years ago and was actively used in the 1960's to oppose the civil rights movement.
I find it interesting you think the Confederacy's opinion on racial matters was a "beautiful thing." We are proud of our right for every individual to have an opinion, but that does not make all opinions equal, and some opinions are pretty universally bad, like the Confederacy's opinion on racial matters. Just because it is a racist's right to be racist doesn't mean he earns any respect from others for having that opinion.
Ban the Confederate flag all you want but rooting out the inherent problems in American society and behind the attack on the church takes a lot more effort than censoring out a historical symbol. Even if racists rally behind the Confederate flag the real concern of racism itself and the ability to access guns so easily are the primary factors behind the attack not the flag. I know it was for sensitivity to see the Confederate flag raised while the others were half-mast but don't pretend like this will solve the problems in the South or stop racists from taking other banners.
On June 26 2015 06:26 Plansix wrote: Except its not the flag for Confederacy and never. Its a flag for one specific army that was then appropriated by racists who didn't like that they couldn't have black and white water fountains any more.
Walmart and Apple are exercising their right of free speech by saying "we are not selling this any more." Not selling a product isn't taking away anyone right to free speech. In the US, we are still all about it.
Also, LOL at the non-ironic use of SJW. The true boggy man that has come to take away your video games and racist flags.
It seems dishonest to lump Apple in with all of those other retailers, considering it's not like they just removed Confederate flag backgrounds from the marketplace but ALL Civil War games of any description, which is heavy-handed and unnecessary, not to mention unfair to the developers of those games.
On June 26 2015 04:09 ZasZ. wrote: I cannot think of any country in the world that proudly displays symbols associated with a rebellious faction 150 years after that faction was put down.
i understand that it's "not the flag of the Confederacy," but in the same way that it's colloquially recognized to be racist it's also colloquially recognized to represent the Confederacy and the civil war.. It's the social trends that annoy me, not the companies pulling the products.. Mostly because i can understand corporations and their profit motives, where as people taking away the cultures of those that they disagree I can't vibe with.
If I say "I disagree with the LGBT flag. Since I'm straight, it's offensive to me that others are different and celebrate something that I'm not. Jeffrey Dahmer was gay and he killed people, so i'm not cool with your flag anymore, please don't fly it anymore."
Is that cool? lol.. that's how I define sjw, people who attack others for not agreeing with them, so laugh at me if you want for my diction..
It's absolutely hilarious, and a bit tragic and sad to see all these Confederate apologists whine and moan that they are now being persecuted for their racist views. I myself am pissed at all the misinformation I was taught in Virginia grade school. Conservative Southerners might be able to revise their Bible that they adore so much, but a bit tougher to do with history. "State's Rights" my ass. Throw all that shit in a museum where it belongs.
Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.
On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War.
South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed “slavery transit.” In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer — and South Carolina’s delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.
Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”
On June 26 2015 06:18 Endymion wrote: the Confederacy and what it stood for in terms of freedom of expressing an opinion on racial as well as economic views was a beautiful thing, and the civil war was incredibly important for the development of the modern US.. banning the flag associated with the Confederacy is a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction to a shooting that, while sad, means little compared to what the civil war was about... Honestly I fail to see the connection between the flag and the "rising racial tensions" at all, I know southerners love to remember their heritage (and rightfully so), but I have never heard of a direct connection until now..
I'm not even American, but the US used to stand as a paragon of free speech and relative freedom of action. Look at what is happening now.. I'm not saying it should be illegal for stores to not carry the flag, I'm saying that it's a shitty attitude for the news (and people in general) to say "I don't like this thing, so you shouldn't have it." What SJWs don't seem to understand is that as much of a right as they have to call people names and cling to their icons and flags of inclusiveness, so to can the "racists" and "shitty" people.. If someone shoots up a church after holding a Confederacy associated flag, that doesn't rebuke the entire validity of the civil war.. It's bad when I'm siding with biggots and racists when I think that diversity is preferable, but tbh they have less idiotic ideas when it comes to freedom of speech..
No one has proposed a law anywhere that would make the flag illegal to own. While the shitstorm started after the Charleston shootings, it was in direct response to the fact that the Confederate flag, a symbol of slavery and racism to many Americans, continued to fly at full-staff over government property in South Carolina while the US and SC flags were lowered to half-staff in response to the tragedy. Now, they were physically unable to lower the Confederate flag to half-staff because of the way it was attached to the pole, but it brought up the relatively good question of why the fuck that thing is flying over government property in the first place when it was the symbol of a defeated secession attempt from 150 years ago and was actively used in the 1960's to oppose the civil rights movement.
I find it interesting you think the Confederacy's opinion on racial matters was a "beautiful thing." We are proud of our right for every individual to have an opinion, but that does not make all opinions equal, and some opinions are pretty universally bad, like the Confederacy's opinion on racial matters. Just because it is a racist's right to be racist doesn't mean he earns any respect from others for having that opinion.
Hell it's going to take more than a month to even get the damn flag removed. It's still not even a done deal. There's a lot of skepticism that when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road on voting to take it down that they will have the needed votes.
Rep. Mike Burns (R-Greenville) Burns, a South Carolina native, said the flag shouldn’t be taken down because people view it as a way to honor their heritage and their ancestors who fought in the Civil War.
Rep. Bill Chumley (R-Greenville, Spartanburg) A member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Chumley said the issue of the flag didn’t need to be discussed further, as it was decided in a 2000 compromise to move the flag from the Statehouse dome to the Capitol grounds. “This needs to go no further,” he told the Post. “It has been settled already. A compromise is a compromise.”
Christopher Corley (R-Aiken) The 35-year-old former attorney made his opinion on the flag clear. “I’m for leaving it where it is — absolutely,” he said. “If I have to put 500 amendments on this thing to keep it there, then I will do it. This is a non-issue that’s being made an issue by certain groups trying to take advantage of a terrible situation.”
Craig A. Gagnon (R-Abbeville, Anderson) Gagnon, a Massachusetts-born former chiropractor, told the Post he sees no reason to take the flag down. “I don’t think the flag at the monument at the Statehouse was a part of the reason for doing these heinous murders,” he said.
Mike Gambrell (R-Abbeville, Anderson) This former fire department chief, along with other representatives from his county, said it was not an appropriate time to debate the issue of the flag. They told the Anderson Independent Mail that discussions about the Confederate flag should wait until after funerals for the nine victims are held. “There is a time and place for that decision,” he said. “I don’t think it is right now.” Gambrell is the chairman of the county’s legislative delegation.
Jonathon D. Hill (R-Anderson) Hill told the Independent Mail he will oppose any effort to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds and added that he was “pretty disappointed” with the governor’s “misguided attempt to combat racism.” “You defeat it with love,” Hill said. “You don’t defeat it with politics.”
Michael A. Pitts (R-Greenwood, Laurens) When asked about the Confederate flag on the day after shooting, Pitts said, “I think it’ll bring up talk about possibly moving it because that talk is just below the surface forever. But I don’t see that this incident has any bearing on the flag or the flag has any bearing on the incident. This kid had drug issues and mental issues and I think that’s the root of the problem. Racism exists no matter whether you try to use the flag as a symbol for that or not.”
Mike Ryhal (R-Horry) Former businessman Ryhal has spoken a few times about his belief that the flag is “no problem.” “I don’t think it should be removed,” he told the Post. “It is a part of the South Carolina history. It is on the grounds. I think it’s fine where it’s at.” He also said removing the flag “wouldn’t change the way people feel about race.”
“We have numerous monuments all over the Statehouse grounds reflecting the history of South Carolina and I see that flag as a piece of our history,” he said to the Myrtle Beach Sun-News.
“The fact is it’s part of the history of the South. There’s no problem with having it out there.”
On June 26 2015 06:33 PhoenixVoid wrote: Ban the Confederate flag all you want but rooting out the inherent problems in American society and behind the attack on the church takes a lot more effort than censoring out a historical symbol. Even if racists rally behind the Confederate flag the real concern of racism itself and the ability to access guns so easily are the primary factors behind the attack not the flag. I know it was for sensitivity to see the Confederate flag raised while the others were half-mast but don't pretend like this will solve the problems in the South or stop racists from taking other banners.
Not a single person on the planet has actually suggested removing the flag (or banning it even though that's not what's being considered) would end racism. That is the dumbest strawman I've seen about this issue.
The call to remove it from state buildings should work like a charm to expose racists. It doesn't take many quotes on why one opposes taking it down to expose oneself as either irresponsibly ignorant or outright racist.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
EDIT: I realize the legislation that has been put forward is only to take it down, but if I as a Dane has been able to notice the push towards making it illegal from my Facebook/twitter/news feeds, then I'm fairly certain you have as well.
On June 26 2015 06:38 Endymion wrote: i understand that it's "not the flag of the Confederacy," but in the same way that it's colloquially recognized to be racist it's also colloquially recognized to represent the Confederacy and the civil war.. It's the social trends that annoy me, not the companies pulling the products.. Mostly because i can understand corporations and their profit motives, where as people taking away the cultures of those that they disagree I can't vibe with.
If I say "I disagree with the LGBT flag. Since I'm straight, it's offensive to me that others are different and celebrate something that I'm not. Jeffrey Dahmer was gay and he killed people, so i'm not cool with your flag anymore, please don't fly it anymore."
Is that cool? lol.. that's how I define sjw, people who attack others for not agreeing with them, so laugh at me if you want for my diction..
What you are describing is democracy and the "holy free market" at work. Its companies and politicians listening to what people want. The people who want that flag up are an ever shrinking minority.
And the people who support that flag attack people they don't agree with. One of them went into a church and attacked 9 of them.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
We don't really have a history of banning flags in this country. You can fly the Nazi flag outside your house if you really want. I wouldn't recommend it.
On June 26 2015 06:38 Endymion wrote: i understand that it's "not the flag of the Confederacy," but in the same way that it's colloquially recognized to be racist it's also colloquially recognized to represent the Confederacy and the civil war.. It's the social trends that annoy me, not the companies pulling the products.. Mostly because i can understand corporations and their profit motives, where as people taking away the cultures of those that they disagree I can't vibe with.
If I say "I disagree with the LGBT flag. Since I'm straight, it's offensive to me that others are different and celebrate something that I'm not. Jeffrey Dahmer was gay and he killed people, so i'm not cool with your flag anymore, please don't fly it anymore."
Is that cool? lol.. that's how I define sjw, people who attack others for not agreeing with them, so laugh at me if you want for my diction..
If, in the future, our gay overlords enslave and kill millions of straight people in the name of LGBT-land, you will be allowed to claim that public display of LGBT language or symbols is deeply offensive to you. Again, not all opinions are equally good, just equally protected, and only from the government. If people want to continue to wave the Confederate flag after it is abundantly clear that it is a racist symbol to the majority of Americans, that is their right, but get it off of government and public property and put it in a museum where it belongs.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
There's also a Texan secession movement and people who quite literally think the world is run by lizard people.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Not that I am aware of, just to move it into history where it should be. Not flying with special laws prohibiting it from being taken down(this is why the flag couldn't be flown at half mast in S. Carolina after the shooting. It was above the US flag during that time)
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
How big of a push are we talking about? Social media is both a blessing and a curse in that it gives individuals an extremely broad reach with their message. I have not seen any organized group claiming that the flag should be banned in all its forms, but I wouldn't be surprised to see individuals calling for it.
There are people who think Obama is a Muslim plant getting ready to declare martial law before the next election so that he can usher in Sharia Law and becomes America's first king. That doesn't mean it's worth taking them seriously.
Agreed, I need to see a real movement to ban the flag that has even a chance of being taken seriously. Right now, its mostly people saying they don't want to sell it or have it at the state house.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
There's also a Texan secession movement and people who quite literally think the world is run by lizard people.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
Apparently it's bigger in Denmark than it is here. My bet is that it's ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about and perceive the removal from public property to be a ban.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
There's also a Texan secession movement and people who quite literally think the world is run by lizard people.
On June 26 2015 06:52 Endymion wrote: i get that it's a free market.. i don't get the idea that your idea isn't "equally as good" as mine, that's what leads to censorship.
That's an awfully black and white way to look at things...all ideas should be evaluated based on their individual merits. for example, Hitler's idea of how he wanted the world to be was NOT as good as everyone else's. Being able to say and do whatever the hell you want without people responding to it is what leads to anarchy. If the collective thinks you're an asshole for having a specific opinion, that makes you an asshole in the eyes of the collective, and as they say perception is reality. But our government would defend your right to have that opinion, as long as you aren't actively harming anyone by holding that opinion. If there actually is an organized movement to ban the Confederate flag from everywhere, I'd be right there with the racists claiming that it's a mistake, but for historical reasons.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
Apparently it's bigger in Denmark than it is here. My bet is that it's ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about and perceive the removal from public property to be a ban.
I wasn't aware that California was Danish, but I guess I learned something today.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
Apparently it's bigger in Denmark than it is here. My bet is that it's ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about and perceive the removal from public property to be a ban.
I wasn't aware that California was Danish, but I guess I learned something today.
I live in California and I have no fucking clue what you're talking about. How about you stop being cute and start substantiating your shit.
On June 26 2015 06:52 Endymion wrote: i get that it's a free market.. i don't get the idea that your idea isn't "equally as good" as mine, that's what leads to censorship.
That's an awfully black and white way to look at things...all ideas should be evaluated based on their individual merits. for example, Hitler's idea of how he wanted the world to be was NOT as good as everyone else's. Being able to say and do whatever the hell you want without people responding to it is what leads to anarchy. If the collective thinks you're an asshole for having a specific opinion, that makes you an asshole in the eyes of the collective, and as they say perception is reality. But our government would defend your right to have that opinion, as long as you aren't actively harming anyone by holding that opinion. If there actually is an organized movement to ban the Confederate flag from everywhere, I'd be right there with the racists claiming that it's a mistake, but for historical reasons.
i realize that it's a black and white way to look at it, but it's necessary to prevent censorship.. for example, i'm sure a ton of people hate Lolita and they hate the amazon sells a book basically glorifying pedophilia, but it's still not banned.. Mein Kampf is also still sold on amazon and recognized at least by google's systems.. the collective might disagree with these ideas, but that doesn't decrease the validity of an idea, no matter how stupid you personally might think it is..
On June 26 2015 06:52 Endymion wrote: i get that it's a free market.. i don't get the idea that your idea isn't "equally as good" as mine, that's what leads to censorship.
That's an awfully black and white way to look at things...all ideas should be evaluated based on their individual merits. for example, Hitler's idea of how he wanted the world to be was NOT as good as everyone else's. Being able to say and do whatever the hell you want without people responding to it is what leads to anarchy. If the collective thinks you're an asshole for having a specific opinion, that makes you an asshole in the eyes of the collective, and as they say perception is reality. But our government would defend your right to have that opinion, as long as you aren't actively harming anyone by holding that opinion. If there actually is an organized movement to ban the Confederate flag from everywhere, I'd be right there with the racists claiming that it's a mistake, but for historical reasons.
thats a good way to put it. Ideas and symbols have to be evaluated based on the culture and its the society in general that decides whats allowed/tolerated etc. Obviously your free to have different opinions from the society in general but you have to realise that the society may set rules that don't agree with your what you think should be done. And no one is censoring anything companies are simply deciding they don't want to promote/ support the selling of confederate flags and what it represents, there not illegal to buy or own. do the people who have a problem with this also have a problem with these places not selling KKK uniforms or Nazi symbolism?
as i've said earlier in this threads books have historical importance as well as merely exposing someone to ideas that disagree with yours shouldn't be illegal plus their are many legitimate reasons to read the books.(also with lolita the author never intended it to be interpreted that way so it's not a great example.) so the books have a value outside of promoting the ideology. generally the entire purpose of a flag is to promote an ideology. plus no ones actually banning it at the moment
On June 26 2015 06:52 Endymion wrote: i get that it's a free market.. i don't get the idea that your idea isn't "equally as good" as mine, that's what leads to censorship.
That's an awfully black and white way to look at things...all ideas should be evaluated based on their individual merits. for example, Hitler's idea of how he wanted the world to be was NOT as good as everyone else's. Being able to say and do whatever the hell you want without people responding to it is what leads to anarchy. If the collective thinks you're an asshole for having a specific opinion, that makes you an asshole in the eyes of the collective, and as they say perception is reality. But our government would defend your right to have that opinion, as long as you aren't actively harming anyone by holding that opinion. If there actually is an organized movement to ban the Confederate flag from everywhere, I'd be right there with the racists claiming that it's a mistake, but for historical reasons.
i realize that it's a black and white way to look at it, but it's necessary to prevent censorship.. for example, i'm sure a ton of people hate Lolita and they hate the amazon sells a book basically glorifying pedophilia, but it's still not banned.. Mein Kampf is also still sold on amazon and recognized at least by google's systems.. the collective might disagree with these ideas, but that doesn't decrease the validity of an idea, no matter how stupid you personally might think it is..
Hm, can't find any Nazi flags though. Maybe there's something substantively different between banners and books?
On June 26 2015 06:52 Endymion wrote: i get that it's a free market.. i don't get the idea that your idea isn't "equally as good" as mine, that's what leads to censorship.
That's an awfully black and white way to look at things...all ideas should be evaluated based on their individual merits. for example, Hitler's idea of how he wanted the world to be was NOT as good as everyone else's. Being able to say and do whatever the hell you want without people responding to it is what leads to anarchy. If the collective thinks you're an asshole for having a specific opinion, that makes you an asshole in the eyes of the collective, and as they say perception is reality. But our government would defend your right to have that opinion, as long as you aren't actively harming anyone by holding that opinion. If there actually is an organized movement to ban the Confederate flag from everywhere, I'd be right there with the racists claiming that it's a mistake, but for historical reasons.
i realize that it's a black and white way to look at it, but it's necessary to prevent censorship.. for example, i'm sure a ton of people hate Lolita and they hate the amazon sells a book basically glorifying pedophilia, but it's still not banned.. Mein Kampf is also still sold on amazon and recognized at least by google's systems.. the collective might disagree with these ideas, but that doesn't decrease the validity of an idea, no matter how stupid you personally might think it is..
Hm, can't find any Nazi flags though. Maybe there's something substantively different between banners and books?
Crazy how that works. It's almost like they don't want to sell Nazi flags.
On June 26 2015 05:29 Sonnington wrote: 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.
We shouldn't prohibit people from buying a flag like they do in Germany.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is any call for prohibiting its sale. Companies are simply choosing to no longer sell it. They have that freedom.
you can also still find the communist manifesto for sale on amazon, i'm sure the russian aristocracy of the early 20th century would be sad given that it caused crimes against them, kinda like an icon of hate. it's also more recent than the confederate flag
On June 26 2015 07:10 Endymion wrote: you can also still find the communist manifesto for sale on amazon, i'm sure the russian aristocracy of the early 20th century would be sad given that it caused crimes against them, kinda like an icon of hate. it's also more recent than the confederate flag
the communist manifesto is important both in political theory and philosophy. Regardless of what it led to its an important piece of literature. You can't really compare it to a flag.
also there's not that many russiAn aristocracy people left. there's tons of African Americans who were who the south specifically discriminated against and 81 percent of them think its racist.
plus communism helped shaped the entirety of mid to late 20th century politics so you kind of need it to understand the entire rise and fall of communism. a flag gives basically 0 information.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
Apparently it's bigger in Denmark than it is here. My bet is that it's ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about and perceive the removal from public property to be a ban.
I wasn't aware that California was Danish, but I guess I learned something today.
Sound's like you're talking about something specific. How about you clue us in? No one is familiar with any push to ban the flag except you at this point.
On June 26 2015 07:10 Endymion wrote: you can also still find the communist manifesto for sale on amazon, i'm sure the russian aristocracy of the early 20th century would be sad given that it caused crimes against them, kinda like an icon of hate. it's also more recent than the confederate flag
Believe it or not, all things are not created equal, either from a sociological standpoint or from the standpoint of a retailer. If you want to continue this nonsense I'm sure Amazon sells some barrels you can shout into.
And I'm not going to continue this for every idiotic example you bring up, but the Confederate battle standard has been used a symbol of oppression far more recently than the Communist Manifesto...led to ideas...that contributed to the overthrow of the Tsars. Is complete historical and sociological illiteracy fun for you?
On June 26 2015 07:10 Endymion wrote: you can also still find the communist manifesto for sale on amazon, i'm sure the russian aristocracy of the early 20th century would be sad given that it caused crimes against them, kinda like an icon of hate. it's also more recent than the confederate flag
the communist manifesto is important both in political theory and philosophy. Regardless of what it led to its an important piece of literature. You can't really compare it to a flag
that's subjective though, i'm an economic philistine and i don't care about the resolution of the labor question, tbh i just find it socially offensive because i saw a banker reading it on the subway, and then when he was at work he shorted some stocks that i held and caused my 401k to crash. now, i associate both the communist manifesto and das kapital with wallstreet fat cats, you could almost say it's an oppressive icon to me representing rampant capitalism. i dont know or care what it "actually" stands for to you, but that's how i see it.
On June 26 2015 07:10 Endymion wrote: you can also still find the communist manifesto for sale on amazon, i'm sure the russian aristocracy of the early 20th century would be sad given that it caused crimes against them, kinda like an icon of hate. it's also more recent than the confederate flag
Believe it or not, all things are not created equal, either from a sociological standpoint or from the standpoint of a retailer. If you want to continue this nonsense I'm sure Amazon sells some barrels you can shout into.
And I'm not going to continue this for every idiotic example you bring up, but the Confederate battle standard has been used a symbol of oppression far more recently than the Communist Manifesto...led to ideas...that contributed to the overthrow of the Tsars. Is complete historical and sociological illiteracy fun for you?
On June 26 2015 07:10 Endymion wrote: you can also still find the communist manifesto for sale on amazon, i'm sure the russian aristocracy of the early 20th century would be sad given that it caused crimes against them, kinda like an icon of hate. it's also more recent than the confederate flag
the communist manifesto is important both in political theory and philosophy. Regardless of what it led to its an important piece of literature. You can't really compare it to a flag
that's subjective though, i'm an economic philistine and i don't care about the resolution of the labor question, tbh i just find it socially offensive because i saw a banker reading it on the subway, and then when he was at work he shorted some stocks that i held and caused my 401k to crash. now, i associate both the communist manifesto and das kapital with wallstreet fat cats, you could almost say it's an oppressive icon to me representing rampant capitalism. i dont know or care what it "actually" stands for to you, but that's how i see it.
This isn't how sociological significance works. It's SUPER cute when people try to mock what they don't understand though. Just cheek-pinching adorable.
On June 26 2015 07:10 Endymion wrote: you can also still find the communist manifesto for sale on amazon, i'm sure the russian aristocracy of the early 20th century would be sad given that it caused crimes against them, kinda like an icon of hate. it's also more recent than the confederate flag
the communist manifesto is important both in political theory and philosophy. Regardless of what it led to its an important piece of literature. You can't really compare it to a flag
that's subjective though, i'm an economic philistine and i don't care about the resolution of the labor question, tbh i just find it socially offensive because i saw a banker reading it on the subway, and then when he was at work he shorted some stocks that i held and caused my 401k to crash. now, i associate both the communist manifesto and das kapital with wallstreet fat cats, you could almost say it's an oppressive icon to me representing rampant capitalism. i dont know or care what it "actually" stands for to you, but that's how i see it.
This isn't how sociological significance works. It's SUPER cute when people try to mock what they don't understand though. Just cheek-pinching adorable.
i just missed my time with occupy wallstreet i was still on volume 1
On June 26 2015 07:10 Endymion wrote: you can also still find the communist manifesto for sale on amazon, i'm sure the russian aristocracy of the early 20th century would be sad given that it caused crimes against them, kinda like an icon of hate. it's also more recent than the confederate flag
the communist manifesto is important both in political theory and philosophy. Regardless of what it led to its an important piece of literature. You can't really compare it to a flag
that's subjective though, i'm an economic philistine and i don't care about the resolution of the labor question, tbh i just find it socially offensive because i saw a banker reading it on the subway, and then when he was at work he shorted some stocks that i held and caused my 401k to crash. now, i associate both the communist manifesto and das kapital with wallstreet fat cats, you could almost say it's an oppressive icon to me representing rampant capitalism. i dont know or care what it "actually" stands for to you, but that's how i see it.
um no. Regardless of whether you agree with what it says, It's historically important and considered that way by pretty much the entire philosophy and historical communities. you personally do not get to decide whats offensive, the society in large does. You by yourself seeing it as that is irrelevent in the large scheme of things. what matters is how many people particularly people who have been affected by it feel. also the fact that you think communist manifesto=wall street shows that you clearly misread the book and most people would agree that the fault lies in you and not the book.
plus from a utilitarian perspective there's the idea that the benefit of peopel reading it outways how much it offends you (which would be pretty easy to argue if your the only person who finds it offensive)
if your arguing from an rule based moral argument you seem to be saying that "I find it offensive." therefore ban it. if we agreed with that then we'd have to ban everything that any individual found offensive and that would probably lead to everything being banned and I think if you were told you couldn't buy something because 1 person somewhere is offended by it that you'd think that's incredibly stupid.. unless your going to argue that your the only person who gets to decide what's offensive which I don't think you can convince me off.
now if you can give me a solid argument in favor of banning the communist manifesto I'll consider it but I haven't seen that yet.
furthermore ultimately the only accurate measure of whats offensive(at least in the general sense of the term not in the personal sense) is how people feel about it as a whole community and in their subset communities. one person claiming something is offensive accomplishes nothign.
I should note that the above is all my personal opinion and if I made anymistakes or wasn't clear please point them out to me so I can consider them.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
Apparently it's bigger in Denmark than it is here. My bet is that it's ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about and perceive the removal from public property to be a ban.
I wasn't aware that California was Danish, but I guess I learned something today.
Sound's like you're talking about something specific. How about you clue us in? No one is familiar with any push to ban the flag except you at this point.
Go to Twitter, search: #bantheflag #burntheflag #confederateflag
You'll find some people arguing against a ban, but plenty more arguing that it should be banned altogether (and not just taken down no). My point was merely that it is stupid to ban symbols (and actually I would consider the retail-retraction of everything confederate equally stupid) as it is an empowerment of the flag. The actual white-supremacists are going to have a field-day utilizing this.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
Apparently it's bigger in Denmark than it is here. My bet is that it's ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about and perceive the removal from public property to be a ban.
I wasn't aware that California was Danish, but I guess I learned something today.
Sound's like you're talking about something specific. How about you clue us in? No one is familiar with any push to ban the flag except you at this point.
Go to Twitter, search: #bantheflag #burntheflag #confederateflag
You'll find some people arguing against a ban, but plenty more arguing that it should be banned altogether (and not just taken down no). My point was merely that it is stupid to ban symbols (and actually I would consider the retail-retraction of everything confederate equally stupid) as it is an empowerment of the flag. The actual white-supremacists are going to have a field-day utilizing this.
you can get anything trending on twitter. If you're talking about explicitly banning the flag obviously that would probably be unconstitutional (although I suppose you could always pass an amendment but good luck with that.)
On June 26 2015 07:10 Endymion wrote: you can also still find the communist manifesto for sale on amazon, i'm sure the russian aristocracy of the early 20th century would be sad given that it caused crimes against them, kinda like an icon of hate. it's also more recent than the confederate flag
the communist manifesto is important both in political theory and philosophy. Regardless of what it led to its an important piece of literature. You can't really compare it to a flag
that's subjective though, i'm an economic philistine and i don't care about the resolution of the labor question, tbh i just find it socially offensive because i saw a banker reading it on the subway, and then when he was at work he shorted some stocks that i held and caused my 401k to crash. now, i associate both the communist manifesto and das kapital with wallstreet fat cats, you could almost say it's an oppressive icon to me representing rampant capitalism. i dont know or care what it "actually" stands for to you, but that's how i see it.
um no. Regardless of whether you agree with what it says, It's historically important and considered that way by pretty much the entire philosophy and historical communities. you personally do not get to decide whats offensive, the society in large does. You by yourself seeing it as that is irrelevent in the large scheme of things. what matters is how many people particularly people who have been affected by it feel. also the fact that you think communist manifesto=wall street shows that you clearly misread the book and most people would agree that the fault lies in you and not the book.
plus from a utilitarian perspective there's the idea that the benefit of peopel reading it outways your offensiveness.
if your arguing from an rule based moral argument you seem to be saying that "I find it offensive." therefore ban it. if we agreed with that then we'd have to ban everything that any individual found offensive and that would probably lead to everything being banned. unless your going to argue that your the only person who gets to decide what's offensive which I don't think you can convince me off
the only accurate measure of whats offensive is how people feel about it as a whole community and in their subset communities. one person claiming something is offensive accomplishes nothign.
also as I said 81 percent of African americans find the flag offensive so its not just a few loud people
to me, it doesn't matter if 100% of the rest of the world finds something offensive: an idea is an idea, a flag in an icon of an idea. to ban a flag is to censor someone's expression of themselves. Societal influence, on a personal level, should be absolutely meaningless in determining how you think. Critical thinking, reasoning, and judging your ideas vs the ideas of others is what brings about sound states of mind, both evil and good. Personally, I see people everyday that hate me and my company and my skin color and my weight and my ideas. You need to learn from people, not destroy them.. everyone is different, everyone can teach you something.. same thing with ideas, it's never ok "just because it's a lesser idea," that's being a true philistine of the world...
On June 26 2015 04:09 ZasZ. wrote: I cannot think of any country in the world that proudly displays symbols associated with a rebellious faction 150 years after that faction was put down.
Right now I dont care about the supposed squandering of the widely made fetichization called "freedom of speech"(as if I'd ever care about the right to oppress lol) or how everything that tries to protect the people who get systematically fucked by society's hierarchy of values is called PC(an inane and inacurrate figure), what I do care about is how when the Confederate Flag sybomlises all racism while being taken down it looks like racism was taken down. Racism is still alive and kicking with or without the uglyass flag.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
Apparently it's bigger in Denmark than it is here. My bet is that it's ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about and perceive the removal from public property to be a ban.
I wasn't aware that California was Danish, but I guess I learned something today.
Sound's like you're talking about something specific. How about you clue us in? No one is familiar with any push to ban the flag except you at this point.
Go to Twitter, search: #bantheflag #burntheflag #confederateflag
You'll find some people arguing against a ban, but plenty more arguing that it should be banned altogether. My point was merely that it is stupid to ban symbols (and actually I would consider the retail-retraction of everything confederate equally stupid) as it is an empowerment of the flag. The actual white-supremacists are going to have a field-day utilizing this.
Okay... So that's what you're talking about? Besides the fact there are barely any tweets, there are even less that are actually saying to ban the flag. There's probably close to as many sarcastic posts about banning other flags (like the Rainbow flag) than there are people calling to ban the Confederate flag.
I thought you were being silly and that just confirmed it. Never ceases to amaze me when smart people say such dumb things.
Hopefully ALL the southern racists make a big deal about not wanting to remove the flag and other celebrations of slavery and/or segregation, that way it's a lot easier to see them in places like government.
On June 26 2015 07:10 Endymion wrote: you can also still find the communist manifesto for sale on amazon, i'm sure the russian aristocracy of the early 20th century would be sad given that it caused crimes against them, kinda like an icon of hate. it's also more recent than the confederate flag
the communist manifesto is important both in political theory and philosophy. Regardless of what it led to its an important piece of literature. You can't really compare it to a flag
that's subjective though, i'm an economic philistine and i don't care about the resolution of the labor question, tbh i just find it socially offensive because i saw a banker reading it on the subway, and then when he was at work he shorted some stocks that i held and caused my 401k to crash. now, i associate both the communist manifesto and das kapital with wallstreet fat cats, you could almost say it's an oppressive icon to me representing rampant capitalism. i dont know or care what it "actually" stands for to you, but that's how i see it.
um no. Regardless of whether you agree with what it says, It's historically important and considered that way by pretty much the entire philosophy and historical communities. you personally do not get to decide whats offensive, the society in large does. You by yourself seeing it as that is irrelevent in the large scheme of things. what matters is how many people particularly people who have been affected by it feel. also the fact that you think communist manifesto=wall street shows that you clearly misread the book and most people would agree that the fault lies in you and not the book.
plus from a utilitarian perspective there's the idea that the benefit of peopel reading it outways your offensiveness.
if your arguing from an rule based moral argument you seem to be saying that "I find it offensive." therefore ban it. if we agreed with that then we'd have to ban everything that any individual found offensive and that would probably lead to everything being banned. unless your going to argue that your the only person who gets to decide what's offensive which I don't think you can convince me off
the only accurate measure of whats offensive is how people feel about it as a whole community and in their subset communities. one person claiming something is offensive accomplishes nothign.
also as I said 81 percent of African americans find the flag offensive so its not just a few loud people
to me, it doesn't matter if 100% of the rest of the world finds something offensive: an idea is an idea, a flag in an icon of an idea. to ban a flag is to censor someone's expression of themselves. Societal influence, on a personal level, should be absolutely meaningless in determining how you think. Critical thinking, reasoning, and judging your ideas vs the ideas of others is what brings about sound states of mind, both evil and good. Personally, I see people everyday that hate me and my company and my skin color and my weight and my ideas. You need to learn from people, not destroy them.. everyone is different, everyone can teach you something.. same thing with ideas, it's never ok "just because it's a lesser idea," that's being a true philistine of the world...
I never said anything about ideas. You should be able to think whatever you want. I was just mainly counteracting his argument about the communist manifesto. i didn't specifically talk about banning the flag and I think that banning private use is wrong but in regards to whats seen in public most governments agree that there is some right to banning particular things how far that right goes is obviously some matter of debate.
personally I agree with Feinberg's offense principle to a certain extant and you of course are allowed to disagree with that.
a quote form the stanphord encyclopedia of philosophy
" The motivations of the speakers in the Skokie example seemed to be to incite fear and hatred and to directly insult the members of the community through the use of Nazi symbols. Nor, according to Feinberg, was there any political content to the speech. The distinction between violent pornography and this specific example of hate speech is that a particular group of people were targeted and the message of hate was paraded in such a way that it could not be easily avoided. It is for these reasons that Feinberg suggests hate speech can be limited by the offemse principle."
although thats based on hate speech but hate speech is nothing but the expression of an idea, like your flag example.
do you think anti nudity laws are illegal because they prevent you from expressing an idea? because if you don't then I don't see how you can deny that the government has rights to censure whats allowed in public.
so to summarise my beliefs. You have a right to whatever opinion you want. the government has a right to set limits on expression of opinions in public areas to an extent (expecially when it can be interpreted as directly supporting the cause.) the best guidelines for those rules is based around the general public consensus.
also where kind of going off topic since companies have a right to tell other companies they won't support a certain product.
also I think it would create problems if the government were to ban the flag (at least without a constitutional amendment) I have no problems with companies banning it however.
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
Apparently it's bigger in Denmark than it is here. My bet is that it's ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about and perceive the removal from public property to be a ban.
I wasn't aware that California was Danish, but I guess I learned something today.
Sound's like you're talking about something specific. How about you clue us in? No one is familiar with any push to ban the flag except you at this point.
Go to Twitter, search: #bantheflag #burntheflag #confederateflag
You'll find some people arguing against a ban, but plenty more arguing that it should be banned altogether (and not just taken down no). My point was merely that it is stupid to ban symbols (and actually I would consider the retail-retraction of everything confederate equally stupid) as it is an empowerment of the flag. The actual white-supremacists are going to have a field-day utilizing this.
So bringing up California was just you being stupid? OK. Like I said before, a movement to ban it beyond government grounds is insignificant and irrelevant to the conversation. Also unconstitutional.
The flag isn't a mythical being. It being removed from government grounds and from major retailers at their discretion doesn't make it more powerful. Did electing Obama cause racist wingnuts to lose their minds in this country? Yes. Are they more powerful than they were when he took office? No.
Your arguments are specious and ill-informed. There's nothing going on now with this flag than has not been going on in other things for quite some time. Wingnuts and the anti-SJW brigade choosing this hill to die on does nothing but show just how ignorant of real issues and current events they are. WalMart, Amazon, Apple, et al, did not suddenly decide today that they have/don't have a social conscience. They don't. This is a business decision, one they have the right to exercise and have exercised countless times.
On June 26 2015 06:52 Endymion wrote: i get that it's a free market.. i don't get the idea that your idea isn't "equally as good" as mine, that's what leads to censorship.
That's an awfully black and white way to look at things...all ideas should be evaluated based on their individual merits. for example, Hitler's idea of how he wanted the world to be was NOT as good as everyone else's. Being able to say and do whatever the hell you want without people responding to it is what leads to anarchy. If the collective thinks you're an asshole for having a specific opinion, that makes you an asshole in the eyes of the collective, and as they say perception is reality. But our government would defend your right to have that opinion, as long as you aren't actively harming anyone by holding that opinion. If there actually is an organized movement to ban the Confederate flag from everywhere, I'd be right there with the racists claiming that it's a mistake, but for historical reasons.
i realize that it's a black and white way to look at it, but it's necessary to prevent censorship.. for example, i'm sure a ton of people hate Lolita and they hate the amazon sells a book basically glorifying pedophilia, but it's still not banned.. Mein Kampf is also still sold on amazon and recognized at least by google's systems.. the collective might disagree with these ideas, but that doesn't decrease the validity of an idea, no matter how stupid you personally might think it is..
mein kampf is banned in germany as well as almost all nazi symbols if not used for historical accuracy or art. what do i want to say with that? symbols, ideas and values never stand on their own, they are always in some kind of context and different countries or cultures rate them differently. with our past, we dont extend the freedom of speech to nazis. this idea is not seen equal and as such wont get the same rights as other ideas.
that being said, no one is banning anything in the us, its just that people dont want to get associated with racists. and who besides a lot of people in south carolina and similar states really wants that anyway?
On June 26 2015 06:02 Ghostcom wrote: I think it is about the most appropriate time to pull out the old "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"... Forbidding symbols merely gives that symbol power, it has never proven to be a good idea, so why should it now? I agree completely that there is no reason for having it in front of governmental buildings, but forbidding it would be beyond stupid.
Its not really forbidden any more that acid wash jeans. They just don't sell either at Walmart for different reasons.
Read the post you are responding to before typing... I'm not even close to writing that it is currently forbidden. I'm saying that the current push towards forbidding it (AS FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE) is moronic.
There's a push to forbid it?
Yes.
Apparently it's bigger in Denmark than it is here. My bet is that it's ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about and perceive the removal from public property to be a ban.
I wasn't aware that California was Danish, but I guess I learned something today.
Sound's like you're talking about something specific. How about you clue us in? No one is familiar with any push to ban the flag except you at this point.
Go to Twitter, search: #bantheflag #burntheflag #confederateflag
You'll find some people arguing against a ban, but plenty more arguing that it should be banned altogether (and not just taken down no). My point was merely that it is stupid to ban symbols (and actually I would consider the retail-retraction of everything confederate equally stupid) as it is an empowerment of the flag. The actual white-supremacists are going to have a field-day utilizing this.
So bringing up California was just you being stupid? OK. Like I said before, a movement to ban it beyond government grounds is insignificant and irrelevant to the conversation. Also unconstitutional.
The flag isn't a mythical being. It being removed from government grounds and from major retailers at their discretion doesn't make it more powerful. Did electing Obama cause racist wingnuts to lose their minds in this country? Yes. Are they more powerful than they were when he took office? No.
Your arguments are specious and ill-informed. There's nothing going on now with this flag than has not been going on in other things for quite some time. Wingnuts and the anti-SJW brigade choosing this hill to die on does nothing but show just how ignorant of real issues and current events they are. WalMart, Amazon, Apple, et al, did not suddenly decide today that they have/don't have a social conscience. They don't. This is a business decision, one they have the right to exercise and have exercised countless times.
Bringing up California was just me referring to where my social network originated. That I chose to bring up the topic of banning symbols with regards to the flag was probably because this thread was specifically pertaining to the flag and not because I thought the confederate flag to be the first (nor the last) example of people suggesting to ban a symbol because they are opposed to what it symbolizes. I could expand on this point, but as you found it prudent to start with the personal insults I think it would be rather fruitless.
The Confederate flag getting removed from the public sphere is long overdue.
On the public being PC in general: while I believe there are plenty of instances where people choose to get offended, just remember that things like this (companies firing people for being insensitive, businesses being run out of town because people don't like them being anti-gay, etc.) are the very definition of the free market at work. The government isn't coming in and punishing these businesses/people in most cases. The public is expressing the fact that they aren't pleased with how certain people/groups are acting.
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:But these companies are making an economic decision to remove the symbol from their stores because they feel the profits from selling the merchandise aren't worth the negative PR from carrying the merchandise in the first place.
It is not that they stopped selling them. It's that they stopped listing them, and in a reactionary scapegoating way. How did you arrive at the idea that, say, Amazon was getting bad PR from somewhere? Amazon, eBay, Google, Apple, these are basically too big to boycott. You couldn't effectively boycott eBay because THIRD PARTY seller listed a flag any more than someone could organize a boycott of eBay because they took down a flag listing for being a "hate" symbol. Right? That's why this conversation is important.
On June 26 2015 04:55 oBlade wrote: I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
Let's be real here, who is praising Walmart et al for "doing the right thing?" Everyone sane and reasonable knows that this decision impacts their bottom line and that is why they made it. Everyone has known this flag is a symbol of racism for the last 50 years but only recently are major corporations removing it from the shelves as a direct response to the shit storm. They're not protecting you from anything, but making an inventory decision like when they decide to stop carrying that brand of laundry detergent because it isn't cost effective to put on the shelves.
It's not a simple "inventory decision" in the cases of Apple. Amazon, eBay, and Google. I'm not interested in what fabric a supermarket chooses to buy from a factory and sell. I care about things like this:
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace.
You should also care about what huge tech companies, that control markets and information and place themselves between you and the world, are doing.
If the majority of Americans didn't find the flag to be a racist symbol, these companies would have no reason to stop selling them.
Can you demonstrate that claim in a way that's not circular? They don't sell Polaroid or candy cigarettes anymore, and those aren't "racist" symbols. Why did they list them before anyhow?
You seem to be tacitly implying that people believing something is offensive is a great reason to erase it from the results of the biggest web search engine. Have I got that right? Because I'm not convinced.
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:But these companies are making an economic decision to remove the symbol from their stores because they feel the profits from selling the merchandise aren't worth the negative PR from carrying the merchandise in the first place.
It is not that they stopped selling them. It's that they stopped listing them, and in a reactionary scapegoating way. How did you arrive at the idea that, say, Amazon was getting bad PR from somewhere? Amazon, eBay, Google, Apple, these are basically too big to boycott. You couldn't effectively boycott eBay because THIRD PARTY seller listed a flag any more than someone could organize a boycott of eBay because they took down a flag listing for being a "hate" symbol. Right? That's why this conversation is important.
On June 26 2015 04:55 oBlade wrote: I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
Let's be real here, who is praising Walmart et al for "doing the right thing?" Everyone sane and reasonable knows that this decision impacts their bottom line and that is why they made it. Everyone has known this flag is a symbol of racism for the last 50 years but only recently are major corporations removing it from the shelves as a direct response to the shit storm. They're not protecting you from anything, but making an inventory decision like when they decide to stop carrying that brand of laundry detergent because it isn't cost effective to put on the shelves.
It's not a simple "inventory decision" in the cases of Apple. Amazon, eBay, and Google. I'm not interested in what fabric a supermarket chooses to buy from a factory and sell. I care about things like this:
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace.
You should also care about what huge tech companies, that control markets and information and place themselves between you and the world, are doing.
If the majority of Americans didn't find the flag to be a racist symbol, these companies would have no reason to stop selling them.
Can you demonstrate that claim in a way that's not circular? They don't sell Polaroid or candy cigarettes anymore, and those aren't "racist" symbols. Why did they list them before anyhow?
You seem to be tacitly implying that people believing something is offensive is a great reason to erase it from the results of the biggest web search engine. Have I got that right? Because I'm not convinced.
I don't care if it's reactionary by business interests. This is all long-overdue and has only been held in place because of sensitivity towards ignorant southerners.
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:But these companies are making an economic decision to remove the symbol from their stores because they feel the profits from selling the merchandise aren't worth the negative PR from carrying the merchandise in the first place.
It is not that they stopped selling them. It's that they stopped listing them, and in a reactionary scapegoating way. How did you arrive at the idea that, say, Amazon was getting bad PR from somewhere? Amazon, eBay, Google, Apple, these are basically too big to boycott. You couldn't effectively boycott eBay because THIRD PARTY seller listed a flag any more than someone could organize a boycott of eBay because they took down a flag listing for being a "hate" symbol. Right? That's why this conversation is important.
On June 26 2015 04:55 oBlade wrote: I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
Let's be real here, who is praising Walmart et al for "doing the right thing?" Everyone sane and reasonable knows that this decision impacts their bottom line and that is why they made it. Everyone has known this flag is a symbol of racism for the last 50 years but only recently are major corporations removing it from the shelves as a direct response to the shit storm. They're not protecting you from anything, but making an inventory decision like when they decide to stop carrying that brand of laundry detergent because it isn't cost effective to put on the shelves.
It's not a simple "inventory decision" in the cases of Apple. Amazon, eBay, and Google. I'm not interested in what fabric a supermarket chooses to buy from a factory and sell. I care about things like this:
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace.
You should also care about what huge tech companies, that control markets and information and place themselves between you and the world, are doing.
If the majority of Americans didn't find the flag to be a racist symbol, these companies would have no reason to stop selling them.
Can you demonstrate that claim in a way that's not circular? They don't sell Polaroid or candy cigarettes anymore, and those aren't "racist" symbols. Why did they list them before anyhow?
You seem to be tacitly implying that people believing something is offensive is a great reason to erase it from the results of the biggest web search engine. Have I got that right? Because I'm not convinced.
This is irrelevant.
These big companies, for whatever reason, believe that it is a better business move to remove these items.
Hell, it might not even be a business thing. They're just doing it.
Guess what? They have that right. It doesn't matter.
This whole sentiment against the Confederate flag isn't being done by the government; it is the consumers and other private entities. They have a right to do this, so what is the problem?
And no one is erasing the Confederate Flag from Google searches. You can still Google Hitler. Google is removing Confederate-related merchandise from their shop.
On June 26 2015 08:02 Stratos_speAr wrote: The Confederate flag getting removed from the public sphere is long overdue.
On the public being PC in general: while I believe there are plenty of instances where people choose to get offended, just remember that things like this (companies firing people for being insensitive, businesses being run out of town because people don't like them being anti-gay, etc.) are the very definition of the free market at work. The government isn't coming in and punishing these businesses/people in most cases. The public is expressing the fact that they aren't pleased with how certain people/groups are acting.
The problem is that people are expressing intolerance with intolerance. If you don't want a cake from a bakery that doesn't support gay marriage then don't go there. Instead they sent them hate mail, death threats, and more just because they disliked the bakeries view. The same instance has happened to a pizzeria too. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable.
On June 26 2015 08:02 Stratos_speAr wrote: On the public being PC in general: while I believe there are plenty of instances where people choose to get offended, just remember that things like this (companies firing people for being insensitive, businesses being run out of town because people don't like them being anti-gay, etc.) are the very definition of the free market at work. The government isn't coming in and punishing these businesses/people in most cases. The public is expressing the fact that they aren't pleased with how certain people/groups are acting.
What makes you think like corporate HR departments are representing the public when they fire people?
And what's the free market supposed to be, some kind of hand-waving trick? These are huge companies that have dominating market shares in regulated markets. Even if we grant "free market," so what? Is there an independent reason to think free market forces in the economy are necessarily agreeable? right? moral? Can we just throw our hands up and go "welp, free market, that's all there is to think about?"
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:But these companies are making an economic decision to remove the symbol from their stores because they feel the profits from selling the merchandise aren't worth the negative PR from carrying the merchandise in the first place.
It is not that they stopped selling them. It's that they stopped listing them, and in a reactionary scapegoating way. How did you arrive at the idea that, say, Amazon was getting bad PR from somewhere? Amazon, eBay, Google, Apple, these are basically too big to boycott. You couldn't effectively boycott eBay because THIRD PARTY seller listed a flag any more than someone could organize a boycott of eBay because they took down a flag listing for being a "hate" symbol. Right? That's why this conversation is important.
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 26 2015 06:10 oBlade wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:55 oBlade wrote: I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
Let's be real here, who is praising Walmart et al for "doing the right thing?" Everyone sane and reasonable knows that this decision impacts their bottom line and that is why they made it. Everyone has known this flag is a symbol of racism for the last 50 years but only recently are major corporations removing it from the shelves as a direct response to the shit storm. They're not protecting you from anything, but making an inventory decision like when they decide to stop carrying that brand of laundry detergent because it isn't cost effective to put on the shelves.
It's not a simple "inventory decision" in the cases of Apple. Amazon, eBay, and Google. I'm not interested in what fabric a supermarket chooses to buy from a factory and sell. I care about things like this:
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace.
You should also care about what huge tech companies, that control markets and information and place themselves between you and the world, are doing.
If the majority of Americans didn't find the flag to be a racist symbol, these companies would have no reason to stop selling them.
Can you demonstrate that claim in a way that's not circular? They don't sell Polaroid or candy cigarettes anymore, and those aren't "racist" symbols. Why did they list them before anyhow?
You seem to be tacitly implying that people believing something is offensive is a great reason to erase it from the results of the biggest web search engine. Have I got that right? Because I'm not convinced.
I don't care if it's reactionary by business interests. This is all long-overdue and has only been held in place because of sensitivity towards ignorant southerners.
It's the Shopping tab as you should have easily surmised from reading the OP. + Show Spoiler +
Is this really overdue? Have people been up in arms about like 10 stores selling CSA posters that nobody ever searches for on Amazon? Lot of uproar about people freely buying and selling things containing/relating to a flag before? Including you personally? Or is the fact that it's reactionary due to one set of murders maybe extremely relevant?
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:But these companies are making an economic decision to remove the symbol from their stores because they feel the profits from selling the merchandise aren't worth the negative PR from carrying the merchandise in the first place.
It is not that they stopped selling them. It's that they stopped listing them, and in a reactionary scapegoating way. How did you arrive at the idea that, say, Amazon was getting bad PR from somewhere? Amazon, eBay, Google, Apple, these are basically too big to boycott. You couldn't effectively boycott eBay because THIRD PARTY seller listed a flag any more than someone could organize a boycott of eBay because they took down a flag listing for being a "hate" symbol. Right? That's why this conversation is important.
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 26 2015 06:10 oBlade wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:55 oBlade wrote: I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
Let's be real here, who is praising Walmart et al for "doing the right thing?" Everyone sane and reasonable knows that this decision impacts their bottom line and that is why they made it. Everyone has known this flag is a symbol of racism for the last 50 years but only recently are major corporations removing it from the shelves as a direct response to the shit storm. They're not protecting you from anything, but making an inventory decision like when they decide to stop carrying that brand of laundry detergent because it isn't cost effective to put on the shelves.
It's not a simple "inventory decision" in the cases of Apple. Amazon, eBay, and Google. I'm not interested in what fabric a supermarket chooses to buy from a factory and sell. I care about things like this:
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace.
You should also care about what huge tech companies, that control markets and information and place themselves between you and the world, are doing.
If the majority of Americans didn't find the flag to be a racist symbol, these companies would have no reason to stop selling them.
Can you demonstrate that claim in a way that's not circular? They don't sell Polaroid or candy cigarettes anymore, and those aren't "racist" symbols. Why did they list them before anyhow?
You seem to be tacitly implying that people believing something is offensive is a great reason to erase it from the results of the biggest web search engine. Have I got that right? Because I'm not convinced.
This is irrelevant.
These big companies, for whatever reason, believe that it is a better business move to remove these items.
Hell, it might not even be a business thing. They're just doing it.
Guess what? They have that right. It doesn't matter.
This whole sentiment against the Confederate flag isn't being done by the government; it is the consumers and other private entities. They have a right to do this, so what is the problem?
Are you sure consumers did this?
If you believe in principle that corporate interests are equal to or more important than people, then we can just disagree there probably. I think of consumers as something to protect. Not in the sense of protecting them from a flag - or whatever other thing - that the media is telling them they can't handle. But protect the interests of consumers, including this and whatever shit to come that Google thinks they must or mustn't have. People were just selling and buying stuff with a flag on it. "They have a right to do this, so what is the problem? They're just doing it."
On June 26 2015 08:02 Stratos_speAr wrote: The Confederate flag getting removed from the public sphere is long overdue.
On the public being PC in general: while I believe there are plenty of instances where people choose to get offended, just remember that things like this (companies firing people for being insensitive, businesses being run out of town because people don't like them being anti-gay, etc.) are the very definition of the free market at work. The government isn't coming in and punishing these businesses/people in most cases. The public is expressing the fact that they aren't pleased with how certain people/groups are acting.
The problem is that people are expressing intolerance with intolerance. If you don't want a cake from a bakery that doesn't support gay marriage then don't go there. Instead they sent them hate mail, death threats, and more just because they disliked the bakeries view. The same instance has happened to a pizzeria too. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable.
I heart goes out to those proud bigots getting hate mail and then collecting a huge check from other bigots who supported them through crowd funding. This injustice must end before they are forced to cook pizza for gay people.
These big companies, for whatever reason, believe that it is a better business move to remove these items.
Hell, it might not even be a business thing. They're just doing it.
Guess what? They have that right. It doesn't matter.
This whole sentiment against the Confederate flag isn't being done by the government; it is the consumers and other private entities. They have a right to do this, so what is the problem?
Are you sure consumers did this?
Do you think the Illuminati might be part of this? Or the Lizard people?
On June 26 2015 08:02 Stratos_speAr wrote: The Confederate flag getting removed from the public sphere is long overdue.
On the public being PC in general: while I believe there are plenty of instances where people choose to get offended, just remember that things like this (companies firing people for being insensitive, businesses being run out of town because people don't like them being anti-gay, etc.) are the very definition of the free market at work. The government isn't coming in and punishing these businesses/people in most cases. The public is expressing the fact that they aren't pleased with how certain people/groups are acting.
The problem is that people are expressing intolerance with intolerance. If you don't want a cake from a bakery that doesn't support gay marriage then don't go there. Instead they sent them hate mail, death threats, and more just because they disliked the bakeries view. The same instance has happened to a pizzeria too. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable.
Well duh, but I don't think many people are condoning those actions (death threats and the like).
The problem I have is when (mostly conservatives) complain about stuff like this
The free market is deciding that they don't like what these shops are doing, and yet conservatives blame a "PC culture" and act like it's government fascism. It's complete hypocrisy.
On June 26 2015 08:02 Stratos_speAr wrote: On the public being PC in general: while I believe there are plenty of instances where people choose to get offended, just remember that things like this (companies firing people for being insensitive, businesses being run out of town because people don't like them being anti-gay, etc.) are the very definition of the free market at work. The government isn't coming in and punishing these businesses/people in most cases. The public is expressing the fact that they aren't pleased with how certain people/groups are acting.
What makes you think like corporate HR departments are representing the public when they fire people?
And what's the free market supposed to be, some kind of hand-waving trick? These are huge companies that have dominating market shares in regulated markets. Even if we grant "free market," so what? Is there an independent reason to think free market forces in the economy are necessarily agreeable? right? moral? Can we just throw our hands up and go "welp, free market, that's all there is to think about?"
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:But these companies are making an economic decision to remove the symbol from their stores because they feel the profits from selling the merchandise aren't worth the negative PR from carrying the merchandise in the first place.
It is not that they stopped selling them. It's that they stopped listing them, and in a reactionary scapegoating way. How did you arrive at the idea that, say, Amazon was getting bad PR from somewhere? Amazon, eBay, Google, Apple, these are basically too big to boycott. You couldn't effectively boycott eBay because THIRD PARTY seller listed a flag any more than someone could organize a boycott of eBay because they took down a flag listing for being a "hate" symbol. Right? That's why this conversation is important.
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 26 2015 06:10 oBlade wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:55 oBlade wrote: I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
Let's be real here, who is praising Walmart et al for "doing the right thing?" Everyone sane and reasonable knows that this decision impacts their bottom line and that is why they made it. Everyone has known this flag is a symbol of racism for the last 50 years but only recently are major corporations removing it from the shelves as a direct response to the shit storm. They're not protecting you from anything, but making an inventory decision like when they decide to stop carrying that brand of laundry detergent because it isn't cost effective to put on the shelves.
It's not a simple "inventory decision" in the cases of Apple. Amazon, eBay, and Google. I'm not interested in what fabric a supermarket chooses to buy from a factory and sell. I care about things like this:
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace.
You should also care about what huge tech companies, that control markets and information and place themselves between you and the world, are doing.
If the majority of Americans didn't find the flag to be a racist symbol, these companies would have no reason to stop selling them.
Can you demonstrate that claim in a way that's not circular? They don't sell Polaroid or candy cigarettes anymore, and those aren't "racist" symbols. Why did they list them before anyhow?
You seem to be tacitly implying that people believing something is offensive is a great reason to erase it from the results of the biggest web search engine. Have I got that right? Because I'm not convinced.
I don't care if it's reactionary by business interests. This is all long-overdue and has only been held in place because of sensitivity towards ignorant southerners.
It's the Shopping tab as you should have easily surmised from reading the OP. + Show Spoiler +
Is this really overdue? Have people been up in arms about like 10 stores selling CSA posters that nobody ever searches for on Amazon? Lot of uproar about people freely buying and selling things containing/relating to a flag before? Including you personally? Or is the fact that it's reactionary due to one set of murders maybe extremely relevant?
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:But these companies are making an economic decision to remove the symbol from their stores because they feel the profits from selling the merchandise aren't worth the negative PR from carrying the merchandise in the first place.
It is not that they stopped selling them. It's that they stopped listing them, and in a reactionary scapegoating way. How did you arrive at the idea that, say, Amazon was getting bad PR from somewhere? Amazon, eBay, Google, Apple, these are basically too big to boycott. You couldn't effectively boycott eBay because THIRD PARTY seller listed a flag any more than someone could organize a boycott of eBay because they took down a flag listing for being a "hate" symbol. Right? That's why this conversation is important.
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 26 2015 06:10 oBlade wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:55 oBlade wrote: I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
Let's be real here, who is praising Walmart et al for "doing the right thing?" Everyone sane and reasonable knows that this decision impacts their bottom line and that is why they made it. Everyone has known this flag is a symbol of racism for the last 50 years but only recently are major corporations removing it from the shelves as a direct response to the shit storm. They're not protecting you from anything, but making an inventory decision like when they decide to stop carrying that brand of laundry detergent because it isn't cost effective to put on the shelves.
It's not a simple "inventory decision" in the cases of Apple. Amazon, eBay, and Google. I'm not interested in what fabric a supermarket chooses to buy from a factory and sell. I care about things like this:
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace.
You should also care about what huge tech companies, that control markets and information and place themselves between you and the world, are doing.
If the majority of Americans didn't find the flag to be a racist symbol, these companies would have no reason to stop selling them.
Can you demonstrate that claim in a way that's not circular? They don't sell Polaroid or candy cigarettes anymore, and those aren't "racist" symbols. Why did they list them before anyhow?
You seem to be tacitly implying that people believing something is offensive is a great reason to erase it from the results of the biggest web search engine. Have I got that right? Because I'm not convinced.
This is irrelevant.
These big companies, for whatever reason, believe that it is a better business move to remove these items.
Hell, it might not even be a business thing. They're just doing it.
Guess what? They have that right. It doesn't matter.
This whole sentiment against the Confederate flag isn't being done by the government; it is the consumers and other private entities. They have a right to do this, so what is the problem?
Are you sure consumers did this?
If you believe in principle that corporate interests are equal to or more important than people, then we can just disagree there probably. I think of consumers as something to protect. Not in the sense of protecting them from a flag - or whatever other thing - that the media is telling them they can't handle. But protect the interests of consumers, including this and whatever shit to come that Google thinks they must or mustn't have. People were just selling and buying stuff with a flag on it. "They have a right to do this, so what is the problem? They're just doing it."
It doesn't matter if businesses are doing this because of consumer pressure or the fact that they don't like the color red.
Are you suggesting we should force these companies to sell certain items?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
it is disingenuous to call the confederate flag inherently racist, or pro-slavery (although there are plenty of people who chose to wave the flag because of the civil rights movement and all that came after.) slavery was just a PART of why the southern states wanted to secede from the union.
but in a twist of irony, the confederate flag just so happens to be as un-american as it gets. which is why I find it so distasteful for people to be waving it proudly in the united states.
in this instance, and all similar cases, banning the confederate flag is censorship. it is not free-market when accessibility of an item is being relegated to corporations that are bordering on monopolies. the apple and google store make up so much of the mobile game market, it is almost exclusive at this point.
On June 26 2015 08:02 Stratos_speAr wrote: The Confederate flag getting removed from the public sphere is long overdue.
On the public being PC in general: while I believe there are plenty of instances where people choose to get offended, just remember that things like this (companies firing people for being insensitive, businesses being run out of town because people don't like them being anti-gay, etc.) are the very definition of the free market at work. The government isn't coming in and punishing these businesses/people in most cases. The public is expressing the fact that they aren't pleased with how certain people/groups are acting.
The problem is that people are expressing intolerance with intolerance. If you don't want a cake from a bakery that doesn't support gay marriage then don't go there. Instead they sent them hate mail, death threats, and more just because they disliked the bakeries view. The same instance has happened to a pizzeria too. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable.
I heart goes out to those proud bigots getting hate mail and then collecting a huge check from other bigots who supported them through crowd funding. This injustice must end before they are forced to cook pizza for gay people.
These big companies, for whatever reason, believe that it is a better business move to remove these items.
Hell, it might not even be a business thing. They're just doing it.
Guess what? They have that right. It doesn't matter.
This whole sentiment against the Confederate flag isn't being done by the government; it is the consumers and other private entities. They have a right to do this, so what is the problem?
Are you sure consumers did this?
Do you think the Illuminati might be part of this? Or the Lizard people?
Since you chose to answer (I'm using that word loosely) for Stratos_speAr, but seem to have missed the point, let me rephrase the question for you. When a group of corporations say they're doing something, is your first reaction, "Wow, those pesky consumers at it again!" ? Because if you believe that the vaguely referenced "consumers" are more powerful than the hundreds of billions of dollars company Apple, then you might need to reconsider which of us resembles a conspiracy theorist.
On June 26 2015 08:02 Stratos_speAr wrote: On the public being PC in general: while I believe there are plenty of instances where people choose to get offended, just remember that things like this (companies firing people for being insensitive, businesses being run out of town because people don't like them being anti-gay, etc.) are the very definition of the free market at work. The government isn't coming in and punishing these businesses/people in most cases. The public is expressing the fact that they aren't pleased with how certain people/groups are acting.
What makes you think like corporate HR departments are representing the public when they fire people?
And what's the free market supposed to be, some kind of hand-waving trick? These are huge companies that have dominating market shares in regulated markets. Even if we grant "free market," so what? Is there an independent reason to think free market forces in the economy are necessarily agreeable? right? moral? Can we just throw our hands up and go "welp, free market, that's all there is to think about?"
On June 26 2015 08:11 FHDH wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:05 oBlade wrote:
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:But these companies are making an economic decision to remove the symbol from their stores because they feel the profits from selling the merchandise aren't worth the negative PR from carrying the merchandise in the first place.
It is not that they stopped selling them. It's that they stopped listing them, and in a reactionary scapegoating way. How did you arrive at the idea that, say, Amazon was getting bad PR from somewhere? Amazon, eBay, Google, Apple, these are basically too big to boycott. You couldn't effectively boycott eBay because THIRD PARTY seller listed a flag any more than someone could organize a boycott of eBay because they took down a flag listing for being a "hate" symbol. Right? That's why this conversation is important.
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 26 2015 06:10 oBlade wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:55 oBlade wrote: I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
Let's be real here, who is praising Walmart et al for "doing the right thing?" Everyone sane and reasonable knows that this decision impacts their bottom line and that is why they made it. Everyone has known this flag is a symbol of racism for the last 50 years but only recently are major corporations removing it from the shelves as a direct response to the shit storm. They're not protecting you from anything, but making an inventory decision like when they decide to stop carrying that brand of laundry detergent because it isn't cost effective to put on the shelves.
It's not a simple "inventory decision" in the cases of Apple. Amazon, eBay, and Google. I'm not interested in what fabric a supermarket chooses to buy from a factory and sell. I care about things like this:
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace.
You should also care about what huge tech companies, that control markets and information and place themselves between you and the world, are doing.
If the majority of Americans didn't find the flag to be a racist symbol, these companies would have no reason to stop selling them.
Can you demonstrate that claim in a way that's not circular? They don't sell Polaroid or candy cigarettes anymore, and those aren't "racist" symbols. Why did they list them before anyhow?
You seem to be tacitly implying that people believing something is offensive is a great reason to erase it from the results of the biggest web search engine. Have I got that right? Because I'm not convinced.
I don't care if it's reactionary by business interests. This is all long-overdue and has only been held in place because of sensitivity towards ignorant southerners.
It's the Shopping tab as you should have easily surmised from reading the OP. + Show Spoiler +
Is this really overdue? Have people been up in arms about like 10 stores selling CSA posters that nobody ever searches for on Amazon? Lot of uproar about people freely buying and selling things containing/relating to a flag before? Including you personally? Or is the fact that it's reactionary due to one set of murders maybe extremely relevant?
On June 26 2015 08:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:05 oBlade wrote:
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:But these companies are making an economic decision to remove the symbol from their stores because they feel the profits from selling the merchandise aren't worth the negative PR from carrying the merchandise in the first place.
It is not that they stopped selling them. It's that they stopped listing them, and in a reactionary scapegoating way. How did you arrive at the idea that, say, Amazon was getting bad PR from somewhere? Amazon, eBay, Google, Apple, these are basically too big to boycott. You couldn't effectively boycott eBay because THIRD PARTY seller listed a flag any more than someone could organize a boycott of eBay because they took down a flag listing for being a "hate" symbol. Right? That's why this conversation is important.
On June 26 2015 06:16 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 26 2015 06:10 oBlade wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:55 oBlade wrote: I'm so glad a group of major corporations have decided to protect me from a society where 0.01% of my peers might think about buying a piece of fabric or something relating to it.
Of course companies are free to do whatever they want. Like when Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al., froze Wikileaks funds. Wikileaks was still totally free to find equally good alternatives to Visa for their banking problems, like looking for spare change under the sofa cushions. If I recall correctly, the government even had to pressure, I mean ask, the banking companies to do that. But in this case, the company with the largest market cap in the world, among others, decided purely out of their own good will that our society can't handle a 150 year old piece of colored fabric anymore, and are leading the way by being the first companies to make a point of banning it, which definitely won't bring more attention to this non-issue. Just like how publishers and libraries made the brave decision to stop peddling Salinger after John Lennon was shot. It was the right thing to do.
Let's be real here, who is praising Walmart et al for "doing the right thing?" Everyone sane and reasonable knows that this decision impacts their bottom line and that is why they made it. Everyone has known this flag is a symbol of racism for the last 50 years but only recently are major corporations removing it from the shelves as a direct response to the shit storm. They're not protecting you from anything, but making an inventory decision like when they decide to stop carrying that brand of laundry detergent because it isn't cost effective to put on the shelves.
It's not a simple "inventory decision" in the cases of Apple. Amazon, eBay, and Google. I'm not interested in what fabric a supermarket chooses to buy from a factory and sell. I care about things like this:
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace.
You should also care about what huge tech companies, that control markets and information and place themselves between you and the world, are doing.
If the majority of Americans didn't find the flag to be a racist symbol, these companies would have no reason to stop selling them.
Can you demonstrate that claim in a way that's not circular? They don't sell Polaroid or candy cigarettes anymore, and those aren't "racist" symbols. Why did they list them before anyhow?
You seem to be tacitly implying that people believing something is offensive is a great reason to erase it from the results of the biggest web search engine. Have I got that right? Because I'm not convinced.
This is irrelevant.
These big companies, for whatever reason, believe that it is a better business move to remove these items.
Hell, it might not even be a business thing. They're just doing it.
Guess what? They have that right. It doesn't matter.
This whole sentiment against the Confederate flag isn't being done by the government; it is the consumers and other private entities. They have a right to do this, so what is the problem?
Are you sure consumers did this?
If you believe in principle that corporate interests are equal to or more important than people, then we can just disagree there probably. I think of consumers as something to protect. Not in the sense of protecting them from a flag - or whatever other thing - that the media is telling them they can't handle. But protect the interests of consumers, including this and whatever shit to come that Google thinks they must or mustn't have. People were just selling and buying stuff with a flag on it. "They have a right to do this, so what is the problem? They're just doing it."
It doesn't matter if businesses are doing this because of consumer pressure or the fact that they don't like the color red.
Are you suggesting we should force these companies to sell certain items?
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
There's a part of me that is just flat out disgusted at how much attention is being paid to the flag and not to the systemic racism it clearly represents, I mean when it takes a month+ and a 2/3 majority to take it down from the Capital area how can people still not see this...
It's literally waving in people's faces and they sit, blind as shit, still claimin' "I don't see races".
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
It was THE CENTRAL ISSUE. There were other issues but it was THE CENTRAL ISSUE.
Everyone - EVERYONE - who believes otherwise is a victim of historical revisionism. This IS what the Civil War was about. It was not and should not be treated as a proud time for the south.
If you believe in principle that corporate interests are equal to or more important than people, then we can just disagree there probably. I think of consumers as something to protect. Not in the sense of protecting them from a flag - or whatever other thing - that the media is telling them they can't handle. But protect the interests of consumers, including this and whatever shit to come that Google thinks they must or mustn't have. People were just selling and buying stuff with a flag on it. "They have a right to do this, so what is the problem? They're just doing it."
There is no government ban on buying/selling/owning the Confederate flag.
There isn't some huge conspiracy by all retailers out there to not sell it.
I guarantee you that there are still retailers out there that will sell the flag after this is all said and done.
Shit, I guarantee you that there are retailers out there that sell the Nazi flag in this country, which is probably the single worst and most hateful symbol in the history of humanity.
I don't see what your complaint is. The only thing I am getting from you is some bizarre paranoia. What consumer rights aren't being protected? The right to buy a Confederate flag? Consumers have never had a right to force retailers to stock a particular item for them to buy.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
Companies are forced to do (or not do) things in order to protect the rights of people or to ensure that a monopoly doesn't occur.
What right is a company infringing on if they refuse to sell the Confederate flag?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
That there is no one more qualified to explain racism to the American public than the first black president. And that he can drop the n-word to make a point because he is the first black president. And he is in his last term so he gives zero fucks how uncomfortable he makes white people.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black people can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black people can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh jeez, don't get into the N word argument...
And I'm pretty sure saying something is different that a company choosing to sell or not sell an item.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
Remove the flag from the state building, and stop screaming about state's rights when that is NOT what the Civil War was about. This is one of those things I just don't understand. Maybe it's because I'm not a Southerner, but I wouldn't be proud of that time or that flag. Meanwhile everyone is talking about the flag as if it had some impact. It's just an easy target when there are other things to discuss.
On June 26 2015 09:01 Introvert wrote: Remove the flag from the state building, and stop screaming about state's rights when that is NOT what the Civil War was about. This is one of those things I just don't understand. Maybe it's because I'm not a Southerner, but I wouldn't be proud of that time or that flag. Meanwhile everyone is talking about the flag as if it had some impact. It's just an easy target when there are other things to discuss.
There always are. But you take your victories where you can, when the opportunity comes.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
Right. So because I'm a white male middle class male I can't be offended by anything but only be the offender. This is how i feels these days. Don't respond acting childish because you don't like what I'm discussing.
"Because boys get more informal opportunities for computing experience outside of school, this lack of formal computing education especially affects girls and many youth of color." HUD, the press release added, has joined the Commitment to Action to help extend the program's reach in partnership with public housing authorities nationwide and provide computing access to the 485,000 girls residing in public housing.
So not even poor white males arent considered in this instance because apparently low income boys not of color have more informal opportunities to get into computing. This is all part of the same problem.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black people can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Are you for fucking real right now? He is the god damn first black President. Among his powers are to appoint Supreme Court justices and drop the N-word in interviews about racism.
And stop with the offended shit. People are not offended, they fucking hate that flag and the racists who rally around it. It sucks, the racists suck and the idea that its about States Rights and heritage is BS. People started using it in the 50-60s when the South was being forced to desegregate and that is when it was added to some state flags. It is a symbol of institutionalized racism, not a fucking tumbr post.
Right. So because I'm a white male middle class male I can't be offended by anything but only be the offender. This is how i feels these days. Don't respond acting childish because you don't like what I'm discussing.
No one said that. Take your fight to the street; you are getting straw all over our nice clean forum.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
Right. So because I'm a white male middle class male I can't be offended by anything but only be the offender. This is how i feels these days. Don't respond acting childish because you don't like what I'm discussing.
"Because boys get more informal opportunities for computing experience outside of school, this lack of formal computing education especially affects girls and many youth of color." HUD, the press release added, has joined the Commitment to Action to help extend the program's reach in partnership with public housing authorities nationwide and provide computing access to the 485,000 girls residing in public housing.
So not even poor white males arent considered in this instance because apparently low income boys not of color have more informal opportunities to get into computing. This is all part of the same problem.
As a white male, you do not get to use the N word. Black people can.
This is how the world works. It's called context. Deal with it. I really hope you studied American history in school, because it shouldn't be that difficult to remember all of the things that the N word entails when a white man says it.
Obama said the word, just as a white person can say the word. It was said in a way clinical way to illustrate a point. White comedians say it as well to illustrate points. There's a difference between saying the word and using the word. White people can say the word but the general public has a problem with using it and tossing it around and using it with malicious intent. There is a distinction there.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Yeah, they made it about racism when they started using it in the 50s.
It was actually inevitable that a thread about the Confederate battle standard would lead to a white boy complaining that society frowns on him using bigoted slurs while people in the targeted groups are given a pass. Are black people even oppressed?! Who are the REAL racists?! Poor whites have problems too! #alllivesmatter
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Making it your own requires it to have been used against you. That flag was never used against southern whites to put them in their place. Your point falls flat on its face.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Making it your own requires it to have been used against you. That flag was never used against southern whites to put them in their place. Your point falls flat on its face.
Exactly this. For an actually applicable example see "redneck."
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Yeah, they made it about racism when they started using it in the 50s.
And what about the N word? Is that not rooted in racism?
So this was the reason for operation jade helm,they where afraid the south would start civil war again after more or less banning their flag. (jk)
Its kinda weird and I do not understand the banning. It was not only a symbol of intolerance,at least I didn't see it that way. It was just a symbol for the south, the dukes of hazard had it on their car and it looked kinda cool. guess that show wont ever air again in America now as its to controversial ?
I won't claim its a symbol of the south in general,just that for me as a non American it was. First time i saw the flag was as a kid in the original dukes of hazard series and I never thought anything bad of it. Till now that is ><
Don't think this is a smart move and it will only make the southern pride stronger.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Yeah, they made it about racism when they started using it in the 50s.
And what about the N word? Is that not rooted in racism?
Oh my, we have a Very Clever Troll, everyone BEWARE
On June 26 2015 09:17 Rassy wrote: So this was the reason for operation jade helm,they where afraid the south would start civil war again after more or less banning their flag. (jk)
Its kinda weird and I do not understand the banning. It was not only a symbol of intolerance,at least I didn't see it that way. It was just a symbol for the south, the dukes of hazard had it on their car and it looked kinda cool. guess that show wont ever air again in America now as its to controversial ?
I won't claim its a symbol of the south in general,just that for me as a non American it was. First time i saw the flag was as a kid in the original dukes of hazard series and I never thought anything bad of it. Till now that is ><
Don't think this is a smart move and it will only make the southern pride stronger.
1) There is no "ban". Private entities are choosing not to sell it.
2) The flag has always been associated with racism. It was a Confederate battle flag, and the Confederacy committed treason and started a war to keep slavery as an institution. No matter how you spin it, slavery was the overwhelming reason that the Civil War occurred, and almost any other reason for the Civil War is directly tied to slavery (e.g. "State's rights" is tied to the fact that Southern States wanted Southerners to be able to keep slaves if they traveled to Northern States under the doctrine of "State's Rights", even though those states were abolitionist states).
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Yeah, they made it about racism when they started using it in the 50s.
And what about the N word? Is that not rooted in racism?
Oh my, we have a Very Clever Troll, everyone BEWARE
If you think everyone who has a confederate flag is racist, you're a moron.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote: [quote] Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Yeah, they made it about racism when they started using it in the 50s.
And what about the N word? Is that not rooted in racism?
Oh my, we have a Very Clever Troll, everyone BEWARE
If you think everyone who has a confederate flag is racist, you're a moron.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote: [quote] Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Yeah, they made it about racism when they started using it in the 50s.
And what about the N word? Is that not rooted in racism?
Oh my, we have a Very Clever Troll, everyone BEWARE
If you think everyone who has a confederate flag is racist, you're a moron.
What did I tell you kids about your goddamned straw fights? TAKE IT OUTSIDE.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote: [quote] How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Yeah, they made it about racism when they started using it in the 50s.
And what about the N word? Is that not rooted in racism?
Oh my, we have a Very Clever Troll, everyone BEWARE
If you think everyone who has a confederate flag is racist, you're a moron.
Racist or retarded. Pick your poison.
Or proud of their heritage as a southern state? Oh, sorry that's only for blacks.
On June 26 2015 08:49 FHDH wrote: [quote] This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
[quote] So? Seriously, so what?
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Yeah, they made it about racism when they started using it in the 50s.
And what about the N word? Is that not rooted in racism?
Oh my, we have a Very Clever Troll, everyone BEWARE
If you think everyone who has a confederate flag is racist, you're a moron.
Racist or retarded. Pick your poison.
Or proud of their heritage as a southern state? Oh, sorry that's only for blacks.
No, I'm afraid there are only 2 options and I gave them to you.
On June 26 2015 08:49 FHDH wrote: [quote] This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
[quote] So? Seriously, so what?
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Yeah, they made it about racism when they started using it in the 50s.
And what about the N word? Is that not rooted in racism?
Oh my, we have a Very Clever Troll, everyone BEWARE
If you think everyone who has a confederate flag is racist, you're a moron.
Racist or retarded. Pick your poison.
Or proud of their heritage as a southern state? Oh, sorry that's only for blacks.
A fine heritage to be proud of. "Remember when we turned against our country to keep slaves? YAWWWW"
On June 26 2015 08:49 FHDH wrote: [quote] This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
[quote] So? Seriously, so what?
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Yeah, they made it about racism when they started using it in the 50s.
And what about the N word? Is that not rooted in racism?
Oh my, we have a Very Clever Troll, everyone BEWARE
If you think everyone who has a confederate flag is racist, you're a moron.
Racist or retarded. Pick your poison.
Or proud of their heritage as a southern state? Oh, sorry that's only for blacks.
Proud of their racist or otherwise bigoted heritage?
No, not everyone who has one is a racist. They're just ignorant. That flag means racism. Trying to separate that flag from its racist connotations is like trying to separate the Nazi flag from its hateful connotations just because the Nazi party also had an anti-Communist political platform.
I am not pro-confederate flag, I am anti-censorship.
I do not like seeing the confederate flag, and that particular one (out of the many used during the civil war) came into popularity during the civil rights movement, but that does not mean it is inherently racist. inherently anti-american, yes, but people are free to crap on the united states.
On June 26 2015 09:29 valium wrote: I am not pro-confederate flag, I am anti-censorship.
I do not like seeing the confederate flag, and that particular one (out of the many used during the civil war) came into popularity during the civil rights movement, but that does not mean it is inherently racist. inherently anti-american, yes, but people are free to crap on the united states.
Educate yourselves. Yeah not a lot of 'heritage' to that flag. The group which used it the most was the KKK. You can argue what you want, but is not the flag of the confederacy, in fact the majority of confederate troops never used it.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote: [quote] Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Yeah, they made it about racism when they started using it in the 50s.
And what about the N word? Is that not rooted in racism?
Oh my, we have a Very Clever Troll, everyone BEWARE
If you think everyone who has a confederate flag is racist, you're a moron.
Agreed, just like everyone who has a Nazi flag isn't antisemitic.
I don't see why its such a big deal? Its not like its impossible to go get a flag if your that attached to the stupid thing. Big companies deciding they don't want to deal with the head ache and deciding to drop products that have the symbol doesn't mean its banned or that no one can ever get one again.
I agree that Apple is taking it too far with the games thing (lol) but seriously? Its not impacting ANYONE in any meaningful way. Oh so you can't pick up your "southern pride" shit at Walmart anymore, find an alternative.
I had a big rant written up here in response to the PC bit, but suffice to say I was just beginning to ramble.
It is bullshit, utter bullshit, and is the road to the government telling which thoughts and expressions are off-limits based on their perceived intents. For instance, in the UK, they can limit your right to free expression regarding racist comments, supporting terrorist ideals (which are defined arbitrarily by who's on what side of what) or radicals, advocating the abolishment of the monarchy, etc. Anything "indecent or grossly offensive." Not that I support any of those things, but I definitely am not cool with a government telling me I can't think or say such things. That's pretty big breach of personal freedom.
As for the stores pulling the flags, whatever. In the short run they will only hurt themselves because the fiasco is skyrocketing the demand for such merchandise, and in the long run it won't amount to much either way until the generational disparity resolves itself when all the older racists and bigots die off.
For the flag itself, Zasz pretty much sums up how I feel as well:
My take is that people who claim the Confederate flag is nothing but a symbol of Southern pride and patriotism are either lying to themselves or everyone else. The battle flag wasn't even used very much by the Confederacy, and was only proudly put on display as a response to the civil rights movement in the 1960's, so claiming that flying it is some sort of tribute to your ancestors is laughable, unless those ancestors were racist. There is no excuse for it to be flying over government buildings or in public spaces, because it is the symbol of a nation that rebelled against the United States and lost. I cannot think of any country in the world that proudly displays symbols associated with a rebellious faction 150 years after that faction was put down.
However, it is a person's right to display this flag on their property, and if they want to do so they need to be able to get it somewhere. In the same vein, it is a business' right to carry Confederacy memorabilia, and they did so right up until it no longer benefit them from a financial and PR standpoint. I think the flag is fine on war monuments and in historical contexts, because removing it from those contexts is bordering on revisionist history and I'd rather not people forget the Civil War. But there is a fine line between showing and depicting Civil War imagery and endorsing the Confederacy. Fine enough that I think it is inappropriate to claim that war memorials or historical depictions of the flag are racist.
Also, Apple removing all Civil War games due to their depiction of the flag is ridiculous. US History is important, and the Confederacy is a part of our history whether we like it or not, just like slavery, the trail of tears, Japanese internment, and the atomic bomb. Games that simulate the Civil War or depict that part of US History should not be prohibited from depicting something as simple as a flag, unless that symbol is used in an active endorsement of slavery or racism.
Except for this:
A spade is a spade. Apparently, it would be PC to let South Carolina continue to fly it on government property without calling the symbol what it is.
I mean, would you, or anybody else personally opinionated on the issue of the flag, feel better if the government of South Carolina outright admitted that the flag was a display of pride in racist heritage and then flew the flag anyway? Probably not. They aren't attacking just the right to fly it on the capitol building (or any government building), they're attacking the right to fly it at all as an expression. That's my only problem with the debate. Much as conservative southerners are hiding behind the historical aspect of the flag to deny racist connotations it invokes, the other side won't freely admit that they just don't want people to have the freedom to be racist or bigoted on a personal level if they so choose. Taking it off the capitol is a start, perhaps, but shouldn't be anything on the law books until some kind of corroborative consensus between both parties can be reached about what the flag stands for, as BOTH interpretations are true at the same time.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Mississippi's entire Declaration of Secession was about slavery. They even said that the Founding Fathers seceded from England for a lesser cause than the preservation of slavery. Yes. It is in there. Read it. Apparently preserving slavery is more important than what the American Revolution was fought over.
This entire war was about keeping black people as slaves. This flag is a battle flag from that war that was flown by the Confederates that were trying to keep slaves.
And no, bringing down Confederate flags from public grounds isn't revisionist history. Hell, they could tear down the monuments and it wouldn't be. That's not revising anything, it's just choosing not to glorify something. Under the train of logic that the South should "honor their dead" and "give respect to those that died for a cause that they believed in", should the Germans start erecting statues of prominent Nazis and flying Nazi flags in those individuals' hometowns?
On June 26 2015 09:57 GizmoPT wrote: comparing them to Nazis is hilarious.. you Americans never sieze to amaze me... you guys are becoming more like nazi germany every day have fun
As a European, I wasn't aware that flag had so much racist connotations. And it seems like the opinion is a bit diverging in this thread as well, with some people saying it is like the swaztika, and others just laughing it off. Hmm.
Anyway, even with a bit of racist connotation, it is pretty scary, and telling I guess, that they use it on government buildings...
On June 26 2015 06:08 FHDH wrote: I once served in a state that captured a southern state's battle standard and refused to ever return it. I'm quite proud of that and am a true American staunch pro-Unionist.
Fuck Confederate traitors and their sympathizers. Fuck slavers, their supporters, and all the historical revisionists who have been working to erase the reality of their history. Fuck that flag.
It's a good day to be an American.
Minnesotas 1st infantry and on the last day of Gettysburg. It's a really heroic story suicide charge to buy the union time before being transferred right in front of pickets charge.
Google is removing results related to the Confederate Flag from Google Shopping, the company's online marketplace. They're also blocking advertisements involving the flag. They say, "We have determined that the Confederate flag violates our Ads policies, which don't allow content that's generally perceived as expressing hate toward a particular group."
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
Major online merchant websites like eBay and Amazon have already taken the step of banning merchandise relating to the flag.
I basically ranted on PC related issues in the spoiler below. You can read this and address if you like or just discuss the primary topic of the flag. Edit: Spoilered this + Show Spoiler +
I'm personally fed up with how PC the American society has become. For a nation that is supposed to be free, we are sure being hypocrites. People want to tear down monuments of generals who fought in the south because it is offensive to minorities. In Atlanta, Georgia a fireman was fired because he doesn't support homosexuality. ( Source ) Are we losing our minds in this nation or am I the age where I'm paying attention better and this has always been happening?
Even Hilary Clinton has been accused of insulting minorities for saying "All lives matter" in her latest speech. Written news from Black Republican Herman Cain
You're not allowed to say "all lives matter" because the left has established a mantra - with a hashtag, even, and nothing could make a mantra more official than that - of declaring that #blacklivesmatter. You have to say it right. You have to say it the way they want you to say it. No variations allowed. Professor Judith Butler of UC Berkeley explains why there can be no exceptions to the speech code:
“When some people rejoin with ‘All Lives Matter’ they misunderstand the problem, but not because their message is untrue,” she wrote. “It is true that all lives matter, but it is equally true that not all lives are understood to matter which is precisely why it is most important to name the lives that have not mattered, and are struggling to matter in the way they deserve.”
If you are an American and you believe in liberty, true liberty, then do not complain when speech is controlled, to positive ends, by non-freedom violating means on private property. The confederate flag is a fucking stupid relic, which I believe is not associated only with racism, not only defended or saluted for that reason, but it certainly is racist nonetheless and does not deserve defense or salute. Taking down that flag from your own property, be it a small home, an apartment you lease with contractual speech privileges, a car you sleep out of, or the biggest corporate mega-conglomerate in the history of the world, is the right thing to do, should be absolutely legal, and criticized by no one, but certainly not in the name of liberty.
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.
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.
If you believe in principle that corporate interests are equal to or more important than people, then we can just disagree there probably. I think of consumers as something to protect. Not in the sense of protecting them from a flag - or whatever other thing - that the media is telling them they can't handle. But protect the interests of consumers, including this and whatever shit to come that Google thinks they must or mustn't have. People were just selling and buying stuff with a flag on it. "They have a right to do this, so what is the problem? They're just doing it."
There is no government ban on buying/selling/owning the Confederate flag.
There isn't some huge conspiracy by all retailers out there to not sell it.
I guarantee you that there are still retailers out there that will sell the flag after this is all said and done.
Shit, I guarantee you that there are retailers out there that sell the Nazi flag in this country, which is probably the single worst and most hateful symbol in the history of humanity.
I don't see what your complaint is. The only thing I am getting from you is some bizarre paranoia. What consumer rights aren't being protected? The right to buy a Confederate flag? Consumers have never had a right to force retailers to stock a particular item for them to buy.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
Companies are forced to do (or not do) things in order to protect the rights of people or to ensure that a monopoly doesn't occur.
What right is a company infringing on if they refuse to sell the Confederate flag?
Of course there's no conspiracy. That doesn't mean they aren't collectively wrong. You are correct that there's nothing from the government banning this, you and everyone else have been correct every time you've repeated that. That what makes it so perplexing. I would simply rather huge online marketplaces didn't take over the market and then arbitrarily stop people from selling and buying some random thing, because that could be me later.
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
Right. So because I'm a white male middle class male I can't be offended by anything but only be the offender. This is how i feels these days. Don't respond acting childish because you don't like what I'm discussing.
"Because boys get more informal opportunities for computing experience outside of school, this lack of formal computing education especially affects girls and many youth of color." HUD, the press release added, has joined the Commitment to Action to help extend the program's reach in partnership with public housing authorities nationwide and provide computing access to the 485,000 girls residing in public housing.
So not even poor white males arent considered in this instance because apparently low income boys not of color have more informal opportunities to get into computing. This is all part of the same problem.
As a white male, you do not get to use the N word. Black people can.
This is how the world works. It's called context. Deal with it. I really hope you studied American history in school, because it shouldn't be that difficult to remember all of the things that the N word entails when a white man says it.
I think you've shown where you're coming from now. I'm wondering if you personally have you ever considered the irony in saying that people born with a certain color skin can't say something you think is racially charged?
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote: [quote] How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black peopl can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
Oh christ, we've got a wee one here.
Black people have made n**** their own. Gay men call each other f****. Lesbians freely use the word dyke. And so on and so on. This is a pattern of the oppressed. They are allowed it. White people don't get to complain about it. Straights don't get to complain about it. Doing so is extremely childish and demonstrates no real understanding of what the demographics in question have gone through.
It means something different coming from their own mouths. Deal with it.
The point is southerners have made the confederate flag their own, you can't have it both ways.
Yeah, they made it about racism when they started using it in the 50s.
And what about the N word? Is that not rooted in racism?
Oh my, we have a Very Clever Troll, everyone BEWARE
If you think everyone who has a confederate flag is racist, you're a moron.
Agreed, just like everyone who has a Nazi flag isn't antisemitic.
Are you being facetious here or sincere? Because that makes sense to me, I can easily imagine veterans and history buffs with Third Reich/Nazi memorabilia.
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.
So they are more anti-warrior then, is that what you are saying? A kind of pacifists?
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.
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.
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.
Banning either is completely stupid. It's not the flags that are the problem, it's the glorification of them.
And it would be nice if they wouldn't be glorified in negative perception either. American media seems to aggrandize both Nazis and Confederates as some kind of ultimate evil that every bad guy must reference in some form.
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.
It seems like there is some disagreement on to what extent the flag is associated with racism: wiki link
The Confederate flag is a controversial symbol for many Americans today. A 2011 Pew Research poll revealed that 30% of Americans have a "negative reaction" when "they see the Confederate flag displayed."[35] According to the same poll, 9% of Americans have a positive reaction. A majority (58%) have no reaction. In a 2013 YouGov poll, a plurality (38%) of those polled disapproved of displaying the flag in public places.[36] In the same poll, a plurality (44%) of those asked viewed the flag as a symbol of racism, with 24% viewing it as exclusively racist and 20% viewing it as both racist and symbolic of pride in the region.[36]
So trusting those numbers, it seems like just below half associate it with racism, while very few actually like it. So I can see how this a good move for the companies.
Although I am for removing the Confederate flag from any government use and am part of the group that feels it to be a disrespectful (if not outright racist) symbol, I can't help but feel that this is just a huge smokescreen to draw attention away from gun control.
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.
It's meant to be a sort of sarcastic term (like keyboard warrior or white knight). Unfortunately, because it's thrown around at basically anyone who calls something racist or sexist, it's become entirely useless. The sarcasm has essentially been lost, and it really does seem to refer to people who fight for social justice. It's now used by people who want to ignore social issues and complain about political correctness.
Companies are banning it because it's a fiscal decision based on the current culture.
That's a PR move on their part. There is no law in place banning the flag, and if you want to make one and fly it, there will be no legal ramifications for it.
I don't care if the culture wants to ban something, as long as the law doesn't do it.
That flag is still valid if flying over the pitiful Army of the Tennessee. Recently the flag is much better known than any of the other symbols of Confederacy, especially since it is much more distinct from the US banner of the day.
But in a way, its modern symbolism is representative of Southern culture in its entirety, including its open racism.
Well, I guess this exercise of expunging this symbol is a lot like the Civil War. When moral outrage (abolitionists) collides with economic interests (plantation society) you get some ridiculous outcomes (4 years and half a million dead).
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)
Not sure about the overall best course of action. Given the situation, it seems reasonable for a business to drop confederate flag stuff for a time while you review the situation (partially a cover to stall until the public settles on the best solution, partially genuine need to review). You can always bring it back on sale later. It's also cheaper to let other people figure out policy than to try to get it right yourself.
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)
And doing anything with the confederate flag will somehow either fix or reinforce any of what you said?
For someone who spends a lot of time ranting on this site about how token words and efforts mean absolutely nothing compared to real issues and problems, you sure are putting a lot of weight into a token effort that will have no effect on real issues and problem.
Hilarious thing is that specialty flag stores up here are removing the Confederate flag from sale...so, uh, nice job US for spending the last week glorifying historical replicas to other nations?
Conservative pundit Ann Coulter said on Tuesday night that South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) is unqualified to deal with her state’s use of the Confederate flag because she’s an "immigrant."
“I’d really like to like Nikki Haley since she is a Republican, but on the other hand, she’s an immigrant and does not understand America’s history,” Coulter told host Kennedy on her Fox Business show Tuesday evening.
“Well, she doesn’t,” Coulter responded. “The Confederate flag we’re talking about never flew over an official Confederate building.”
“It was a battle flag — it is to honor Robert E. Lee,” she added. “Anyone who knows the first thing about military history knows that there is no greater army that ever took the field than the Confederate Army.”
Haley's parents are Indian Sikhs who came to the United States before she was born in Bamberg, S.C.
The governor urged her state’s lawmakers on Monday to remove the Confederate flag from a memorial on the state Capitol grounds in Columbia, responding to an outcry after the mass shooting last week at a historically black church in Charleston.
“Today, we are here in a moment of unity in our state, without ill will, to say it’s time to move the flag from the Capitol grounds,” she said.
“We are not going to allow this symbol to divide us any longer,” Haley added. “The fact that it causes pain to so many is enough to move it from the Capitol grounds.”
South Carolina law dictates that a majority of state lawmakers must vote on whether the Confederate flag is raised or lowered.
Fresh controversy over the flag ignited in the wake of last week’s mass shooting last Wednesday evening at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Nine people were killed.
Dylann Storm Roof, the alleged shooter, reportedly uttered racial epithets before attacking Emanuel AME Church’s congregants and had been photographed with Confederate flag merchandise.
Coulter accused the Democratic Party of hypocrisy over their opposition to the Confederate flag.
“But if we’re going to remedy the sadness of the Confederate side of the Civil War, I think we need to abolish the Democratic Party,” she said.
“That’s a much more hateful symbol,” Coulter added of Democrats. “Even after the North, i.e. Republicans, won that war and finally got Democrats to give up slavery, Democrats continued to discriminate against black people for another 100 years.”
I am from Singapore, a country that is one of the least free in the world with regards to speech. However I have no issues with having a restricted freedom of speech, because I enjoy the trade offs of having religious and racial stability in the country.
What I see in the western world are calls for my country to respect the rights to free speech. In my opinion, having this freedom comes with responsibility, and I do not see many other societies respecting it. 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. History has repeated time and time again, but nothing substantial is done to prevent it.
My country practises censorship for the greater good of the public. Contrary to what the outside may think, we are able to criticise the government or politicians, provided these criticisms are based on true facts. It means if you were to criticise someone, you jolly well be able to back it up or it is akin to defamation. I don't see it as censorship, I see it as being responsible with our speech. In fact, I don't even feel restricted because I know I can say whatever I want as long as it is true.
I think the western world could exercise a little of such responsibility.
[Edit] Sometimes I wonder, why would one feel restricted with censorship of things that may serve to create hate against certain communities. I mean it is not like you would be doing those things, unless of course you actually want to.
Also I think the freedom of speech the western world practises is an extreme end, whereas the censorship practiced by nations such as china are on the other extreme. I like the middle ground.
as a certain dead white male imperialist (probably racist) said, 'may your chains rest lightly upon you'
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.
smart take
Also I think the freedom of speech the western world practises is an extreme end, whereas the censorship practiced by nations such as china are on the other extreme. I like the middle ground.
Responsibility... perhaps. Ignorance and hate, instead are what I believe to be the issue. I'm all for freedom of speech. What bothers me is why idiots like Ann Coulter are so popular and accepted. After all, without an audience she wouldn't have a job. The solution, in my opinion, is systemic rather than symbolic. Abolishing ignorant teachings from public schools, like I mentioned. After all, any symbol can be meaningless and ironic rhetoric, just like the Virginia State Motto I referenced before. You have to get to that point first though, the rest will take care of itself.
On June 26 2015 13:58 TanGeng wrote: That flag is still valid if flying over the pitiful Army of the Tennessee. Recently the flag is much better known than any of the other symbols of Confederacy, especially since it is much more distinct from the US banner of the day.
But in a way, its modern symbolism is representative of Southern culture in its entirety, including its open racism.
Well, I guess this exercise of expunging this symbol is a lot like the Civil War. When moral outrage (abolitionists) collides with economic interests (plantation society) you get some ridiculous outcomes (4 years and half a million dead).
As a white male from the south, your post reeks of ignorance.
On June 26 2015 13:58 TanGeng wrote: That flag is still valid if flying over the pitiful Army of the Tennessee. Recently the flag is much better known than any of the other symbols of Confederacy, especially since it is much more distinct from the US banner of the day.
But in a way, its modern symbolism is representative of Southern culture in its entirety, including its open racism.
Well, I guess this exercise of expunging this symbol is a lot like the Civil War. When moral outrage (abolitionists) collides with economic interests (plantation society) you get some ridiculous outcomes (4 years and half a million dead).
As a white male from the south, your post reeks of ignorance.
To be fair though, all white males from the south should know that you can't understand american history unless you are an at least 3 generations US citizen, so have some understanding for the ignorance.
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.
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.
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.
But he has a point that gang violence is often undermediatized, which leads to its normalization. And normalizing violence is never good.
On June 26 2015 05:45 darthfoley wrote: While I support banning confederate flags from any government buildings (biggest no brainer of all time), this whole "Apple banning civil war games" is so fucking dumb lol.
Most people also forget that four states in the Union had legalized slavery. It's just a interesting fact many people seem to gloss over talking about the Civil War
Well ... today's decisions do not need to be based on what the flag was or stood for when it was used 150 years ago. It is what the symbol stands for today that should drive the decisions.
A kid waving the flag and babbling about white supremacy maybe doesn't know the details of the political and economical situation in the early XIXth century and probably doesn't care. But if everyone agrees waving that flag means you're soon going to start shooting people, something has to be done.
Then again, allowing criminals to tag themselves as such is a easy way to keep track. Without their symbols they may still be dangerous, but they become more difficult to spot.
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?
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 +
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?
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
You want to limit one's speech and freedom of expression so people don't get offended? There is no human right to not be offended, there is no innate human trait or element that makes being offended somehow the end-all of horrible things to occur, and there is no human right to have your particular sensitives in anyway respected by the speech of others.
The day we start restricting publications of images depicting someone's Prophet because publishing them is "selfish" and "does more harm than good" is a sad day indeed. They have no right to not be offended, none at all. Blacks in America don't like the Confederate flag waving around? Tough shit, deal with it. Boo-hoo, your ostensibly balanced sensitives got hurt by a piece of cloth, so what? The only argument I've seen regarding it boils down to "this image/flag/symbol is offensive, thus we should get rid of it". The only response, the only rational, logical consistent response to such drivel should be: "Being offended doesn't mean shit".
Insulting other people, saying hurtful things, mocking someone's faith, God, religion, or Prophet...so what!? You are free to say and think and display whatever images and symbols you so desire (or you should be, at least). What, you want to stop people from being mean? From saying hurtful things? Sure, ask them nicely to stop it, but the day the law gets involved with "protecting people's feelings from being hurt" is a depressing-as-all-fuck day indeed.
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.
But that's so....subjective, and if you really think about it, it's insane. Let's play along:
1. I dislike homosexuals. 2. I don't like gays. 3. Homosexuals are...weird, and freak me out. 4. Homosexuals suck! 5. Gays should burn! 6. Homosexuals scare me, and I don't want them teaching my children. 7. Homosexuals make me sick! 8. Homosexuals make me sick, I'd punch them if I wouldn't get arrested!
Yeah, okay. Let's start deciding which of these should be limited, forbidden, or not protected as free speech. Good luck with that, we can play this game all day. The point is that freedom of speech is, and should be, effectively all-or-nothing. Clear and present danger aside, whatever the hell you want to say, you should be allowed to say it, and if the only argument against freedom of expression and beliefs is that "well, you're going to hurt someone's feelings!", then I think we're done here...
I'm torn on this issue. On one hand, flying the confederate flag is absurd and stupid because even when the idea is that it's meant to be done "in opposition to the federal government", well it disregards the connotation of the flag. On the other hand, why prevent people from buying the flag? Some people want flags as collectables and whatnot. I'd kinda like a Svastika flag not because I'm a nazi but because I like me some historical swag.
As much as I believe that people who fly the confederate flag are dumb cunts, I also believe that they should be able to purchase those flags. I find it hard to condemn the private initiative not to sell flags, since people are free to buy and own, but will just have to look around some more. However, Apple really crossed the line as far as I'm concerned when they started removing american civil war games because of the depiction of the flag.
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 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!
Well, yes.
Sorry, totally wasn't meant to you. I'm specifically talking about my opinion that people should be allowed to state opinions regarding groups, even if they are racist/sexist/homophobic. I will then use my First Amendment rights to let the world know that they are bad people.
It's somewhat the marketplace of ideas, and luckily, we as a nation have decided that racism is unacceptable. Post the N-word on Twitter, and you'll get fired - not because its illegal, but because a company that associates with that person will get so much backlash.
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.
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.
You don't get it. The first amendment only protects from government prosecution. Insult your boss and coworkers and you can get fired. Insult your customers and they can boycott you.
Having the government decide what is insulting or not is a slippery slope. You have to be extremely naive if you think the Singaporean government does not prosecute valid criticism by claiming that the criticism isn't factual. It is a law that is very ripe for abuse.
Check this article out about Britain's libel laws.
Thing is that although you and the public are able to slam whoever who makes a sensitive remark even though he has every right to based on your freedom of speech, there lies the danger that what if the said sensitive remark is publicly supported? Does that make the remark right then?
For example someone could say that blacks are of a lower class and should have their rights removed. Fortunately there will be a public outcry over this statement. But what if this statement gains momentum from the white community, and hence is not shut down but supported? And then there will be more racial tension which may lead to consequences.
I don't see any merits in having this ability and freedom to make such statements, despite the public bring able to condemn them. It leaves the community vulnerable to populist opinions, even if they are wrong.
On June 29 2015 13:33 DucK- wrote: Thing is that although you and the public are able to slam whoever who makes a sensitive remark even though he has every right to based on your freedom of speech, there lies the danger that what if the said sensitive remark is publicly supported? Does that make the remark right then?
For example someone could say that blacks are of a lower class and should have their rights removed. Fortunately there will be a public outcry over this statement. But what if this statement gains momentum from the white community, and hence is not shut down but supported? And then there will be more racial tension which may lead to consequences.
I don't see any merits in having this ability and freedom to make such statements, despite the public bring able to condemn them. It leaves the community vulnerable to populist opinions, even if they are wrong.
If the statement gains momentum and isn't shut down, then the opinion it expresses already exists, and attempting to censor the words only covers up the surface without even touching the underlying issues.
I'm fine with companies deciding to sell or not sell whatever they want as long as it doesn't break the law. If customers have an issue with it, then they'll take their business elsewhere.
I think context matters a lot when talking about the Confederate flag. If it's a history game and the flag is used in an appropriate historical context, then I think it's silly to not sell that game (same as if a swastika appeared). If it's actually Confederate (or analogously, Nazi) propaganda sold for the sole purpose of perpetuating support for a message of prejudice, then I think owners are perfectly justified in reflecting on whether or not that's the kind of thing they want their businesses to represent... and it doesn't surprise me at all if some owners choose not to sell them.
On June 29 2015 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm fine with companies deciding to sell or not sell whatever they want as long as it doesn't break the law. If customers have an issue with it, then they'll take their business elsewhere.
I think context matters a lot when talking about the Confederate flag. If it's a history game and the flag is used in an appropriate historical context, then I think it's silly to not sell that game (same as if a swastika appeared). If it's actually Confederate (or analogously, Nazi) propaganda sold for the sole purpose of perpetuating support for a message of prejudice, then I think owners are perfectly justified in reflecting on whether or not that's the kind of thing they want their businesses to represent... and it doesn't surprise me at all if some owners choose not to sell them.
The problem is that the public doesn't care about the context. They don't care to research each individual thing, they just know that something is bad and will decry it with full force.
In the past it was easier to ignore the people who just want something to scream and yell at, and take the time to educate everyone else that no, all the fearmongering isn't based on reality.
The environment with the internet and social media, though, lets people skew singular ideas stripped of all context far and wide in an instant, and amplify it to a point where it can't be ignored no matter how false it could be.
It's a Catch-22 of the internet, really. On one hand, real issues can be spread further and faster than ever before, and it's becoming impossible to sweep anything under the rug. On the other, it also means something small (or fake) can be blown out of proportion to the point where the punishment far outstrips the actual problem.
On June 29 2015 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm fine with companies deciding to sell or not sell whatever they want as long as it doesn't break the law. If customers have an issue with it, then they'll take their business elsewhere.
I think context matters a lot when talking about the Confederate flag. If it's a history game and the flag is used in an appropriate historical context, then I think it's silly to not sell that game (same as if a swastika appeared). If it's actually Confederate (or analogously, Nazi) propaganda sold for the sole purpose of perpetuating support for a message of prejudice, then I think owners are perfectly justified in reflecting on whether or not that's the kind of thing they want their businesses to represent... and it doesn't surprise me at all if some owners choose not to sell them.
The problem is that the public doesn't care about the context. They don't care to research each individual thing, they just know that something is bad and will decry it with full force.
In the past it was easier to ignore the people who just want something to scream and yell at, and take the time to educate everyone else that no, all the fearmongering isn't based on reality.
The environment with the internet and social media, though, lets people skew singular ideas stripped of all context far and wide in an instant, and amplify it to a point where it can't be ignored no matter how false it could be.
It's a Catch-22 of the internet, really. On one hand, real issues can be spread further and faster than ever before, and it's becoming impossible to sweep anything under the rug. On the other, it also means something small (or fake) can be blown out of proportion to the point where the punishment far outstrips the actual problem.
Yeah, it's an issue about educating the public and finding a way to have an open conversation with those who will listen, although you'll have people on either side still being closed-minded and willfully ignorant anyway.
On June 29 2015 13:33 DucK- wrote: Thing is that although you and the public are able to slam whoever who makes a sensitive remark even though he has every right to based on your freedom of speech, there lies the danger that what if the said sensitive remark is publicly supported? Does that make the remark right then?
For example someone could say that blacks are of a lower class and should have their rights removed. Fortunately there will be a public outcry over this statement. But what if this statement gains momentum from the white community, and hence is not shut down but supported? And then there will be more racial tension which may lead to consequences.
I don't see any merits in having this ability and freedom to make such statements, despite the public bring able to condemn them. It leaves the community vulnerable to populist opinions, even if they are wrong.
If the statement gains momentum and isn't shut down, then the opinion it expresses already exists, and attempting to censor the words only covers up the surface without even touching the underlying issues.
The purpose of censorship my country practises isn't to deny that such issues could be present, but to prevent or reduce the possibility of the issue escalating into something terrible such as racial violence, hate crimes, or charlie hebdo.
The common misconception with our censorship is that you are not allowed to talk about it at all. That is certainly not true.
I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
The colonial flag isn't offensive just because Americans were horrible to Native Americans in that time period
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote: I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
The colonial flag isn't offensive just because Americans were horrible to Native Americans in that time period
It is to the Native Americans.
Symbols mean different things to different people. If you want to take pride in a time period in which your region of the country tried to separate itself from the rest of the country over their right to have slaves, then you are permitted to do so, but understand that the rest of us are going to call you out on your bullshit, and we have no desire to see the government sponsor that behavior.
On June 29 2015 13:33 DucK- wrote: Thing is that although you and the public are able to slam whoever who makes a sensitive remark even though he has every right to based on your freedom of speech, there lies the danger that what if the said sensitive remark is publicly supported? Does that make the remark right then?
For example someone could say that blacks are of a lower class and should have their rights removed. Fortunately there will be a public outcry over this statement. But what if this statement gains momentum from the white community, and hence is not shut down but supported? And then there will be more racial tension which may lead to consequences.
I don't see any merits in having this ability and freedom to make such statements, despite the public bring able to condemn them. It leaves the community vulnerable to populist opinions, even if they are wrong.
If the statement gains momentum and isn't shut down, then the opinion it expresses already exists, and attempting to censor the words only covers up the surface without even touching the underlying issues.
The purpose of censorship my country practises isn't to deny that such issues could be present, but to prevent or reduce the possibility of the issue escalating into something terrible such as racial violence, hate crimes, or charlie hebdo.
The common misconception with our censorship is that you are not allowed to talk about it at all. That is certainly not true.
singapore is economically stable and one of the richest countries in its vicinity. thats fortunate but wait until an economic decline happens and people want drastic change and the government out of the office. do you think you could have widespread demonstrations with a huge media coverage wanting radical instituional reforms? i dont think so.
free speech is the backbone of democracy and one of the main reasons why some countries now have centuries old government systems without civil wars, revolutions or anything. free speech is a stabilizing factor in the grand scheme of things. yeah some nutjobs get offended by stupid things and blow up a building or something, but it doesnt matter. a few hundred deads caused by religious or racist idiots dont affect a country at all, there are still generations to come who will live in a free society that gets gradually better and better. it gets better, because you can hardly abuse freedom of speech. individual rights are protected by the constitution which is almost unchangable in every country, so you cant try to make blacks or gays second class citizens, as they are protected by the constitution. you probably end up in jail if you follow this path. yes, theoretically some stupid idea could gain traction and the public is able to abolish fundemantal rights for some, but its a hell of a lot more unlikely than a couple of guys in charge of the censorship are following their own agenda. a benevolent dictator is highly volatile and all goes to shit when he decides to do something stupid, which dictators usually do sooner or later.
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote: I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
Out of curiosity, why is the Confederate flag the best way to represent your pride? I'm not a Southerner so I don't understand, but why would you want to use an icon of perpetual slavery and treason? Why does being a proud Southerner in the 21st century invoke the use of something from long ago that has so much baggage attached to it? Surely you're not proud of the Civil War?
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote: I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
Out of curiosity, why is the Confederate flag the best way to represent your pride? I'm not a Southerner so I don't understand, but why would you want to use an icon of perpetual slavery and treason? Why does being a proud Southerner in the 21st century invoke the use of something from long ago that has so much baggage attached to it? Surely you're not proud of the Civil War?
I can kind of see the idea. It's kind of like Quebec here in Canada, and being proud of being a colony that was conquered. But it's part of the culture and identity, part of Canada's identity, even with the issues that come with it (mostly the Separatists who became violent).
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote: I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
The colonial flag isn't offensive just because Americans were horrible to Native Americans in that time period
For these analogies to work, that flag (the Virginia Battle Flag) would have had to have been used for a lot more.
It wasn't. It was only a battle flag. A flag used for a war that was fought almost exclusively to keep the institution of slavery alive. It wasn't a symbol of the South or the Confederacy in general. Then, when it was used post-war, it was used as a white supremacist symbol by the KKK and then pro-segregationists mid-20th century.
That flag has a history of pure hate and discrimination. It is only recently that it became a "symbol of Southern pride". It is absolutely nothing like the majority of the flags out there that symbolize a wide range of things.
Is this a real ban or just major companies deciding not to sell the flags?
In Spain the fascist spanish flag (the one with the eagle on it) has been banned for as long as I remember. Some people still use it on football events and demonstrations.
As a European I have to say -respectfully- that in my -humble- opinion Americans are a tad bit too concerned with political correctness.
To put it more bluntly: You are all a bunch of fine folks but when it comes to aforementioned political correctness you are all crazy.
I don't mean that in a "shaking head disapprovingly" way. Its just a cultural phenomena that seems so weird in a country that can be so harsh to it's citizens in other ways. I mean my country (Netherlands) with all their social laws and hugging all their inhabitants to death should be the one going out of their way to protect everyone's feelings yet you guys completely beat us in that regard.
On June 29 2015 23:51 Salteador Neo wrote: Is this a real ban or just major companies deciding not to sell the flags?
In Spain the fascist spanish flag (the one with the eagle on it) has been banned for as long as I remember. Some people still use it on football events and demonstrations.
No, it's not a legislative ban.
This was a bunch of private companies choosing not to sell it.
On June 29 2015 23:56 B.I.G. wrote: As a European I have to say -respectfully- that in my -humble- opinion Americans are a tad bit too concerned with political correctness.
To put it more bluntly: You are all a bunch of fine folks but when it comes to aforementioned political correctness you are all crazy.
I don't mean that in a "shaking head disapprovingly" way. Its just a cultural phenomena that seems so weird in a country that can be so harsh to it's citizens in other ways. I mean my country (Netherlands) with all their social laws and hugging all their inhabitants to death should be the one going out of their way to protect everyone's feelings yet you guys completely beat us in that regard.
Weird.
Its weird how areas with vastly different histories would view the subject differently. Its almost like we in the US have a very large population of people that were oppressed throughout the nation's history and are still struggling with the aftermath of that today.
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote: I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
Out of curiosity, why is the Confederate flag the best way to represent your pride? I'm not a Southerner so I don't understand, but why would you want to use an icon of perpetual slavery and treason? Why does being a proud Southerner in the 21st century invoke the use of something from long ago that has so much baggage attached to it? Surely you're not proud of the Civil War?
I can kind of see the idea. It's kind of like Quebec here in Canada, and being proud of being a colony that was conquered. But it's part of the culture and identity, part of Canada's identity, even with the issues that come with it (mostly the Separatists who became violent).
Just out of curiosity, are there groups of violent Separatists that exist even today? Because our issues with prejudice (especially black prejudice) here in America are still huge problems, even today. It's not *just* about the Civil War era, because that message of hate has existed over the past 150 years too.
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote: I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
Out of curiosity, why is the Confederate flag the best way to represent your pride? I'm not a Southerner so I don't understand, but why would you want to use an icon of perpetual slavery and treason? Why does being a proud Southerner in the 21st century invoke the use of something from long ago that has so much baggage attached to it? Surely you're not proud of the Civil War?
I can kind of see the idea. It's kind of like Quebec here in Canada, and being proud of being a colony that was conquered. But it's part of the culture and identity, part of Canada's identity, even with the issues that come with it (mostly the Separatists who became violent).
Just out of curiosity, are there groups of violent Separatists that exist even today? Because our issues with prejudice (especially black prejudice) here in America are still huge problems, even today. It's not *just* about the Civil War era, because that message of hate has existed over the past 150 years too.
Yeah I mean that woman took down the SC flag, and they just put it right back up. If they had the votes to actually take it down it would have probably just stayed down.
On June 29 2015 23:56 B.I.G. wrote: As a European I have to say -respectfully- that in my -humble- opinion Americans are a tad bit too concerned with political correctness.
To put it more bluntly: You are all a bunch of fine folks but when it comes to aforementioned political correctness you are all crazy.
I don't mean that in a "shaking head disapprovingly" way. Its just a cultural phenomena that seems so weird in a country that can be so harsh to it's citizens in other ways. I mean my country (Netherlands) with all their social laws and hugging all their inhabitants to death should be the one going out of their way to protect everyone's feelings yet you guys completely beat us in that regard.
Weird.
Its weird how areas with vastly different histories would view the subject differently. Its almost like we in the US have a very large population of people that were oppressed throughout the nation's history and are still struggling with the aftermath of that today.
I think what he means is more like:
In europe we have laws that limit free speak and in general more laws that infringe on ones freedom (very broadly/generally speaking) but there is not that much public outcry when it actually comes to these sort of things.
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote: I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
The colonial flag isn't offensive just because Americans were horrible to Native Americans in that time period
It is to the Native Americans.
Symbols mean different things to different people. If you want to take pride in a time period in which your region of the country tried to separate itself from the rest of the country over their right to have slaves, then you are permitted to do so, but understand that the rest of us are going to call you out on your bullshit, and we have no desire to see the government sponsor that behavior.
For the record I would never own anything with the confederate flag because I don't like the South very much and I think it's tacky, I'm just trying to point out a double standard.
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote: I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
Out of curiosity, why is the Confederate flag the best way to represent your pride? I'm not a Southerner so I don't understand, but why would you want to use an icon of perpetual slavery and treason? Why does being a proud Southerner in the 21st century invoke the use of something from long ago that has so much baggage attached to it? Surely you're not proud of the Civil War?
Because it's the flag that has been used historically to represent the South. I can't even think of another symbol that represents the South very well.
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote: I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
The colonial flag isn't offensive just because Americans were horrible to Native Americans in that time period
For these analogies to work, that flag (the Virginia Battle Flag) would have had to have been used for a lot more.
It wasn't. It was only a battle flag. A flag used for a war that was fought almost exclusively to keep the institution of slavery alive. It wasn't a symbol of the South or the Confederacy in general. Then, when it was used post-war, it was used as a white supremacist symbol by the KKK and then pro-segregationists mid-20th century.
That flag has a history of pure hate and discrimination. It is only recently that it became a "symbol of Southern pride". It is absolutely nothing like the majority of the flags out there that symbolize a wide range of things.
It doesn't just symbolize hate or the preservation of slavery. Yes, the confederacy existed because it wanted to preserve slavery as an institution. But it also represented a short-lived state with that had a lot in common culturally as well. By that I mean that the South isn't just the area where there used to be slaves, it's an area where people talk similarly, are more religious, tend to be more conservative, have hobbies like hunting, like certain types of music more (country), etc. The confederate flag is something that once represented, and continues to represent, this identity.
I don't want to say stuff like "you have to be from the South to understand" but I think people from the North just don't get it very much. Maybe it's because it's pretty much only used by racists in the North (because why would they have Southern pride?), but down here I assure you it is not used only by racists.
The argument falls apart when you look at the history of the flag and realize it only reappeared in the national consciousness in the 1950s after brown vs the board of education. The idea of it "representing the South" came about through the renewed opposition to being told what to do by the Federal Government in regards to the South's treatment of black people.
And I am sure there are a large number black people in the south that could tell us all about what the flag represents to them. And I bet they don’t line up with the whole “Southern Pride” angle.
On June 30 2015 04:01 Chocolate wrote: It doesn't just symbolize hate or the preservation of slavery. Yes, the confederacy existed because it wanted to preserve slavery as an institution. But it also represented a short-lived state with that had a lot in common culturally as well. By that I mean that the South isn't just the area where there used to be slaves, it's an area where people talk similarly, are more religious, tend to be more conservative, have hobbies like hunting, like certain types of music more (country), etc. The confederate flag is something that once represented, and continues to represent, this identity.
I don't want to say stuff like "you have to be from the South to understand" but I think people from the North just don't get it very much. Maybe it's because it's pretty much only used by racists in the North (because why would they have Southern pride?), but down here I assure you it is not used only by racists.
As a Canadian, I find it difficult to have much respect for a people who live in a culture where you're encouraged to ignore symbolism to this extent. If a person flies the confederate flag, I feel justified in my low opinion of them. I mean it was the flag used by the people who wanted to defend their right to continue to own slaves, as you've said (BY NO MEANS AN HISTORICAL FACT TO GLOSS OVER), and they lost badly before being assimilated by a larger more prosperous industrialized people, and later at least partially caught up.
There are too many ways in which this flag represents a part of history for which people ought to be ashamed, and to continue using this, to my senses, speaks of incredible gullibility or the desire to forget about history. I don't think that someone who thinks critically would fly that flag. It's dumb pride at best, and full blown racism at worst.
And I'm not saying it should be illegal to fly it.
On June 30 2015 04:01 Chocolate wrote: It doesn't just symbolize hate or the preservation of slavery. Yes, the confederacy existed because it wanted to preserve slavery as an institution. But it also represented a short-lived state with that had a lot in common culturally as well. By that I mean that the South isn't just the area where there used to be slaves, it's an area where people talk similarly, are more religious, tend to be more conservative, have hobbies like hunting, like certain types of music more (country), etc. The confederate flag is something that once represented, and continues to represent, this identity.
I don't want to say stuff like "you have to be from the South to understand" but I think people from the North just don't get it very much. Maybe it's because it's pretty much only used by racists in the North (because why would they have Southern pride?), but down here I assure you it is not used only by racists.
As a Canadian, I find it difficult to have much respect for a people who live in a culture where you're encourage to ignore symbolism to this extent. If a person flies the confederate flag, I feel justified in my low opinion of them. I mean it was the flag used by the people who wanted to defend their right to continue to own slaves, as you've said (BY NO MEANS AN HISTORICAL FACT TO GLOSS OVER), and they lost badly before being assimilated by a larger more prosperous industrialized people, and later at least partially caught up.
There are too many ways in which this flag represents a part of history for which people ought to be ashamed, and to continue using this, to my senses, speaks of incredible gullibility or the desire to forget about history. I don't think that someone who thinks critically would fly that flag. It's dumb pride at best, and full blown racism at worst.
And I'm not saying it should be illegal to fly it.
I tend to agree with you I just want people to know that the intent behind displaying the flag is not always racism
On June 30 2015 04:01 Chocolate wrote: It doesn't just symbolize hate or the preservation of slavery. Yes, the confederacy existed because it wanted to preserve slavery as an institution. But it also represented a short-lived state with that had a lot in common culturally as well. By that I mean that the South isn't just the area where there used to be slaves, it's an area where people talk similarly, are more religious, tend to be more conservative, have hobbies like hunting, like certain types of music more (country), etc. The confederate flag is something that once represented, and continues to represent, this identity.
I don't want to say stuff like "you have to be from the South to understand" but I think people from the North just don't get it very much. Maybe it's because it's pretty much only used by racists in the North (because why would they have Southern pride?), but down here I assure you it is not used only by racists.
As a Canadian, I find it difficult to have much respect for a people who live in a culture where you're encourage to ignore symbolism to this extent. If a person flies the confederate flag, I feel justified in my low opinion of them. I mean it was the flag used by the people who wanted to defend their right to continue to own slaves, as you've said (BY NO MEANS AN HISTORICAL FACT TO GLOSS OVER), and they lost badly before being assimilated by a larger more prosperous industrialized people, and later at least partially caught up.
There are too many ways in which this flag represents a part of history for which people ought to be ashamed, and to continue using this, to my senses, speaks of incredible gullibility or the desire to forget about history. I don't think that someone who thinks critically would fly that flag. It's dumb pride at best, and full blown racism at worst.
And I'm not saying it should be illegal to fly it.
I tend to agree with you I just want people to know that the intent behind displaying the flag is not always racism
I've also heard that to many people, it's a symbol of resistance to the US federal government, but surely there are more appropriate ways of doing that. Gun nuts in the south really have this weird fantasy of taking up arms against Washington for various reasons.
When they say resistance to the US federal government, they mean in relation to being forced to treat black people as equals. Its a critical part that is often left out.
On June 30 2015 04:29 Plansix wrote: When they say resistance to the US federal government, they mean in relation to being forced to treat black people as equals. Its a critical part that is often left out.
That's not even true, but I'm glad you've found a population that is politically correct to disparage.
On June 30 2015 04:01 Chocolate wrote: It doesn't just symbolize hate or the preservation of slavery. Yes, the confederacy existed because it wanted to preserve slavery as an institution. But it also represented a short-lived state with that had a lot in common culturally as well. By that I mean that the South isn't just the area where there used to be slaves, it's an area where people talk similarly, are more religious, tend to be more conservative, have hobbies like hunting, like certain types of music more (country), etc. The confederate flag is something that once represented, and continues to represent, this identity.
I don't want to say stuff like "you have to be from the South to understand" but I think people from the North just don't get it very much. Maybe it's because it's pretty much only used by racists in the North (because why would they have Southern pride?), but down here I assure you it is not used only by racists.
As a Canadian, I find it difficult to have much respect for a people who live in a culture where you're encourage to ignore symbolism to this extent. If a person flies the confederate flag, I feel justified in my low opinion of them. I mean it was the flag used by the people who wanted to defend their right to continue to own slaves, as you've said (BY NO MEANS AN HISTORICAL FACT TO GLOSS OVER), and they lost badly before being assimilated by a larger more prosperous industrialized people, and later at least partially caught up.
There are too many ways in which this flag represents a part of history for which people ought to be ashamed, and to continue using this, to my senses, speaks of incredible gullibility or the desire to forget about history. I don't think that someone who thinks critically would fly that flag. It's dumb pride at best, and full blown racism at worst.
And I'm not saying it should be illegal to fly it.
I tend to agree with you I just want people to know that the intent behind displaying the flag is not always racism
Ignorance is pretty much the only other reason.
Not really. Everybody knows that the Civil War was a war mostly about slavery (yes, in my state and in many others they officially teach that it was about states rights but everyone knows the truth). The flag just represents more than slavery. I think being a black person from the pacific NW may make you see the flag in a different light form someone who lives in the South.
On June 30 2015 04:21 Djzapz wrote: I've also heard that to many people, it's a symbol of resistance to the US federal government, but surely there are more appropriate ways of doing that. Gun nuts in the south really have this weird fantasy of taking up arms against Washington for various reasons.
On June 30 2015 04:29 Plansix wrote: When they say resistance to the US federal government, they mean in relation to being forced to treat black people as equals. Its a critical part that is often left out.
That's not even true, but I'm glad you've found a population that is politically correct to disparage.
On June 30 2015 04:01 Chocolate wrote: It doesn't just symbolize hate or the preservation of slavery. Yes, the confederacy existed because it wanted to preserve slavery as an institution. But it also represented a short-lived state with that had a lot in common culturally as well. By that I mean that the South isn't just the area where there used to be slaves, it's an area where people talk similarly, are more religious, tend to be more conservative, have hobbies like hunting, like certain types of music more (country), etc. The confederate flag is something that once represented, and continues to represent, this identity.
I don't want to say stuff like "you have to be from the South to understand" but I think people from the North just don't get it very much. Maybe it's because it's pretty much only used by racists in the North (because why would they have Southern pride?), but down here I assure you it is not used only by racists.
As a Canadian, I find it difficult to have much respect for a people who live in a culture where you're encourage to ignore symbolism to this extent. If a person flies the confederate flag, I feel justified in my low opinion of them. I mean it was the flag used by the people who wanted to defend their right to continue to own slaves, as you've said (BY NO MEANS AN HISTORICAL FACT TO GLOSS OVER), and they lost badly before being assimilated by a larger more prosperous industrialized people, and later at least partially caught up.
There are too many ways in which this flag represents a part of history for which people ought to be ashamed, and to continue using this, to my senses, speaks of incredible gullibility or the desire to forget about history. I don't think that someone who thinks critically would fly that flag. It's dumb pride at best, and full blown racism at worst.
And I'm not saying it should be illegal to fly it.
I tend to agree with you I just want people to know that the intent behind displaying the flag is not always racism
Ignorance is pretty much the only other reason.
Not really. Everybody knows that the Civil War was a war mostly about slavery (yes, in my state and in many others they officially teach that it was about states rights but everyone knows the truth). The flag just represents more than slavery. I think being a black person from the pacific NW may make you see the flag in a different light form someone who lives in the South.
It think the main concern is how all the black people from the South see the flag and thats the real reason people are backing away from it.
On June 30 2015 04:29 Plansix wrote: When they say resistance to the US federal government, they mean in relation to being forced to treat black people as equals. Its a critical part that is often left out.
That's not even true, but I'm glad you've found a population that is politically correct to disparage.
On June 30 2015 04:01 Chocolate wrote: It doesn't just symbolize hate or the preservation of slavery. Yes, the confederacy existed because it wanted to preserve slavery as an institution. But it also represented a short-lived state with that had a lot in common culturally as well. By that I mean that the South isn't just the area where there used to be slaves, it's an area where people talk similarly, are more religious, tend to be more conservative, have hobbies like hunting, like certain types of music more (country), etc. The confederate flag is something that once represented, and continues to represent, this identity.
I don't want to say stuff like "you have to be from the South to understand" but I think people from the North just don't get it very much. Maybe it's because it's pretty much only used by racists in the North (because why would they have Southern pride?), but down here I assure you it is not used only by racists.
As a Canadian, I find it difficult to have much respect for a people who live in a culture where you're encourage to ignore symbolism to this extent. If a person flies the confederate flag, I feel justified in my low opinion of them. I mean it was the flag used by the people who wanted to defend their right to continue to own slaves, as you've said (BY NO MEANS AN HISTORICAL FACT TO GLOSS OVER), and they lost badly before being assimilated by a larger more prosperous industrialized people, and later at least partially caught up.
There are too many ways in which this flag represents a part of history for which people ought to be ashamed, and to continue using this, to my senses, speaks of incredible gullibility or the desire to forget about history. I don't think that someone who thinks critically would fly that flag. It's dumb pride at best, and full blown racism at worst.
And I'm not saying it should be illegal to fly it.
I tend to agree with you I just want people to know that the intent behind displaying the flag is not always racism
Ignorance is pretty much the only other reason.
Not really. Everybody knows that the Civil War was a war mostly about slavery (yes, in my state and in many others they officially teach that it was about states rights but everyone knows the truth). The flag just represents more than slavery. I think being a black person from the pacific NW may make you see the flag in a different light form someone who lives in the South.
On June 30 2015 04:21 Djzapz wrote: I've also heard that to many people, it's a symbol of resistance to the US federal government, but surely there are more appropriate ways of doing that. Gun nuts in the south really have this weird fantasy of taking up arms against Washington for various reasons.
this is very true
Most of my family is from the South. I am very familiar with the confederate flag and why people fly it. Truthfully the people who fly it for other reasons just picked it because it looks cool/that's what racist parents told them it represented, and they don't respect/comprehend that it's disgusting.
On June 30 2015 04:29 Plansix wrote: When they say resistance to the US federal government, they mean in relation to being forced to treat black people as equals. Its a critical part that is often left out.
That's not even true, but I'm glad you've found a population that is politically correct to disparage.
On June 30 2015 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 30 2015 04:11 Chocolate wrote:
On June 30 2015 04:10 Djzapz wrote:
On June 30 2015 04:01 Chocolate wrote: It doesn't just symbolize hate or the preservation of slavery. Yes, the confederacy existed because it wanted to preserve slavery as an institution. But it also represented a short-lived state with that had a lot in common culturally as well. By that I mean that the South isn't just the area where there used to be slaves, it's an area where people talk similarly, are more religious, tend to be more conservative, have hobbies like hunting, like certain types of music more (country), etc. The confederate flag is something that once represented, and continues to represent, this identity.
I don't want to say stuff like "you have to be from the South to understand" but I think people from the North just don't get it very much. Maybe it's because it's pretty much only used by racists in the North (because why would they have Southern pride?), but down here I assure you it is not used only by racists.
As a Canadian, I find it difficult to have much respect for a people who live in a culture where you're encourage to ignore symbolism to this extent. If a person flies the confederate flag, I feel justified in my low opinion of them. I mean it was the flag used by the people who wanted to defend their right to continue to own slaves, as you've said (BY NO MEANS AN HISTORICAL FACT TO GLOSS OVER), and they lost badly before being assimilated by a larger more prosperous industrialized people, and later at least partially caught up.
There are too many ways in which this flag represents a part of history for which people ought to be ashamed, and to continue using this, to my senses, speaks of incredible gullibility or the desire to forget about history. I don't think that someone who thinks critically would fly that flag. It's dumb pride at best, and full blown racism at worst.
And I'm not saying it should be illegal to fly it.
I tend to agree with you I just want people to know that the intent behind displaying the flag is not always racism
Ignorance is pretty much the only other reason.
Not really. Everybody knows that the Civil War was a war mostly about slavery (yes, in my state and in many others they officially teach that it was about states rights but everyone knows the truth). The flag just represents more than slavery. I think being a black person from the pacific NW may make you see the flag in a different light form someone who lives in the South.
On June 30 2015 04:21 Djzapz wrote: I've also heard that to many people, it's a symbol of resistance to the US federal government, but surely there are more appropriate ways of doing that. Gun nuts in the south really have this weird fantasy of taking up arms against Washington for various reasons.
this is very true
Most of my family is from the South. I am very familiar with the confederate flag and why people fly it. Truthfully the people who fly it for other reasons just picked it because it looks cool/that's what racist parents told them it represented, and they don't respect/comprehend that it's disgusting.
MY FAMILY FAUGHT IN THE WAR GAINST NORTHERN AGGRESSION!11!
I mean seriously, most of the people who even fly it for "historic" reasons cannot accurately tell you the history of the flag. They were just told by parents/family/friends that this specific flag represents their ambiguous 'heritage'. I'm white and I've lived in rural areas in both Carolinas for most of my life. This flag will be better off in the museums.
The South was built by black people. "Southern food" is just an appropriation of what slaves could make from what they were allowed and what they could afford after they were emancipated. Every form of music associated with the South comes from black Americans.
There is no South without African Americans. You cannot "celebrate your heritage" in a way that refuses to acknowledge them. What you're really celebrating then is either a fantasy or the pride of southern whites.
The colonial flag was flown for many reasons. The CBS was flown first in the defense of slavery and then in defiance of civil rights. There is no equivalence.
Finally, the South had no problem with the Federal government when Bush was president.
Sadly, a lot of people are just flatly ignorant of all of this, even their own shifting opinion of the Federal government when the executive branch changed parties. But that's all it is: ignorance. It's not society's obligation to coddle the ignorant opinions and interpretations people have. It's certainly not the government's place to treat all opinions as equal when it comes to public policy. And it's no retailer's obligation to keep stock based on these viewpoints.
Oh and for future reference it's normal to warn someone in thread with no moderation but with the presence of plenty of LD people before you temp-ban them. I never post in this sub/cross-forum but I've been around for a while and gotten into plenty of arguments and never been goddamned temp-banned.
On June 30 2015 04:01 Chocolate wrote: It doesn't just symbolize hate or the preservation of slavery. Yes, the confederacy existed because it wanted to preserve slavery as an institution. But it also represented a short-lived state with that had a lot in common culturally as well. By that I mean that the South isn't just the area where there used to be slaves, it's an area where people talk similarly, are more religious, tend to be more conservative, have hobbies like hunting, like certain types of music more (country), etc. The confederate flag is something that once represented, and continues to represent, this identity.
I don't want to say stuff like "you have to be from the South to understand" but I think people from the North just don't get it very much. Maybe it's because it's pretty much only used by racists in the North (because why would they have Southern pride?), but down here I assure you it is not used only by racists.
As a Canadian, I find it difficult to have much respect for a people who live in a culture where you're encourage to ignore symbolism to this extent. If a person flies the confederate flag, I feel justified in my low opinion of them. I mean it was the flag used by the people who wanted to defend their right to continue to own slaves, as you've said (BY NO MEANS AN HISTORICAL FACT TO GLOSS OVER), and they lost badly before being assimilated by a larger more prosperous industrialized people, and later at least partially caught up.
There are too many ways in which this flag represents a part of history for which people ought to be ashamed, and to continue using this, to my senses, speaks of incredible gullibility or the desire to forget about history. I don't think that someone who thinks critically would fly that flag. It's dumb pride at best, and full blown racism at worst.
And I'm not saying it should be illegal to fly it.
I tend to agree with you I just want people to know that the intent behind displaying the flag is not always racism
Intentions matter significantly less than outcomes.
It doesn't just symbolize hate or the preservation of slavery. Yes, the confederacy existed because it wanted to preserve slavery as an institution. But it also represented a short-lived state with that had a lot in common culturally as well. By that I mean that the South isn't just the area where there used to be slaves, it's an area where people talk similarly, are more religious, tend to be more conservative, have hobbies like hunting, like certain types of music more (country), etc. The confederate flag is something that once represented, and continues to represent, this identity.
I don't want to say stuff like "you have to be from the South to understand" but I think people from the North just don't get it very much. Maybe it's because it's pretty much only used by racists in the North (because why would they have Southern pride?), but down here I assure you it is not used only by racists.
But it doesn't represent this.
That flag was a symbol of hatred, and only hatred, for over 100 years. After the Civil War (where it was a battle flag for a battle that was fought almost exclusively to preserve slavery), it was used by white supremacists (the KKK). Then, it was used by white supremacists again mid-20th century (segregationists). It only started to represent something else when the descendants of those segregationists tried to white-wash the whole situation so that they and their families didn't look as bad by claiming that it was about "southern heritage".
I get that the South has its own distinct culture, but maybe southerners should try to fly something instead of a racist and treasonous flag (the treason part being something that southerners conveniently forget) to represent their heritage.
And no, using it doesn't automatically make you racist. It just makes you ignorant of the racist connotations.
I have lived in Florida for 7 years, an originally I am from up north.
I can tell you they hang that flag a lot of places, they even have 100 ft pole off the highway near my house its a bit bizarre.
In my opinion it is really hard to sympathize with southerners who fly the flag when every person who does is Caucasian and for the most part secretly racist.
9/10 even if the person isn't racist their parents are and I don't mean to generalize just speaking from my experiences.
I mean, it's a symbol. It doesn't make much sense to say that any one meaning of a symbol is the "real" one; it depends entirely on the observer. A group of observers can have a consensus view, but that doesn't invalidate the view of another group.
Certainly, one group's reading can be harmful enough that a restriction is warranted, but it's just as ignorant to declare all other readings invalid because of that.
We have a similar issue here with our national flag representing colonialism/white oppression of indigenous people. There's a good argument for changing our flag as a result, but it doesn't stop representing our current identity in the meantime.
No one is denying that the CBS - or any symbol - may have different meanings to different people. But interpretations are not on equal footing. If, in my home, I call apples "bananas," I am free to do so within my home. I can also ask for "bananas" at a fruit stand, but society owes me no quarter on which word means what. Words are just symbols too.
For example, in the south, a "coke" means pretty much any carbonated drink, but elsewhere it means a specific product made by coca cola.
It's not reasonable for me to ban their usage among themselves solely because I declare them ignorant of the "real" meaning. It might, on the other hand, be reasonable to restrict their usage if a huge proportion of the population - including their local population - found it hurtful for some reason.
My point is that those are fundamentally different arguments. One can be valid depending on the extent of the harm, the other is highly questionable.
On June 29 2015 15:13 Chocolate wrote: I just want to say that I'm from the South and while I'm sure a lot of people that display the confederate flag do so for racist reasons, a lot of people have pride for the South and that flag is the best way to represent it.
Out of curiosity, why is the Confederate flag the best way to represent your pride? I'm not a Southerner so I don't understand, but why would you want to use an icon of perpetual slavery and treason? Why does being a proud Southerner in the 21st century invoke the use of something from long ago that has so much baggage attached to it? Surely you're not proud of the Civil War?
I can kind of see the idea. It's kind of like Quebec here in Canada, and being proud of being a colony that was conquered. But it's part of the culture and identity, part of Canada's identity, even with the issues that come with it (mostly the Separatists who became violent).
Just out of curiosity, are there groups of violent Separatists that exist even today? Because our issues with prejudice (especially black prejudice) here in America are still huge problems, even today. It's not *just* about the Civil War era, because that message of hate has existed over the past 150 years too.
Depends on what you mean by today. If you mean today in 2015, no, the most extreme of the Separatists basically fell away when there was a provincial referendum and the people said no (in a 60-40 vote).
If you mean in recent times, long after Quebec was conquered, then yes, the Front de liberation du Quebec (aka the group that were essentially terrorists) were from 1963-1970.
On June 30 2015 10:14 Belisarius wrote: Words are actually a good analogy.
For example, in the south, a "coke" means pretty much any carbonated drink, but elsewhere it means a specific product made by coca cola.
It's not reasonable for me to ban them from their usage of the word solely because I declare them ignorant of the real meaning. It might, on the other hand, be reasonable to restrict their usage of the word if a huge proportion of the population found it offensive.
My point is that those are fundamentally different arguments. One is valid, the other can be as ignorant as it accuses people of being.
The Coca Cola company didn't create a beverage made from the blood of Mexicans and later try to take the exact same branding and associate it with a brown sugary carbonated drink.
The argument has to be had, in public, about what the symbol actually means. It needs to be publicly accepted for what it is. Because anyone who is truly using it in some innocent "Southern Pride" manner is doing so out of ignorance. No one who isn't actually a racist would want to continue using it ACTUALLY understanding its history. The "innocent" use of the CBS is symbolic of the South's rewriting of their history, the creation of this fable where they fought the Civil War over "many reasons"; the fable where the CBS became popularized in post-Civil War America for literally any other reason than the continued oppression of black people. A banner under which atrocities continued well into the 20th century. A banner under which hate was codified publicly and enforced with fires and nooses.
Every person who in their heart-of-hearts sees black and white as equal, who claims to love the United States, but uses the CBS as a symbol of "The South" needs a fucking history lesson. Because if that's how they really feel, once they know the truth behind the symbol they will feel deep shame at every bit of Confederate symbology they identify with. Everyone else is full of shit.
I feel like we should be more flexible and understanding of people who want to interpret the flag in a different way. You can certainly argue that, historically speaking, they have an incorrect interpretation of what the flag means. But I'm not sure why this is particularly important. After more than 100 years, if people want to appropriate the flag and give it a new meaning, as not being a symbol for racism, but instead as a generic banner that symbolizes the unity of the south and their resistance to being invaded by a foreign power, then what exactly is wrong with that?
Maybe they have white-washed their history and so on. That's probably unfortunate, but if they genuinely believe something different about their flag than people in the north do, I don't think anyone can claim that they are "wrong" for trying to interpret their flag in a different way. The only real issue is whether minorities and blacks would be offended by the flag. But all you really have to do is be explicitly clear, and say that our state, or our community, flies the flag only as a symbol of brotherhood with our southern neighbours, but that we don't believe in racism, and don't interpret our flags in this way anymore.
If the buddhist swastika can be used by germans to mean something completely different (well technically its a reversed swastika but its close enough), I feel like the reverse process should be possible. It may be difficult and somewhat offensive to make that transition, but it still should be possible. After a sufficient period of time has passed, people tend to believe in contemporary meanings over what a flag used to mean 100 or more years ago.
If you check Wikipedia, a polls on this issue will show that the majority of people are ambivalent (i.e. they have no positive or negative reactions) to the flag, but that a significant minority do find it offensive. I think this is indicative of the fact that interpretations surrounding the flags meaning and historically racist connotations have largely watered down already to the point where most people aren't offended by it anymore.
The Confederate flag is a controversial symbol for many Americans today. A 2011 Pew Research Center poll revealed that 30% of Americans have a "negative reaction" when "they see the Confederate flag displayed."[35] According to the same poll, 9% of Americans have a positive reaction. A majority (58%) have no reaction.
There was another yougov poll in which 44% view the flag as a symbol of racism (significant, but not a majority). So I don't think its as unanimous as people on here make it sound, and all that really matters is what people's current interpretations are, and that perhaps they will continue to change in the future.
I don't pretend to know what any person actually sees in the flag, it's obviously a complex issue just like ours is over here.
However, it's not beyond possibility that there's people who haven't grown up with the historical association, and to whom it simply represents a collection of regional differences which may or may not include closet racism. Plus, a historical association isn't inherently more valid than any other.
Either way it seems the flag is coming down. On the balance that seems like the right decision, but I still think that labelling every objector a racist or an idiot is a gross generalisation.
There was another yougov poll in which 44% view the flag as a symbol of racism. So I don't think its as unanimous as people on here make it sound, and all that really matters is what people's current interpretations are.
No one said the view is unanimous or nearly-so. And the only reason that Pew poll is so lukewarm is because of the drum we've been beating through the whole thread: aggressive historical revisionism.
If, indeed, the flag had not been flown since the Civil War there might be an argument to be made that it had been revived in some new light, as some symbol of the South. But that's not what happened. Again, only historical revisionism even makes that argument available.
There is one reason and one reason alone the flag has become prevalent in the modern South and that is the oppression of African Americans. They don't have the right to pretend otherwise.
The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan’s Pelham, North Carolina, chapter have reserved the Statehouse Grounds in South Carolina for a rally next month.
James Spears, the Great Titan of the chapter, said the group would be rallying to protest “the Confederate flag being took down for all the wrong reasons.”
The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan’s Pelham, North Carolina, chapter have reserved the Statehouse Grounds in South Carolina for a rally next month.
James Spears, the Great Titan of the chapter, said the group would be rallying to protest “the Confederate flag being took down for all the wrong reasons.”
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black people can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
What? This is pretty disappointing to read. I have enjoyed your broodwar casts for years. At best you are an ignorant fool, at worst a racist one. Educate yourself about the history of the confederacy and what that flag represents.
The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan’s Pelham, North Carolina, chapter have reserved the Statehouse Grounds in South Carolina for a rally next month.
James Spears, the Great Titan of the chapter, said the group would be rallying to protest “the Confederate flag being took down for all the wrong reasons.”
No, in society, we never have occasion to force a company to do something they don't want to do, like not dump waste into a river or sell internet bandwidth without throttling the connection when the user tries to stream Netflix.
This is cute. What is it you're suggesting? Just go ahead and say it.
On June 26 2015 08:49 BisuDagger wrote:
On June 26 2015 08:42 FHDH wrote:
Is this really overdue?
Yes. Recognizing this as a symbol of hate you might not want to be associated with is long overdue.
What's even more overdue is the removal of things like the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Tennessee State House because "heritage." Of the removal of Jefferson Davis from the UT campus because "heritage." Removal of the banner from the flag of Mississippi, and getting rid of the "sons of the confederacy" license plates.
What's long overdue is and end to the historical revisionism that leads people who really don't know better to fly the flag. The same historical revisionism that allows it to be flown on government grounds. The same historical revisionism that leads people to think their "heritage" trumps the reality of both history and the lives lead by African Americans.
The flag was flown by those fighting to betray the United States so they could keep blacks in chains. It was revived to remind black Americans just who fucking runs the south. It's long, LONG fucking overdue to be recognized as such.
How about the N word that has horrible connotations being used by our very own president this past weak on the radio. Our issues run deep these days.
How come black people can be offended by the flag, but not by the N word. They condone white people if they use it, but then use it freely. And now we get in trouble if we say African American instead of black. I'm having trouble keeping up with how to not offend people. The president saying the N word is endorsing that it is okay for blacks to say it, yet if a white person said the word in that interview he/she would lose their job.
What? This is pretty disappointing to read. I have enjoyed your broodwar casts for years. At best you are an ignorant fool, at worst a racist one. Educate yourself about the history of the confederacy and what that flag represents.
I wouldn't go that far but I'll have to admit I found that rather shallow and disappointing too -_-
The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan’s Pelham, North Carolina, chapter have reserved the Statehouse Grounds in South Carolina for a rally next month.
James Spears, the Great Titan of the chapter, said the group would be rallying to protest “the Confederate flag being took down for all the wrong reasons.”
If those are supposed to be the same thing they did a pretty crappy job of appropriating, nothing new for those bums though.
Basically all of the Klu Klux Klan's symbols are appropriated. The aforementioned Capirote, the obvious wooden cross, the red cross of the Crusaders...
Safe to say that the KKK is only recognizable in North America (and not even all of it), and the rest of the world will either have no clue who they are, or will think they're representing something else that's entirely innocuous.
The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan’s Pelham, North Carolina, chapter have reserved the Statehouse Grounds in South Carolina for a rally next month.
James Spears, the Great Titan of the chapter, said the group would be rallying to protest “the Confederate flag being took down for all the wrong reasons.”
If those are supposed to be the same thing they did a pretty crappy job of appropriating, nothing new for those bums though.
Basically all of the Klu Klux Klan's symbols are appropriated. The aforementioned Capirote, the obvious wooden cross, the red cross of the Crusaders...
Safe to say that the KKK is only recognizable in North America (and not even all of it), and the rest of the world will either have no clue who they are, or will think they're representing something else that's entirely innocuous.
On June 30 2015 10:30 radscorpion9 wrote: I feel like we should be more flexible and understanding of people who want to interpret the flag in a different way. You can certainly argue that, historically speaking, they have an incorrect interpretation of what the flag means. But I'm not sure why this is particularly important. After more than 100 years, if people want to appropriate the flag and give it a new meaning, as not being a symbol for racism, but instead as a generic banner that symbolizes the unity of the south and their resistance to being invaded by a foreign power, then what exactly is wrong with that?
Maybe they have white-washed their history and so on. That's probably unfortunate, but if they genuinely believe something different about their flag than people in the north do, I don't think anyone can claim that they are "wrong" for trying to interpret their flag in a different way. The only real issue is whether minorities and blacks would be offended by the flag. But all you really have to do is be explicitly clear, and say that our state, or our community, flies the flag only as a symbol of brotherhood with our southern neighbours, but that we don't believe in racism, and don't interpret our flags in this way anymore.
If the buddhist swastika can be used by germans to mean something completely different (well technically its a reversed swastika but its close enough), I feel like the reverse process should be possible. It may be difficult and somewhat offensive to make that transition, but it still should be possible. After a sufficient period of time has passed, people tend to believe in contemporary meanings over what a flag used to mean 100 or more years ago.
If you check Wikipedia, a polls on this issue will show that the majority of people are ambivalent (i.e. they have no positive or negative reactions) to the flag, but that a significant minority do find it offensive. I think this is indicative of the fact that interpretations surrounding the flags meaning and historically racist connotations have largely watered down already to the point where most people aren't offended by it anymore.
The Confederate flag is a controversial symbol for many Americans today. A 2011 Pew Research Center poll revealed that 30% of Americans have a "negative reaction" when "they see the Confederate flag displayed."[35] According to the same poll, 9% of Americans have a positive reaction. A majority (58%) have no reaction.
There was another yougov poll in which 44% view the flag as a symbol of racism (significant, but not a majority). So I don't think its as unanimous as people on here make it sound, and all that really matters is what people's current interpretations are, and that perhaps they will continue to change in the future.
1) The problem is that it didn't mean this 100 years ago. That flag stands for racism and white supremacy now.
2) As a northerner, a former member of the U.S. military, and a 4th generation U.S. sailor that also had ancestors fight in both the Civil War (for the Union) and the Revolutionary War, I find the "rebellion against a foreign power" element of "southern pride" very insulting. The Confederates were traitors that fought to commit horrible human rights violations. Slavery was one of the worst institutions that humanity has ever conceived.
3) While you can go for the hardcore subjectivity route ("Symbol meaning is subjective and can always change!") and that's a nice fantasy to have, it just doesn't work that way in reality. The Swastika went from being a peace symbol to being the most hateful and evil symbol in the world because the Nazis forced it to become associated with particular things. They used it as their symbol while they perpetuated the Holocaust. The Virginia Battle Flag symbolizes racism and hatred because people used it that way for over 100 years and still do today. You can't just magically say, "Well I'm not flying it for that reason so it doesn't mean that!". To change the meaning of the flag, you would have to actually associate it with something positive (and the people that use it make no attempt to do this aside from saying, "It means southern pride, not racism") instead of just saying that it means something else. Even then, that effort really isn't worth it and shouldn't be given serious consideration. It's a hateful symbol and it needs to die.
The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan’s Pelham, North Carolina, chapter have reserved the Statehouse Grounds in South Carolina for a rally next month.
James Spears, the Great Titan of the chapter, said the group would be rallying to protest “the Confederate flag being took down for all the wrong reasons.”
If those are supposed to be the same thing they did a pretty crappy job of appropriating, nothing new for those bums though.
Basically all of the Klu Klux Klan's symbols are appropriated. The aforementioned Capirote, the obvious wooden cross, the red cross of the Crusaders...
Safe to say that the KKK is only recognizable in North America (and not even all of it), and the rest of the world will either have no clue who they are, or will think they're representing something else that's entirely innocuous.
The point being what?
That just because the KKK uses it doesn't make it a ubiquitously racist symbol.
The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan’s Pelham, North Carolina, chapter have reserved the Statehouse Grounds in South Carolina for a rally next month.
James Spears, the Great Titan of the chapter, said the group would be rallying to protest “the Confederate flag being took down for all the wrong reasons.”
If those are supposed to be the same thing they did a pretty crappy job of appropriating, nothing new for those bums though.
Basically all of the Klu Klux Klan's symbols are appropriated. The aforementioned Capirote, the obvious wooden cross, the red cross of the Crusaders...
Safe to say that the KKK is only recognizable in North America (and not even all of it), and the rest of the world will either have no clue who they are, or will think they're representing something else that's entirely innocuous.
The point being what?
That just because the KKK uses it doesn't make it a ubiquitously racist symbol.
Well it's not just the KKK, and you do realize the KKK weren't just random folks either. A lot of them were politicians, powerful businessmen, and law enforcement?
If people in Afghanistan don't know the flag is offensive and racist doesn't really mean anything. I don't even understand the point of establishing that "That just because the KKK uses it doesn't make it a ubiquitously racist symbol."?
The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan’s Pelham, North Carolina, chapter have reserved the Statehouse Grounds in South Carolina for a rally next month.
James Spears, the Great Titan of the chapter, said the group would be rallying to protest “the Confederate flag being took down for all the wrong reasons.”
If those are supposed to be the same thing they did a pretty crappy job of appropriating, nothing new for those bums though.
Basically all of the Klu Klux Klan's symbols are appropriated. The aforementioned Capirote, the obvious wooden cross, the red cross of the Crusaders...
Safe to say that the KKK is only recognizable in North America (and not even all of it), and the rest of the world will either have no clue who they are, or will think they're representing something else that's entirely innocuous.
The point being what?
That just because the KKK uses it doesn't make it a ubiquitously racist symbol.
If you're under the impression that ANYBODY is arguing that the KKK's use of the flag is the only thing that makes it a racist symbol, you're mistaken. It's a feeble supporting factor that can be pointed to as evidence, but nothing trumps just the historical relevance of it and what it represents.
You can point at cold hard realities of the past and show that the flag does have a history which is closely related to slavery and racism and you've got plenty of evidence to say what the flag represents. Then, you add on top of that that an openly racist group of people is using the flag. Anyone can connect the dots. The KKK thinks that the confederate flag is represents them (a racist group).
It's just additional damning evidence. And this conversation is getting silly now, I don't think that the arguments that the confederate flag has other meanings are actually holding any water whatsoever.
The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan’s Pelham, North Carolina, chapter have reserved the Statehouse Grounds in South Carolina for a rally next month.
James Spears, the Great Titan of the chapter, said the group would be rallying to protest “the Confederate flag being took down for all the wrong reasons.”
If those are supposed to be the same thing they did a pretty crappy job of appropriating, nothing new for those bums though.
Basically all of the Klu Klux Klan's symbols are appropriated. The aforementioned Capirote, the obvious wooden cross, the red cross of the Crusaders...
Safe to say that the KKK is only recognizable in North America (and not even all of it), and the rest of the world will either have no clue who they are, or will think they're representing something else that's entirely innocuous.
The point being what?
That just because the KKK uses it doesn't make it a ubiquitously racist symbol.
Well it's not just the KKK, and you do realize the KKK weren't just random folks either. A lot of them were politicians, powerful businessmen, and law enforcement?
If people in Afghanistan don't know the flag is offensive and racist doesn't really mean anything. I don't even understand the point of establishing that "That just because the KKK uses it doesn't make it a ubiquitously racist symbol."?
The point is that saying "if you defend the confederate flag in any way I think you're KKK" is stupid.
I probably agree with what you post more often than not, but most of your posts are also extremely closed-minded when it comes to discourse.
The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan’s Pelham, North Carolina, chapter have reserved the Statehouse Grounds in South Carolina for a rally next month.
James Spears, the Great Titan of the chapter, said the group would be rallying to protest “the Confederate flag being took down for all the wrong reasons.”
If those are supposed to be the same thing they did a pretty crappy job of appropriating, nothing new for those bums though.
Basically all of the Klu Klux Klan's symbols are appropriated. The aforementioned Capirote, the obvious wooden cross, the red cross of the Crusaders...
Safe to say that the KKK is only recognizable in North America (and not even all of it), and the rest of the world will either have no clue who they are, or will think they're representing something else that's entirely innocuous.
The point being what?
That just because the KKK uses it doesn't make it a ubiquitously racist symbol.
Well it's not just the KKK, and you do realize the KKK weren't just random folks either. A lot of them were politicians, powerful businessmen, and law enforcement?
If people in Afghanistan don't know the flag is offensive and racist doesn't really mean anything. I don't even understand the point of establishing that "That just because the KKK uses it doesn't make it a ubiquitously racist symbol."?
The point is that saying "if you defend the confederate flag in any way I think you're KKK" is stupid.
I probably agree with what you post more often than not, but most of your posts are also extremely closed-minded when it comes to discourse.
I think you are missing my point. What I was saying is that I believe them about as much as I believe the KKK. Not that what they are saying isn't true, just it's obvious that it's disingenuous.
On June 30 2015 12:38 Djzapz wrote: It's just additional damning evidence. And this conversation is getting silly now, I don't think that the arguments that the confederate flag has other meanings are actually holding any water whatsoever.
First time I ever saw it was probably either Dukes of Hazzard parodies (don't think I ever saw the real series) or Civil War reenactments in cartoons (Simpsons, probably).
Of course, what I see and experience in Canada is mostly irrelevant, but there are plenty of ways to get exposed to a Confederate flag without any racial connotations at all.
The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan’s Pelham, North Carolina, chapter have reserved the Statehouse Grounds in South Carolina for a rally next month.
James Spears, the Great Titan of the chapter, said the group would be rallying to protest “the Confederate flag being took down for all the wrong reasons.”
If those are supposed to be the same thing they did a pretty crappy job of appropriating, nothing new for those bums though.
Basically all of the Klu Klux Klan's symbols are appropriated. The aforementioned Capirote, the obvious wooden cross, the red cross of the Crusaders...
Safe to say that the KKK is only recognizable in North America (and not even all of it), and the rest of the world will either have no clue who they are, or will think they're representing something else that's entirely innocuous.
The point being what?
That just because the KKK uses it doesn't make it a ubiquitously racist symbol.
Well it's not just the KKK, and you do realize the KKK weren't just random folks either. A lot of them were politicians, powerful businessmen, and law enforcement?
If people in Afghanistan don't know the flag is offensive and racist doesn't really mean anything. I don't even understand the point of establishing that "That just because the KKK uses it doesn't make it a ubiquitously racist symbol."?
The point is that saying "if you defend the confederate flag in any way I think you're KKK" is stupid.
I probably agree with what you post more often than not, but most of your posts are also extremely closed-minded when it comes to discourse.
I think you are missing my point. What I was saying is that I believe them about as much as I believe the KKK. Not that what they are saying isn't true, just it's obvious that it's disingenuous.
"I think you're all lying" is just as closed-minded for discourse.
On June 30 2015 12:38 Djzapz wrote: It's just additional damning evidence. And this conversation is getting silly now, I don't think that the arguments that the confederate flag has other meanings are actually holding any water whatsoever.
First time I ever saw it was probably either Dukes of Hazzard parodies (don't think I ever saw the real series) or Civil War reenactments in cartoons (Simpsons, probably).
Of course, what I see and experience in Canada is mostly irrelevant, but there are plenty of ways to get exposed to a Confederate flag without any racial connotations at all.
If those are supposed to be the same thing they did a pretty crappy job of appropriating, nothing new for those bums though.
Basically all of the Klu Klux Klan's symbols are appropriated. The aforementioned Capirote, the obvious wooden cross, the red cross of the Crusaders...
Safe to say that the KKK is only recognizable in North America (and not even all of it), and the rest of the world will either have no clue who they are, or will think they're representing something else that's entirely innocuous.
The point being what?
That just because the KKK uses it doesn't make it a ubiquitously racist symbol.
Well it's not just the KKK, and you do realize the KKK weren't just random folks either. A lot of them were politicians, powerful businessmen, and law enforcement?
If people in Afghanistan don't know the flag is offensive and racist doesn't really mean anything. I don't even understand the point of establishing that "That just because the KKK uses it doesn't make it a ubiquitously racist symbol."?
The point is that saying "if you defend the confederate flag in any way I think you're KKK" is stupid.
I probably agree with what you post more often than not, but most of your posts are also extremely closed-minded when it comes to discourse.
I think you are missing my point. What I was saying is that I believe them about as much as I believe the KKK. Not that what they are saying isn't true, just it's obvious that it's disingenuous.
"I think you're all lying" is just as closed-minded for discourse.
Generally speaking, if you find yourself to be on the same side of an argument as the Ku Klux Klan, that is usually a pretty good indicator that you should reevaluate that position carefully.
Also, i found the title "The Great Titan of the chapter" to be greatly amusing.
I swear, almost anything John Oliver talks about on Last Week Tonight instantly trends and the media frenzy ensues and people get behind it. God I love John Oliver and his team at Last Week Tonight.
On June 30 2015 14:51 Simberto wrote: Generally speaking, if you find yourself to be on the same side of an argument as the Ku Klux Klan, that is usually a pretty good indicator that you should reevaluate that position carefully.
Also, i found the title "The Great Titan of the chapter" to be greatly amusing.
Generally speaking, judging something by the worst of its proponents doesn't go very far either.
But my opinion still isn't that the Confederate Flag is good or anything. I just think people are pushing the value of it to an extreme, whether it's the ones clinging to it as their identity or the ones treating it as a purely racist symbol, are being a bit absurd about everything.
And people seem to forget that the Civil War wasn't racists versus liberators, it was racists versus greater racists. Doesn't do much good to shift all the blame to one side.
On June 30 2015 14:51 Simberto wrote: Generally speaking, if you find yourself to be on the same side of an argument as the Ku Klux Klan, that is usually a pretty good indicator that you should reevaluate that position carefully.
Also, i found the title "The Great Titan of the chapter" to be greatly amusing.
Generally speaking, judging something by the worst of its proponents doesn't go very far either.
But my opinion still isn't that the Confederate Flag is good or anything. I just think people are pushing the value of it to an extreme, whether it's the ones clinging to it as their identity or the ones treating it as a purely racist symbol, are being a bit absurd about everything.
And people seem to forget that the Civil War wasn't racists versus liberators, it was racists versus greater racists. Doesn't do much good to shift all the blame to one side.
There's a meaningful difference between racists and slaveholders. The former are assholes. The latter are human rights violators.
And, for what it's worth, the US was fighting (eventually) to liberate the slaves. You don't get to pass over that just because a lot of its citizens were racist.
On June 30 2015 15:52 WolfintheSheep wrote: Generally speaking, judging something by the worst of its proponents doesn't go very far either.
But my opinion still isn't that the Confederate Flag is good or anything. I just think people are pushing the value of it to an extreme, whether it's the ones clinging to it as their identity or the ones treating it as a purely racist symbol, are being a bit absurd about everything.
And people seem to forget that the Civil War wasn't racists versus liberators, it was racists versus greater racists. Doesn't do much good to shift all the blame to one side.
If it was racists vs liberators, the Emancipation Proclamation wouldn't have waited until the second half of the second year of Civil War.
South States, for all their blindness to the inhumanity of slavery, acted in defending their way of life, the plantation society. That way of life was based on the back of slave labour of the African Americans. Those states withdrew from the imperfect union that was the US Constitution, which had its own Faustian bargain in the three-fifth of man clause.
There were three angles of secession. Social in that abolition would tear apart Southern plantation society. Economic in that abolition would ruin Southern agrarian economy by robbing it of its labour. Political in that the union was no longer a fair exchange where the country as a whole recognized the institution of slaver in exchange for tariffs and other taxes that fell disproportionately on export agrarian economies.
While the Southern States will spout on about slavery, it didn't seem to trouble the Federal Government & the North, which instead fought to preserve the Union. When the first freeing of slaves happened, the Emancipation Proclamation was punitive against rebellious states and only applied to the Confederacy. It did not apply to the three border states still in the Union. In the first half of the war, the Civil War had all the appearances of Federal Government attempting to impose its will on member states that wanted nothing to do with it. That looks more like oppression than liberation. Only in the latter portion did we get anything positive in that some slaves were finally freed. But the Civil War was a bloody war with half a million dead and first instance of total war and war crimes. Classroom history sanitizes all of these rough edges, but the Federals were hardly saints.
This whole thing is laughably outrageous. As both a Southerner and a Cherokee, it just makes me chuckle that so many knuckleheads will blithely condemn the Battle Flag, but not the American Flag, which has seen and stood for, vast more atrocities and human rights violations. The USG is one of the most destructive forces the modern world has seen, but you yokels will defend that one to death.
On June 26 2015 04:09 ZasZ. wrote: I cannot think of any country in the world that proudly displays symbols associated with a rebellious faction 150 years after that faction was put down.
You'd be surprised. Here in Europe there are a lot of small countries / nations that were absorbed, conquered, or just merged into bigger states, but now they are all displaying their "historic heritage" in order to get some political benefits.
Here in Spain we have the Basque country and Catalonia, although their situation is very different.
In Catalonia, their "diada" or "national day" is the 11th September, and they remember when the Spanish army conquered Barcelona 300 years ago because Catalonia sided with the losers in the Spanish secesion wars, after Charles II died without sons.
So yeah, The States are a young country, but in the "good old Europe" we are used to those things...
Concerning the Flag, as I can see it from outside the states, I think everyone has the freedom to choose what to sell and what not. I don't agree with the historical games banning, but other than that, I think it is ok.
BUT, I still think this is a smoke screen to avoid yet another debate over the gun licenses in the US.
On June 30 2015 12:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: Of course, what I see and experience in Canada is mostly irrelevant, but there are plenty of ways to get exposed to a Confederate flag without any racial connotations at all.
In a museum is the only one I can think. If you fly the flag outside of a public building, especially in the south, it's absolutely unavoidable, the racial connotation is there and it's real. To say it isn't is willful ignorance.
On June 30 2015 17:12 Simberto wrote: The US civil war was in no way the first instance of war crimes. The things we now call war crimes have been a part of war since war existed.
And it could also be argued that the Napoleonic wars were pretty total wars, too.
None of this diminishes the fact that the civil war was a very horrible thing.
I stand corrected. I had planned to qualify it as first war crimes by US, but didn't put it in my post. Yet now, I'm not too certain of that either. It was the first case of atrocities on a mass scale by the US, and then the surviving war fighters of the Civil War promptly took it out on the various "native americans" for the following two decades.
On June 30 2015 17:12 Simberto wrote: The US civil war was in no way the first instance of war crimes. The things we now call war crimes have been a part of war since war existed.
And it could also be argued that the Napoleonic wars were pretty total wars, too.
None of this diminishes the fact that the civil war was a very horrible thing.
I stand corrected. I had planned to qualify it as first war crimes by US, but didn't put it in my post. Yet now, I'm not too certain of that either. It was the first case of atrocities on a mass scale by the US, and then the surviving war fighters of the Civil War promptly took it out on the various "native americans" for the following two decades.
Basically erradicating all the native americans doesn't count as warcrime or does it not count as US crime?
On June 30 2015 17:12 Simberto wrote: The US civil war was in no way the first instance of war crimes. The things we now call war crimes have been a part of war since war existed.
And it could also be argued that the Napoleonic wars were pretty total wars, too.
None of this diminishes the fact that the civil war was a very horrible thing.
I stand corrected. I had planned to qualify it as first war crimes by US, but didn't put it in my post. Yet now, I'm not too certain of that either. It was the first case of atrocities on a mass scale by the US, and then the surviving war fighters of the Civil War promptly took it out on the various "native americans" for the following two decades.
Basically erradicating all the native americans doesn't count as warcrime or does it not count as US crime?
People tend to forget about that and even today native Americans are treated like subhumans even by otherwise progressive people. No one thinks that part of history really matters, because unlike other groups who have managed to lobby hard politically to have their history recognized, the native Americans don't have that capability. Their small numbers (since genocide was very effective) prevents them from having a voice in the way the black community does.
Basically the importance of historical events of this kind is largely determined by how loud the remaining people who still care are.
On June 30 2015 17:52 Wegandi wrote: This whole thing is laughably outrageous. As both a Southerner and a Cherokee, it just makes me chuckle that so many knuckleheads will blithely condemn the Battle Flag, but not the American Flag, which has seen and stood for, vast more atrocities and human rights violations. The USG is one of the most destructive forces the modern world has seen, but you yokels will defend that one to death.
Definitely won't defend the US at all, but at least it's still a thing. If you fly the flag of a defunct political entity remembered by the world as a bunch of people who tried to defend their right to own slaves and got crushed, you're flying those ideals, whereas the people who fly the US flag are just doing what every country does, they exist despite their shortcomings. And the US is not the only country which has committed atrocities. At some point in every current country's history there's some people who have won and others who have lost everything in the process.
The Queen of England is the descendant of the greatest family of murderers. Canada is built on the graves of natives. Europe is the cumulative result of hundreds of wars. People fly those flags because of what the flags represent now. Not what they (or their predecessors) represented 150 years prior.
On June 30 2015 17:12 Simberto wrote: The US civil war was in no way the first instance of war crimes. The things we now call war crimes have been a part of war since war existed.
And it could also be argued that the Napoleonic wars were pretty total wars, too.
None of this diminishes the fact that the civil war was a very horrible thing.
I stand corrected. I had planned to qualify it as first war crimes by US, but didn't put it in my post. Yet now, I'm not too certain of that either. It was the first case of atrocities on a mass scale by the US, and then the surviving war fighters of the Civil War promptly took it out on the various "native americans" for the following two decades.
Basically erradicating all the native americans doesn't count as warcrime or does it not count as US crime?
People tend to forget about that and even today native Americans are treated like subhumans even by otherwise progressive people. No one thinks that part of history really matters, because unlike other groups who have managed to lobby hard politically to have their history recognized, the native Americans don't have that capability. Their small numbers (since genocide was very effective) prevents them from having a voice in the way the black community does.
Basically the importance of historical events of this kind is largely determined by how loud the remaining people who still care are.
Nope, but most of that happened after the civil war.
On June 30 2015 12:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: Of course, what I see and experience in Canada is mostly irrelevant, but there are plenty of ways to get exposed to a Confederate flag without any racial connotations at all.
In a museum is the only one I can think. If you fly the flag outside of a public building, especially in the south, it's absolutely unavoidable, the racial connotation is there and it's real. To say it isn't is willful ignorance.
If you are in Canada i don't know how you can speak on the meaning of the flag here in the south to be honest.
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it, friend has a giant one in his house and is pretty known for that and regardless no colored people(dont want to just say blacks) say or give a shit. Very few of the black people i know actually give a fuck about the flag being up down or anything like that, and the few that do are the ones in the same mindset as feminists are for the most part and it is retarded. Aka we want everything equal except when it works in our favor, here atleast that being Gov't assistance and shit like that
But you know what they say, If the south woulda won we'da had it made after all.
On June 30 2015 12:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: Of course, what I see and experience in Canada is mostly irrelevant, but there are plenty of ways to get exposed to a Confederate flag without any racial connotations at all.
In a museum is the only one I can think. If you fly the flag outside of a public building, especially in the south, it's absolutely unavoidable, the racial connotation is there and it's real. To say it isn't is willful ignorance.
If you are in Canada i don't know how you can speak on the meaning of the flag here in the south to be honest.
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it, friend has a giant one in his house and is pretty known for that and regardless no colored people(dont want to just say blacks) say or give a shit. Very few of the black people i know actually give a fuck about the flag being up down or anything like that, and the few that do preach that black rights are still violated blah blah blah, when even here in a lot of cases people feel they have it better than most lower class whites honestly. Gov't assistance comes to them a lot easier than it does to whites who are in worse shape and it is ridiculous sometimes honestly.
But you know what they say, If the south woulda won we'da had it made after all.
I understand that I can't really completely grasp the day-to-day meaning of the flag in the south, but then again most important of your post, to my eye, is:
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it
People don't think about it, arb. Because it's hard. Except what might happen if people started to think about it in the south, even though thinking is hard? Now you might see things that you didn't see before.
You're right, I can't know what it's like in the south, but don't expect anyone to buy the argument that an external eye can't think anything new, especially when in your post you yourself say that people don't think about it. People not thinking is the problem. We brought it up before, I think I mentioned it in one of my posts. Willful ignorance. And to much of the world that seems to be a common theme in the south. "It's just a big fucking flag!" Yeah ok. And I'm a Chinese aviator.
On June 30 2015 12:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: Of course, what I see and experience in Canada is mostly irrelevant, but there are plenty of ways to get exposed to a Confederate flag without any racial connotations at all.
In a museum is the only one I can think. If you fly the flag outside of a public building, especially in the south, it's absolutely unavoidable, the racial connotation is there and it's real. To say it isn't is willful ignorance.
If you are in Canada i don't know how you can speak on the meaning of the flag here in the south to be honest.
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it, friend has a giant one in his house and is pretty known for that and regardless no colored people(dont want to just say blacks) say or give a shit. Very few of the black people i know actually give a fuck about the flag being up down or anything like that, and the few that do preach that black rights are still violated blah blah blah, when even here in a lot of cases people feel they have it better than most lower class whites honestly. Gov't assistance comes to them a lot easier than it does to whites who are in worse shape and it is ridiculous sometimes honestly.
But you know what they say, If the south woulda won we'da had it made after all.
I understand that I can't really completely grasp the day-to-day meaning of the flag in the south, but then again most important of your post, to my eye, is:
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it
People don't think about it, arb. Because it's hard. Except what might happen if people started to think about it in the south, even though thinking is hard? Now you might see things that you didn't see before.
By don't think about it i mean don't give a fuck. Like i said when i re-read my statement the ones who are up in arms about it are the same ones who think like hardcore feminists do. Granted honestly i don't really care if its up or not, i feel like it is so ingrained in southern culture and is such a norm its pretty dumb to expect people not to be outraged over it.
I won't deny there is ignorant fucks out here who take it to the extreme, but the same can be said about everything. Theres plenty of people im sure who put it up cause it's like "I'm from the south and whats the biggest expression of this?" but i guess that can be replaced by a whole lot of things too.
On June 30 2015 17:12 Simberto wrote: The US civil war was in no way the first instance of war crimes. The things we now call war crimes have been a part of war since war existed.
And it could also be argued that the Napoleonic wars were pretty total wars, too.
None of this diminishes the fact that the civil war was a very horrible thing.
I stand corrected. I had planned to qualify it as first war crimes by US, but didn't put it in my post. Yet now, I'm not too certain of that either. It was the first case of atrocities on a mass scale by the US, and then the surviving war fighters of the Civil War promptly took it out on the various "native americans" for the following two decades.
Basically erradicating all the native americans doesn't count as warcrime or does it not count as US crime?
Are you pointing to some systematic crime against the tribes before Civil War? There was lots of small scale incidents and the War of 1812 involved multiple tribes, but the biggest blow came by the way of disease which often preceded direct contact. The really nastiness to tribes happened after the Civil War.
On June 30 2015 12:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: Of course, what I see and experience in Canada is mostly irrelevant, but there are plenty of ways to get exposed to a Confederate flag without any racial connotations at all.
In a museum is the only one I can think. If you fly the flag outside of a public building, especially in the south, it's absolutely unavoidable, the racial connotation is there and it's real. To say it isn't is willful ignorance.
If you are in Canada i don't know how you can speak on the meaning of the flag here in the south to be honest.
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it, friend has a giant one in his house and is pretty known for that and regardless no colored people(dont want to just say blacks) say or give a shit. Very few of the black people i know actually give a fuck about the flag being up down or anything like that, and the few that do preach that black rights are still violated blah blah blah, when even here in a lot of cases people feel they have it better than most lower class whites honestly. Gov't assistance comes to them a lot easier than it does to whites who are in worse shape and it is ridiculous sometimes honestly.
But you know what they say, If the south woulda won we'da had it made after all.
I understand that I can't really completely grasp the day-to-day meaning of the flag in the south, but then again most important of your post, to my eye, is:
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it
People don't think about it, arb. Because it's hard. Except what might happen if people started to think about it in the south, even though thinking is hard? Now you might see things that you didn't see before.
By don't think about it i mean don't give a fuck. Like i said when i re-read my statement the ones who are up in arms about it are the same ones who think like hardcore feminists do. Granted honestly i don't really care if its up or not, i feel like it is so ingrained in southern culture and is such a norm its pretty dumb to expect people not to be outraged over it.
I'm not so much outraged as I'm weirded out by it. Like, think about what it looks like to the rest of the world which already mocks Southern culture without really understanding it. I'm kind of one of them right, where when Alabama passes one of its insane nonsense insanely racist laws, I link the article to a friend and we laugh about it. "Haha, the American south". All fun and games.
Then we heard (and we frankly didn't know this), that some of those States themselves, not just rednecks, fly those flags. We're pretty amazed, frankly - and admittedly like I said we're largely ignorant of the southern culture. So we get to thinking, why would States fly that flag, when it embodies so much venom and filth?
So from reading around the only real defense it has is, it's part of our culture now. So what? I mean the only thing I can think of is that it's a really fucking stupid thing to have as part of your culture. A defeated insurrection type thing that defended ridiculous ideals... I understand that the south's thing is it don't care whut the rest of the world think bout you... but hell, that is weak defense.
People ain't think about it.
Please think about it. I mean, flags are inherently symbolic ffs -_-.
On June 30 2015 12:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: Of course, what I see and experience in Canada is mostly irrelevant, but there are plenty of ways to get exposed to a Confederate flag without any racial connotations at all.
In a museum is the only one I can think. If you fly the flag outside of a public building, especially in the south, it's absolutely unavoidable, the racial connotation is there and it's real. To say it isn't is willful ignorance.
If you are in Canada i don't know how you can speak on the meaning of the flag here in the south to be honest.
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it, friend has a giant one in his house and is pretty known for that and regardless no colored people(dont want to just say blacks) say or give a shit. Very few of the black people i know actually give a fuck about the flag being up down or anything like that, and the few that do preach that black rights are still violated blah blah blah, when even here in a lot of cases people feel they have it better than most lower class whites honestly. Gov't assistance comes to them a lot easier than it does to whites who are in worse shape and it is ridiculous sometimes honestly.
But you know what they say, If the south woulda won we'da had it made after all.
I understand that I can't really completely grasp the day-to-day meaning of the flag in the south, but then again most important of your post, to my eye, is:
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it
People don't think about it, arb. Because it's hard. Except what might happen if people started to think about it in the south, even though thinking is hard? Now you might see things that you didn't see before.
By don't think about it i mean don't give a fuck. Like i said when i re-read my statement the ones who are up in arms about it are the same ones who think like hardcore feminists do. Granted honestly i don't really care if its up or not, i feel like it is so ingrained in southern culture and is such a norm its pretty dumb to expect people not to be outraged over it.
I'm not so much outraged as I'm weirded out by it. Like, think about what it looks like to the rest of the world which already mocks Southern culture without really understanding it. I'm kind of one of them right, where when Alabama passes one of its insane nonsense insanely racist laws, I link the article to a friend and we laugh about it. "Haha, the American south". All fun and games.
Then we heard (and we frankly didn't know this), that some of those States themselves, not just rednecks, fly those flags. We're pretty amazed, frankly - and admittedly like I said we're largely ignorant of the southern culture. So we get to thinking, why would States fly that flag, when it embodies so much venom and filth?
So from reading around the only real defense it has is, it's part of our culture now. So what? I mean the only thing I can think of is that it's a really fucking stupid thing to have as part of your culture. A defeated insurrection type thing that defended ridiculous ideals... I understand that the south's thing is it don't care whut the rest of the world think bout you... but hell, that is weak defense.
People ain't think about it.
Please think about it. I mean, flags are inherently symbolic ffs -_-.
would you like it if i took your waffles and hockey away? What about maple syrup? nope. didnt think so.
On June 30 2015 12:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: Of course, what I see and experience in Canada is mostly irrelevant, but there are plenty of ways to get exposed to a Confederate flag without any racial connotations at all.
In a museum is the only one I can think. If you fly the flag outside of a public building, especially in the south, it's absolutely unavoidable, the racial connotation is there and it's real. To say it isn't is willful ignorance.
If you are in Canada i don't know how you can speak on the meaning of the flag here in the south to be honest.
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it, friend has a giant one in his house and is pretty known for that and regardless no colored people(dont want to just say blacks) say or give a shit. Very few of the black people i know actually give a fuck about the flag being up down or anything like that, and the few that do preach that black rights are still violated blah blah blah, when even here in a lot of cases people feel they have it better than most lower class whites honestly. Gov't assistance comes to them a lot easier than it does to whites who are in worse shape and it is ridiculous sometimes honestly.
But you know what they say, If the south woulda won we'da had it made after all.
I understand that I can't really completely grasp the day-to-day meaning of the flag in the south, but then again most important of your post, to my eye, is:
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it
People don't think about it, arb. Because it's hard. Except what might happen if people started to think about it in the south, even though thinking is hard? Now you might see things that you didn't see before.
By don't think about it i mean don't give a fuck. Like i said when i re-read my statement the ones who are up in arms about it are the same ones who think like hardcore feminists do. Granted honestly i don't really care if its up or not, i feel like it is so ingrained in southern culture and is such a norm its pretty dumb to expect people not to be outraged over it.
I'm not so much outraged as I'm weirded out by it. Like, think about what it looks like to the rest of the world which already mocks Southern culture without really understanding it. I'm kind of one of them right, where when Alabama passes one of its insane nonsense insanely racist laws, I link the article to a friend and we laugh about it. "Haha, the American south". All fun and games.
Then we heard (and we frankly didn't know this), that some of those States themselves, not just rednecks, fly those flags. We're pretty amazed, frankly - and admittedly like I said we're largely ignorant of the southern culture. So we get to thinking, why would States fly that flag, when it embodies so much venom and filth?
So from reading around the only real defense it has is, it's part of our culture now. So what? I mean the only thing I can think of is that it's a really fucking stupid thing to have as part of your culture. A defeated insurrection type thing that defended ridiculous ideals... I understand that the south's thing is it don't care whut the rest of the world think bout you... but hell, that is weak defense.
People ain't think about it.
Please think about it. I mean, flags are inherently symbolic ffs -_-.
would you like it if i took your waffles and hockey away? What about maple syrup? nope. didnt think so.
Slavery being lumped together with foodstuff and entertaining sports. 10/10
That being said, I don't think we should take away your symbol of a failed insurrection and attempt to continue enslaving people based on the color of your their skin! I was mostly saying that the culture of the south would be perhaps a little be more respectable if it bothered to think about the implication of the symbols it used to represent itself
On June 30 2015 12:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: Of course, what I see and experience in Canada is mostly irrelevant, but there are plenty of ways to get exposed to a Confederate flag without any racial connotations at all.
In a museum is the only one I can think. If you fly the flag outside of a public building, especially in the south, it's absolutely unavoidable, the racial connotation is there and it's real. To say it isn't is willful ignorance.
If you are in Canada i don't know how you can speak on the meaning of the flag here in the south to be honest.
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it, friend has a giant one in his house and is pretty known for that and regardless no colored people(dont want to just say blacks) say or give a shit. Very few of the black people i know actually give a fuck about the flag being up down or anything like that, and the few that do preach that black rights are still violated blah blah blah, when even here in a lot of cases people feel they have it better than most lower class whites honestly. Gov't assistance comes to them a lot easier than it does to whites who are in worse shape and it is ridiculous sometimes honestly.
But you know what they say, If the south woulda won we'da had it made after all.
I understand that I can't really completely grasp the day-to-day meaning of the flag in the south, but then again most important of your post, to my eye, is:
See them flown pretty much everywhere here and people don't think shit about it
People don't think about it, arb. Because it's hard. Except what might happen if people started to think about it in the south, even though thinking is hard? Now you might see things that you didn't see before.
By don't think about it i mean don't give a fuck. Like i said when i re-read my statement the ones who are up in arms about it are the same ones who think like hardcore feminists do. Granted honestly i don't really care if its up or not, i feel like it is so ingrained in southern culture and is such a norm its pretty dumb to expect people not to be outraged over it.
I'm not so much outraged as I'm weirded out by it. Like, think about what it looks like to the rest of the world which already mocks Southern culture without really understanding it. I'm kind of one of them right, where when Alabama passes one of its insane nonsense insanely racist laws, I link the article to a friend and we laugh about it. "Haha, the American south". All fun and games.
Then we heard (and we frankly didn't know this), that some of those States themselves, not just rednecks, fly those flags. We're pretty amazed, frankly - and admittedly like I said we're largely ignorant of the southern culture. So we get to thinking, why would States fly that flag, when it embodies so much venom and filth?
So from reading around the only real defense it has is, it's part of our culture now. So what? I mean the only thing I can think of is that it's a really fucking stupid thing to have as part of your culture. A defeated insurrection type thing that defended ridiculous ideals... I understand that the south's thing is it don't care whut the rest of the world think bout you... but hell, that is weak defense.
People ain't think about it.
Please think about it. I mean, flags are inherently symbolic ffs -_-.
Imo the average person in the northern states don't think to highly of the average person in the southern ones. Its not uncommon to hear jokes that mock the south. Still racists are everywhere and while it is much rarer to see the confederate flag in most places in the North you do still see it on occasion. Hell I remember when I was a kid in Michigan just outside of Detroit one of our neighbors had a big flag plastered on the side of his house. I heard some comments about it being about them asserting their "southern identity" or w/e but it was strange to me at the time and now it just seems sad.
I think it's important to note that the civil war was pretty much just fought over money. The north was pissed because the south was getting rich off slave labor and they were buying from the Europeans instead of the north which hurt the north's industrialization and manufacturing. Only reason it's important to note is because I think a lot of people in America have this colored view of history that the union was fighting against the evil institution of slavery when in reality they had their own selfish goals in mind (just like the south did) and very few people actually gave a shit that African Americans were being enslaved (except for, y'know, actual abolitionists).
With that said I don't think it's crazy that minorities (especially black people) are offended by the flag and I don't think it's crazy that businesses feel like it makes more business sense to remove the Confederate flag from their stores. I also think it's stupid that a southern state would display a Confederate flag for so long. I'm not really arguing that retailers or states shouldn't have the right to display a Confederate flag because I don't think that's even up for debate. But if I was the governor of South Carolina or a CEO at a major retailer I'd sure as hell remove the flag because it's in the best business interest of my state/company. At the end of the day it's all about money anyway just like the actual civil war.
On July 01 2015 01:23 overt wrote: I think it's important to note that the civil war was pretty much just fought over money. The north was pissed because the south was getting rich off slave labor and they were buying from the Europeans instead of the north which hurt the north's industrialization and manufacturing. Only reason it's important to note is because I think a lot of people in America have this colored view of history that the union was fighting against the evil institution of slavery when in reality they had their own selfish goals in mind (just like the south did) and very few people actually gave a shit that African Americans were being enslaved (except for, y'know, actual abolitionists).
With that said I don't think it's crazy that minorities (especially black people) are offended by the flag and I don't think it's crazy that businesses feel like it makes more business sense to remove the Confederate flag from their stores. I also think it's stupid that a southern state would display a Confederate flag for so long. I'm not really arguing that retailers or states shouldn't have the right to display a Confederate flag because I don't think that's even up for debate. But if I was the governor of South Carolina or a CEO at a major retailer I'd sure as hell remove the flag because it's in the best business interest of my state/company. At the end of the day it's all about money anyway just like the actual civil war.
On July 01 2015 01:23 overt wrote: I think it's important to note that the civil war was pretty much just fought over money. The north was pissed because the south was getting rich off slave labor and they were buying from the Europeans instead of the north which hurt the north's industrialization and manufacturing. Only reason it's important to note is because I think a lot of people in America have this colored view of history that the union was fighting against the evil institution of slavery when in reality they had their own selfish goals in mind (just like the south did) and very few people actually gave a shit that African Americans were being enslaved (except for, y'know, actual abolitionists).
With that said I don't think it's crazy that minorities (especially black people) are offended by the flag and I don't think it's crazy that businesses feel like it makes more business sense to remove the Confederate flag from their stores. I also think it's stupid that a southern state would display a Confederate flag for so long. I'm not really arguing that retailers or states shouldn't have the right to display a Confederate flag because I don't think that's even up for debate. But if I was the governor of South Carolina or a CEO at a major retailer I'd sure as hell remove the flag because it's in the best business interest of my state/company. At the end of the day it's all about money anyway just like the actual civil war.
Wasn't the north much richer than the south?
It had better industry(aka, it had industry) and a better ability to produce more weapons. Once the north's war machine got going, it outpaced the Souths by a large degree. Also trains played a factor.
But there are books upon books one why the North won and the reasons are more nuanced than that. Just like the Germans didn't lose WW2 just because Russia was cold.
On July 01 2015 01:23 overt wrote: I think it's important to note that the civil war was pretty much just fought over money. The north was pissed because the south was getting rich off slave labor and they were buying from the Europeans instead of the north which hurt the north's industrialization and manufacturing. Only reason it's important to note is because I think a lot of people in America have this colored view of history that the union was fighting against the evil institution of slavery when in reality they had their own selfish goals in mind (just like the south did) and very few people actually gave a shit that African Americans were being enslaved (except for, y'know, actual abolitionists).
With that said I don't think it's crazy that minorities (especially black people) are offended by the flag and I don't think it's crazy that businesses feel like it makes more business sense to remove the Confederate flag from their stores. I also think it's stupid that a southern state would display a Confederate flag for so long. I'm not really arguing that retailers or states shouldn't have the right to display a Confederate flag because I don't think that's even up for debate. But if I was the governor of South Carolina or a CEO at a major retailer I'd sure as hell remove the flag because it's in the best business interest of my state/company. At the end of the day it's all about money anyway just like the actual civil war.
Wasn't the north much richer than the south?
It had better industry(aka, it had industry) and a better ability to produce more weapons. Once the north's war machine got going, it outpaced the Souths by a large degree. Also trains played a factor.
But there are books upon books one why the North won and the reasons are more nuanced than that. Just like the Germans didn't lose WW2 just because Russia was cold.
And WW1 didn't start just because of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. History is too often badly oversimplified.
I'm not even sure ANY of the history I learned in my elementary/highschool/college classes were ever relevant. All of it was just a spew of North American/US propaganda >.>. Because there is so much history I suppose. You can spend your entire lifetime just researching/reading about the history of one place at a certain time, and it would keep you busy.
I don't really have an opinion on this whole flag matter, simply because I feel it's outside my domain of experience to argue about.
On July 01 2015 03:23 Reaper9 wrote: I'm not even sure ANY of the history I learned in my elementary/highschool/college classes were ever relevant. All of it was just a spew of North American/US propaganda >.>. Because there is so much history I suppose. You can spend your entire lifetime just researching/reading about the history of one place at a certain time, and it would keep you busy.
I don't really have an opinion on this whole flag matter, simply because I feel it's outside my domain of experience to argue about.
Personally I believe symbols mean what people want them to mean. The gays used the pink triangle that originally labeled them as sexual deviants in Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of gay pride. If a bunch of people start flying the Confederate flag and saying it means southern pride, and there's enough of them, they're not wrong. Of course for the people who don't believe that, they're not wrong either, because the symbol means something completely different there. But we don't have many people left who believe gays should wear a symbol for public identification.
As for the issue itself, my only opposition to the flag is that flying a symbol of sedition above public or government property isn't right. Other than that, it doesn't really matter. My neighbor can keep a swastika flag or a Confederate flag or an ISIS flag in his house, and as long as he isn't bothering me, more power to him; it's his right. If I want to buy apps or shirts or flags with Confederate symbols, I should have that right, whether I'm just a fan of Civil War history, or I like the south, or I actually want slavery to be reinstated. And the flip side is that if I wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on the street, people have the right to call me a racist if that's how they interpret the message.
On July 01 2015 03:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Personally I believe symbols mean what people want them to mean. The gays used the pink triangle that originally labeled them as sexual deviants in Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of gay pride. If a bunch of people start flying the Confederate flag and saying it means southern pride, and there's enough of them, they're not wrong. Of course for the people who don't believe that, they're not wrong either, because the symbol means something completely different there. But we don't have many people left who believe gays should wear a symbol for public identification.
As for the issue itself, my only opposition to the flag is that flying a symbol of sedition above public or government property isn't right. Other than that, it doesn't really matter. My neighbor can keep a swastika flag or a Confederate flag or an ISIS flag in his house, and as long as he isn't bothering me, more power to him; it's his right. If I want to buy apps or shirts or flags with Confederate symbols, I should have that right, whether I'm just a fan of Civil War history, or I like the south, or I actually want slavery to be reinstated. And the flip side is that if I wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on the street, people have the right to call me a racist if that's how they interpret the message.
I would think that openly voicing your desire to have certain people enslaved would qualify as some sort of hate speech... As much as I'm in favor of freedom of expression, it seems like using that freedom of expression to remove the freedom of others is just abusive as fuck and it's essentially a caricature of the concept of freedom.
I mean isn't a big argument for freedom of expression that if you were a minority opinion you would want to be able to voice it. Yet there's a conflict when your opinion is that certain other opinions must be silenced and certain people don't deserve to have it because genetics or something.
I'm not saying that you should definitely ban the Swastika, the ISIS flag and the Confederate flag, but the first two are pretty much systematically used in ways which are heinous as fuck and are essentially incompatible with freedom of speech in the first place.
On July 01 2015 03:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Personally I believe symbols mean what people want them to mean. The gays used the pink triangle that originally labeled them as sexual deviants in Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of gay pride. If a bunch of people start flying the Confederate flag and saying it means southern pride, and there's enough of them, they're not wrong. Of course for the people who don't believe that, they're not wrong either, because the symbol means something completely different there. But we don't have many people left who believe gays should wear a symbol for public identification.
As for the issue itself, my only opposition to the flag is that flying a symbol of sedition above public or government property isn't right. Other than that, it doesn't really matter. My neighbor can keep a swastika flag or a Confederate flag or an ISIS flag in his house, and as long as he isn't bothering me, more power to him; it's his right. If I want to buy apps or shirts or flags with Confederate symbols, I should have that right, whether I'm just a fan of Civil War history, or I like the south, or I actually want slavery to be reinstated. And the flip side is that if I wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on the street, people have the right to call me a racist if that's how they interpret the message.
Nah, southerners claiming the Confederate flag is a symbol of southern pride are wrong now matter how many of them there are. It is a symbol of hate, subjugation and intimidation. It is an evil vile symbol. Southerners are just as wrong claiming it is about cultural pride than Germans would be if they claimed the swastika is a symbol of German pride. The thing is Germany came to terms with their history, the south still has not.
On July 01 2015 03:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Personally I believe symbols mean what people want them to mean. The gays used the pink triangle that originally labeled them as sexual deviants in Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of gay pride. If a bunch of people start flying the Confederate flag and saying it means southern pride, and there's enough of them, they're not wrong. Of course for the people who don't believe that, they're not wrong either, because the symbol means something completely different there. But we don't have many people left who believe gays should wear a symbol for public identification.
As for the issue itself, my only opposition to the flag is that flying a symbol of sedition above public or government property isn't right. Other than that, it doesn't really matter. My neighbor can keep a swastika flag or a Confederate flag or an ISIS flag in his house, and as long as he isn't bothering me, more power to him; it's his right. If I want to buy apps or shirts or flags with Confederate symbols, I should have that right, whether I'm just a fan of Civil War history, or I like the south, or I actually want slavery to be reinstated. And the flip side is that if I wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on the street, people have the right to call me a racist if that's how they interpret the message.
I would think that openly voicing your desire to have certain people enslaved would qualify as some sort of hate speech... As much as I'm in favor of freedom of expression, it seems like using that freedom of expression to remove the freedom of others is just abusive as fuck and it's essentially a caricature of the concept of freedom.
I mean isn't a big argument for freedom of expression that if you were a minority opinion you would want to be able to voice it. Yet there's a conflict when your opinion is that certain other opinions must be silenced and certain people don't deserve to have it because genetics or something.
I don't see the problem with hate speech in itself as long as it doesn't escalate into action. Both the klansman who wants to stop the 'browning' of America and the professor who wants to exterminate white people have the right to say what they want, assuming they're not on private property where the owner decides otherwise, etc. I don't agree at all with either of these viewpoints, but as long as the klansman doesn't start vandalizing non-white properties or the professor doesn't start putting his extermination plan into action, I don't have a problem with what they're saying. But again, that's not to say their opinions shouldn't be criticized or ridiculed.
And the belief that certain beliefs must be silenced also falls under that belief, as long as those latter beliefs aren't actually being silenced.
I'm not saying that you should definitely ban the Swastika, the ISIS flag and the Confederate flag, but the first two are pretty much systematically used in ways which are heinous as fuck and are essentially incompatible with freedom of speech in the first place.
The flip side of the coin is how in Germany you can't use the swastika in video games. You can have other contexts that blur the line between history and something else (like the Stars and Bars Confederate flag being one of the "Six Flags" in the original amusement park in Texas)
The other issue is that just as neo-Nazis start using other symbols instead of the Swastika, like the flag of the Second Reich as a legal substitute for the Third, actual racists in the US who fly the Confederate flag for that reason could just use the Stars and Bars, or maybe the state flag of Mississippi, which has a Confederate flag on it.
On July 01 2015 03:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Personally I believe symbols mean what people want them to mean. The gays used the pink triangle that originally labeled them as sexual deviants in Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of gay pride. If a bunch of people start flying the Confederate flag and saying it means southern pride, and there's enough of them, they're not wrong. Of course for the people who don't believe that, they're not wrong either, because the symbol means something completely different there. But we don't have many people left who believe gays should wear a symbol for public identification.
As for the issue itself, my only opposition to the flag is that flying a symbol of sedition above public or government property isn't right. Other than that, it doesn't really matter. My neighbor can keep a swastika flag or a Confederate flag or an ISIS flag in his house, and as long as he isn't bothering me, more power to him; it's his right. If I want to buy apps or shirts or flags with Confederate symbols, I should have that right, whether I'm just a fan of Civil War history, or I like the south, or I actually want slavery to be reinstated. And the flip side is that if I wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on the street, people have the right to call me a racist if that's how they interpret the message.
Nah, southerners claiming the Confederate flag is a symbol of southern pride are wrong now matter how many of them there are. It is a symbol of hate, subjugation and intimidation. It is an evil vile symbol. Southerners are just as wrong claiming it is about cultural pride than Germans would be if they claimed the swastika is a symbol of German pride. The thing is Germany came to terms with their history, the south still has not.
So are gays masochists for adopting their concentration camp symbol into one of pride?
Granted, it's sometimes inverted, but not always: + Show Spoiler +
On July 01 2015 03:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Personally I believe symbols mean what people want them to mean. The gays used the pink triangle that originally labeled them as sexual deviants in Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of gay pride. If a bunch of people start flying the Confederate flag and saying it means southern pride, and there's enough of them, they're not wrong. Of course for the people who don't believe that, they're not wrong either, because the symbol means something completely different there. But we don't have many people left who believe gays should wear a symbol for public identification.
As for the issue itself, my only opposition to the flag is that flying a symbol of sedition above public or government property isn't right. Other than that, it doesn't really matter. My neighbor can keep a swastika flag or a Confederate flag or an ISIS flag in his house, and as long as he isn't bothering me, more power to him; it's his right. If I want to buy apps or shirts or flags with Confederate symbols, I should have that right, whether I'm just a fan of Civil War history, or I like the south, or I actually want slavery to be reinstated. And the flip side is that if I wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on the street, people have the right to call me a racist if that's how they interpret the message.
Nah, southerners claiming the Confederate flag is a symbol of southern pride are wrong now matter how many of them there are. It is a symbol of hate, subjugation and intimidation. It is an evil vile symbol. Southerners are just as wrong claiming it is about cultural pride than Germans would be if they claimed the swastika is a symbol of German pride. The thing is Germany came to terms with their history, the south still has not.
So are gays masochists for adopting their concentration camp symbol into one of pride?
Granted, it's sometimes inverted, but not always: + Show Spoiler +
I really don't feel we need to explain that they picked the symbol themselves, while the people trying to oppress black Americans picked the Confederate flag.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
On July 01 2015 03:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Personally I believe symbols mean what people want them to mean. The gays used the pink triangle that originally labeled them as sexual deviants in Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of gay pride. If a bunch of people start flying the Confederate flag and saying it means southern pride, and there's enough of them, they're not wrong. Of course for the people who don't believe that, they're not wrong either, because the symbol means something completely different there. But we don't have many people left who believe gays should wear a symbol for public identification.
As for the issue itself, my only opposition to the flag is that flying a symbol of sedition above public or government property isn't right. Other than that, it doesn't really matter. My neighbor can keep a swastika flag or a Confederate flag or an ISIS flag in his house, and as long as he isn't bothering me, more power to him; it's his right. If I want to buy apps or shirts or flags with Confederate symbols, I should have that right, whether I'm just a fan of Civil War history, or I like the south, or I actually want slavery to be reinstated. And the flip side is that if I wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on the street, people have the right to call me a racist if that's how they interpret the message.
I would think that openly voicing your desire to have certain people enslaved would qualify as some sort of hate speech... As much as I'm in favor of freedom of expression, it seems like using that freedom of expression to remove the freedom of others is just abusive as fuck and it's essentially a caricature of the concept of freedom.
I mean isn't a big argument for freedom of expression that if you were a minority opinion you would want to be able to voice it. Yet there's a conflict when your opinion is that certain other opinions must be silenced and certain people don't deserve to have it because genetics or something.
I don't see the problem with hate speech in itself as long as it doesn't escalate into action. Both the klansman who wants to stop the 'browning' of America and the professor who wants to exterminate white people have the right to say what they want, assuming they're not on private property where the owner decides otherwise, etc. I don't agree at all with either of these viewpoints, but as long as the klansman doesn't start vandalizing non-white properties or the professor doesn't start putting his extermination plan into action, I don't have a problem with what they're saying. But again, that's not to say their opinions shouldn't be criticized or ridiculed.
And the belief that certain beliefs must be silenced also falls under that belief, as long as those latter beliefs aren't actually being silenced.
That, to me, serves no practical purpose, and it's just following a rule to the letter for no reason other than some dogmatic unreasoned belief that it is how it "should" be.
Yet I don't support the banning of those flags, but I'm surprised to see that talks of enslaving people and murdering millions are somehow protected as legitimate political opinions but meh. A few people will die due to a few idiots who'll take those speeches to heart and we'll shrug.
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
You're wrong, it doesn't. It implies that people with any decency probably shouldn't fly it either. Like one shouldn't wear nazi regalia in Detroit
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
But your claim of a large majority of people requesting a ban is false. No one is pushing for a law preventing people from showing the flag.
On July 01 2015 03:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Personally I believe symbols mean what people want them to mean. The gays used the pink triangle that originally labeled them as sexual deviants in Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of gay pride. If a bunch of people start flying the Confederate flag and saying it means southern pride, and there's enough of them, they're not wrong. Of course for the people who don't believe that, they're not wrong either, because the symbol means something completely different there. But we don't have many people left who believe gays should wear a symbol for public identification.
As for the issue itself, my only opposition to the flag is that flying a symbol of sedition above public or government property isn't right. Other than that, it doesn't really matter. My neighbor can keep a swastika flag or a Confederate flag or an ISIS flag in his house, and as long as he isn't bothering me, more power to him; it's his right. If I want to buy apps or shirts or flags with Confederate symbols, I should have that right, whether I'm just a fan of Civil War history, or I like the south, or I actually want slavery to be reinstated. And the flip side is that if I wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on the street, people have the right to call me a racist if that's how they interpret the message.
I would think that openly voicing your desire to have certain people enslaved would qualify as some sort of hate speech... As much as I'm in favor of freedom of expression, it seems like using that freedom of expression to remove the freedom of others is just abusive as fuck and it's essentially a caricature of the concept of freedom.
I mean isn't a big argument for freedom of expression that if you were a minority opinion you would want to be able to voice it. Yet there's a conflict when your opinion is that certain other opinions must be silenced and certain people don't deserve to have it because genetics or something.
I don't see the problem with hate speech in itself as long as it doesn't escalate into action. Both the klansman who wants to stop the 'browning' of America and the professor who wants to exterminate white people have the right to say what they want, assuming they're not on private property where the owner decides otherwise, etc. I don't agree at all with either of these viewpoints, but as long as the klansman doesn't start vandalizing non-white properties or the professor doesn't start putting his extermination plan into action, I don't have a problem with what they're saying. But again, that's not to say their opinions shouldn't be criticized or ridiculed.
And the belief that certain beliefs must be silenced also falls under that belief, as long as those latter beliefs aren't actually being silenced.
That, to me, serves no practical purpose, and it's just following a rule to the letter for no reason other than some dogmatic unreasoned belief that it is how it "should" be.
Yet I don't support the banning of those flags, but I'm surprised to see that talks of enslaving people and murdering millions are somehow protected as legitimate political opinions but meh. A few people will die due to a few idiots who'll take those speeches to heart and we'll shrug.
Because where do you draw the line between a legitimate political opinion and an illegitimate one?
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
Nothing has been or will be banned so...
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
My ability walk naked through the mall is also banned. When will the oppression of private entities making decisions for themselves end.
Unless you are for the government forcing these companies to carry the flag, which would be weird.
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
oBlade pretty much hit the nail on the head, but there's a lot of towns where your only alternative to Walmart for some of the goods it sells is dozens of miles away, if not more. And a lot of that open space is in formerly Confederate areas where people like that kind of merchandise.
Sure on paper you could find one, but unless you sail to China or break into a warehouse, it's not going to be easy for people in those areas.
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
oBlade pretty much hit the nail on the head, but there's a lot of towns where your only alternative to Walmart for some of the goods it sells is dozens of miles away, if not more. And a lot of that open space is in formerly Confederate areas where people like that kind of merchandise.
Sure on paper you could find one, but unless you sail to China or break into a warehouse, it's not going to be easy for people in those areas.
Boooohoooo, people can't buy their racist flags on their weekly trip to Walmart, whatever will they do. They might have to special order one using the internet, the place where you can order a full body cat suit or replica of the gun from Blade Runner. The suffering and inconvenience.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
Nothing has been or will be banned so...
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
My ability walk naked through the mall is also banned. When will the oppression of private entities making decisions for themselves end.
Unless you are for the government forcing these companies to carry the flag, which would be weird.
The difference is, you can go walk naked in your house, or in the woods, or you could lobby your government to make it legal to walk naked in the street if it already isn't. People are satisfied by these alternatives, so there isn't a push to get stores to allow walking naked on their property.
It's too early to say, but if demand is high enough above supply and there isn't some chain that starts advertising their Confederate flags, popular pressure will rise. This is why NASCAR, also a private organization, is condemning the flag but not outright banning it (at least for now), since they have a lot of people in their fanbase that fly it.
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
oBlade pretty much hit the nail on the head, but there's a lot of towns where your only alternative to Walmart for some of the goods it sells is dozens of miles away, if not more. And a lot of that open space is in formerly Confederate areas where people like that kind of merchandise.
Sure on paper you could find one, but unless you sail to China or break into a warehouse, it's not going to be easy for people in those areas.
Boooohoooo, people can't buy their racist flags on their weekly trip to Walmart, whatever will they do. They might have to special order one using the internet, the place where you can order a full body cat suit or replica of the gun from Blade Runner. The suffering and inconvenience.
Sales of three versions of the flag were up 1,670% to 2,305% over a period of 24 hours, according to Amazon data. One of those flags, priced at $1.80 plus shipping, is currently the ninth best-selling item in the Patio, Lawn & Garden department and the top-selling item among all outdoor flags and banners sold on Amazon.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
Nothing has been or will be banned so...
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
My ability walk naked through the mall is also banned. When will the oppression of private entities making decisions for themselves end.
Unless you are for the government forcing these companies to carry the flag, which would be weird.
The difference is, you can go walk naked in your house, or in the woods, or you could lobby your government to make it legal to walk naked in the street if it already isn't. People are satisfied by these alternatives, so there isn't a push to get stores to allow walking naked on their property.
It's too early to say, but if demand is high enough above supply and there isn't some chain that starts advertising their Confederate flags, popular pressure will rise. This is why NASCAR, also a private organization, is condemning the flag but not outright banning it (at least for now), since they have a lot of people in their fanbase that fly it.
Life is hard, get a helmet. 5 black churches were burned in South Carolina, so people have bigger shit to worry about than people who want to express their love of "states rights" have to wait a week for shipping of their flag.
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
oBlade pretty much hit the nail on the head, but there's a lot of towns where your only alternative to Walmart for some of the goods it sells is dozens of miles away, if not more. And a lot of that open space is in formerly Confederate areas where people like that kind of merchandise.
Sure on paper you could find one, but unless you sail to China or break into a warehouse, it's not going to be easy for people in those areas.
Boooohoooo, people can't buy their racist flags on their weekly trip to Walmart, whatever will they do. They might have to special order one using the internet, the place where you can order a full body cat suit or replica of the gun from Blade Runner. The suffering and inconvenience.
Sales of three versions of the flag were up 1,670% to 2,305% over a period of 24 hours, according to Amazon data. One of those flags, priced at $1.80 plus shipping, is currently the ninth best-selling item in the Patio, Lawn & Garden department and the top-selling item among all outdoor flags and banners sold on Amazon.
I kinda wish I had some flags to sell.
Sounds like people are getting what they want before they stop carrying it. I hear sales of Disney movies got up when are put into the vault too.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
Nothing has been or will be banned so...
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
My ability walk naked through the mall is also banned. When will the oppression of private entities making decisions for themselves end.
Unless you are for the government forcing these companies to carry the flag, which would be weird.
The difference is, you can go walk naked in your house, or in the woods, or you could lobby your government to make it legal to walk naked in the street if it already isn't. People are satisfied by these alternatives, so there isn't a push to get stores to allow walking naked on their property.
It's too early to say, but if demand is high enough above supply and there isn't some chain that starts advertising their Confederate flags, popular pressure will rise. This is why NASCAR, also a private organization, is condemning the flag but not outright banning it (at least for now), since they have a lot of people in their fanbase that fly it.
Life is hard, get a helmet. 5 black churches were burned in South Carolina, so people have bigger shit to worry about than people who want to express their love of "states rights" have to wait a week for shipping of their flag.
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
oBlade pretty much hit the nail on the head, but there's a lot of towns where your only alternative to Walmart for some of the goods it sells is dozens of miles away, if not more. And a lot of that open space is in formerly Confederate areas where people like that kind of merchandise.
Sure on paper you could find one, but unless you sail to China or break into a warehouse, it's not going to be easy for people in those areas.
Boooohoooo, people can't buy their racist flags on their weekly trip to Walmart, whatever will they do. They might have to special order one using the internet, the place where you can order a full body cat suit or replica of the gun from Blade Runner. The suffering and inconvenience.
Sales of three versions of the flag were up 1,670% to 2,305% over a period of 24 hours, according to Amazon data. One of those flags, priced at $1.80 plus shipping, is currently the ninth best-selling item in the Patio, Lawn & Garden department and the top-selling item among all outdoor flags and banners sold on Amazon.
I kinda wish I had some flags to sell.
Sounds like people are getting what they want before they stop carrying it. I hear sales of Disney movies got up when are put into the vault too.
A nice little confederate flag Truck 'parade' in Georgia too.
It is absolutely pathetic that the Flag is what got all the attention from TL and actually inspired a noted member to post about it.
If it weren't for the people trying to speak sense to those who are clearly clueless I'd just lose all hope for TL.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
Nothing has been or will be banned so...
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
My ability walk naked through the mall is also banned. When will the oppression of private entities making decisions for themselves end.
Unless you are for the government forcing these companies to carry the flag, which would be weird.
The difference is, you can go walk naked in your house, or in the woods, or you could lobby your government to make it legal to walk naked in the street if it already isn't. People are satisfied by these alternatives, so there isn't a push to get stores to allow walking naked on their property.
It's too early to say, but if demand is high enough above supply and there isn't some chain that starts advertising their Confederate flags, popular pressure will rise. This is why NASCAR, also a private organization, is condemning the flag but not outright banning it (at least for now), since they have a lot of people in their fanbase that fly it.
Life is hard, get a helmet. 5 black churches were burned in South Carolina, so people have bigger shit to worry about than people who want to express their love of "states rights" have to wait a week for shipping of their flag.
On July 01 2015 06:10 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:
On July 01 2015 06:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:50 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:30 Plansix wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:26 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
oBlade pretty much hit the nail on the head, but there's a lot of towns where your only alternative to Walmart for some of the goods it sells is dozens of miles away, if not more. And a lot of that open space is in formerly Confederate areas where people like that kind of merchandise.
Sure on paper you could find one, but unless you sail to China or break into a warehouse, it's not going to be easy for people in those areas.
Boooohoooo, people can't buy their racist flags on their weekly trip to Walmart, whatever will they do. They might have to special order one using the internet, the place where you can order a full body cat suit or replica of the gun from Blade Runner. The suffering and inconvenience.
Sales of three versions of the flag were up 1,670% to 2,305% over a period of 24 hours, according to Amazon data. One of those flags, priced at $1.80 plus shipping, is currently the ninth best-selling item in the Patio, Lawn & Garden department and the top-selling item among all outdoor flags and banners sold on Amazon.
I kinda wish I had some flags to sell.
Sounds like people are getting what they want before they stop carrying it. I hear sales of Disney movies got up when are put into the vault too.
A nice little confederate flag Truck 'parade' in Georgia too.
It is absolutely pathetic that the Flag is what got all the attention from TL and actually inspired a noted member to post about it.
If it weren't for the people trying to speak sense to those who are clearly clueless I'd just lose all hope for TL.
It's the internet, its filled with all sorts and free market worshiping conservatives love it here. When people liked to a rag like clickbait Breitbart, you know who you're talking to. Seriously, Buzzfeed is better that that shit hole.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
Nothing has been or will be banned so...
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
Then what was the point of banning the symbol to begin with...? In my experience there aren't sites with more traffic, or that are easier and faster to trade on, than Amazon or eBay.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
Nothing has been or will be banned so...
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
My ability walk naked through the mall is also banned. When will the oppression of private entities making decisions for themselves end.
Unless you are for the government forcing these companies to carry the flag, which would be weird.
The mall is an allegory for the App Store if you didn't get that. The government actually discourages indecent exposure, so your example - whatever your point was - is disanalogous.
This is a question that's in the public interest. My saying these companies are wrong doesn't mean whatever straw you think it means.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
If I may elaborate on SoSexy's point, I don't need Amazon.com to protect me from things I think are offensive, because chances are I'm not browsing those things, and I can still recognize that someone else might be interested in those things. Just like I don't need Amazon.com to protect me from things other people are offensive, because I might be interested in those things. I'm not a fan of A Serbian Film but I'm not writing letters about it. People can try to list their stuff elsewhere after these companies (abruptly) cut them off, but I'd also like to see a lawsuit.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
Nothing has been or will be banned so...
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
My ability walk naked through the mall is also banned. When will the oppression of private entities making decisions for themselves end.
Unless you are for the government forcing these companies to carry the flag, which would be weird.
The difference is, you can go walk naked in your house, or in the woods, or you could lobby your government to make it legal to walk naked in the street if it already isn't. People are satisfied by these alternatives, so there isn't a push to get stores to allow walking naked on their property.
It's too early to say, but if demand is high enough above supply and there isn't some chain that starts advertising their Confederate flags, popular pressure will rise. This is why NASCAR, also a private organization, is condemning the flag but not outright banning it (at least for now), since they have a lot of people in their fanbase that fly it.
Life is hard, get a helmet. 5 black churches were burned in South Carolina, so people have bigger shit to worry about than people who want to express their love of "states rights" have to wait a week for shipping of their flag.
On July 01 2015 06:10 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:
On July 01 2015 06:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:50 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:30 Plansix wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:26 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
oBlade pretty much hit the nail on the head, but there's a lot of towns where your only alternative to Walmart for some of the goods it sells is dozens of miles away, if not more. And a lot of that open space is in formerly Confederate areas where people like that kind of merchandise.
Sure on paper you could find one, but unless you sail to China or break into a warehouse, it's not going to be easy for people in those areas.
Boooohoooo, people can't buy their racist flags on their weekly trip to Walmart, whatever will they do. They might have to special order one using the internet, the place where you can order a full body cat suit or replica of the gun from Blade Runner. The suffering and inconvenience.
Sales of three versions of the flag were up 1,670% to 2,305% over a period of 24 hours, according to Amazon data. One of those flags, priced at $1.80 plus shipping, is currently the ninth best-selling item in the Patio, Lawn & Garden department and the top-selling item among all outdoor flags and banners sold on Amazon.
I kinda wish I had some flags to sell.
Sounds like people are getting what they want before they stop carrying it. I hear sales of Disney movies got up when are put into the vault too.
It is absolutely pathetic that the Flag is what got all the attention from TL and actually inspired a noted member to post about it.
If it weren't for the people trying to speak sense to those who are clearly clueless I'd just lose all hope for TL.
You can make a thread about whatever you want, too, but my guess is most TLers would be pretty well on one side when it comes to arson and murder, which is why a thread about something like this, a dangerous flag, might be more interesting, because it's not a cut and dry issue.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
Nothing has been or will be banned so...
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
Then what was the point of banning the symbol to begin with...? In my experience there aren't sites with more traffic, or that are easier and faster to trade on, than Amazon or eBay.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
Nothing has been or will be banned so...
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
My ability walk naked through the mall is also banned. When will the oppression of private entities making decisions for themselves end.
Unless you are for the government forcing these companies to carry the flag, which would be weird.
The mall is an allegory for the App Store if you didn't get that. The government actually discourages indecent exposure, so your example - whatever your point was - is disanalogous.
This is a question that's in the public interest. My saying these companies are wrong doesn't mean whatever straw you think it means.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
If I may elaborate on SoSexy's point, I don't need Amazon.com to protect me from things I think are offensive, because chances are I'm not browsing those things, and I can still recognize that someone else might be interested in those things. Just like I don't need Amazon.com to protect me from things other people are offensive, because I might be interested in those things. I'm not a fan of A Serbian Film but I'm not writing letters about it. People can try to list their stuff elsewhere after these companies (abruptly) cut them off, but I'd also like to see a lawsuit.
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
Nothing has been or will be banned so...
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
My ability walk naked through the mall is also banned. When will the oppression of private entities making decisions for themselves end.
Unless you are for the government forcing these companies to carry the flag, which would be weird.
The difference is, you can go walk naked in your house, or in the woods, or you could lobby your government to make it legal to walk naked in the street if it already isn't. People are satisfied by these alternatives, so there isn't a push to get stores to allow walking naked on their property.
It's too early to say, but if demand is high enough above supply and there isn't some chain that starts advertising their Confederate flags, popular pressure will rise. This is why NASCAR, also a private organization, is condemning the flag but not outright banning it (at least for now), since they have a lot of people in their fanbase that fly it.
Life is hard, get a helmet. 5 black churches were burned in South Carolina, so people have bigger shit to worry about than people who want to express their love of "states rights" have to wait a week for shipping of their flag.
On July 01 2015 06:10 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:
On July 01 2015 06:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:50 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:30 Plansix wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:26 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: [quote]
From OP:
[quote]
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
oBlade pretty much hit the nail on the head, but there's a lot of towns where your only alternative to Walmart for some of the goods it sells is dozens of miles away, if not more. And a lot of that open space is in formerly Confederate areas where people like that kind of merchandise.
Sure on paper you could find one, but unless you sail to China or break into a warehouse, it's not going to be easy for people in those areas.
Boooohoooo, people can't buy their racist flags on their weekly trip to Walmart, whatever will they do. They might have to special order one using the internet, the place where you can order a full body cat suit or replica of the gun from Blade Runner. The suffering and inconvenience.
Sales of three versions of the flag were up 1,670% to 2,305% over a period of 24 hours, according to Amazon data. One of those flags, priced at $1.80 plus shipping, is currently the ninth best-selling item in the Patio, Lawn & Garden department and the top-selling item among all outdoor flags and banners sold on Amazon.
I kinda wish I had some flags to sell.
Sounds like people are getting what they want before they stop carrying it. I hear sales of Disney movies got up when are put into the vault too.
It is absolutely pathetic that the Flag is what got all the attention from TL and actually inspired a noted member to post about it.
If it weren't for the people trying to speak sense to those who are clearly clueless I'd just lose all hope for TL.
You can make a thread about whatever you want, too, but my guess is most TLers would be pretty well on one side when it comes to arson and murder, which is why a thread about something like this, a dangerous flag, might be more interesting, because it's not a cut and dry issue.
Bro go back to conservative school, companies are never wrong.
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
There has been absolutely zero legitimate discussion of any government ban on the Confederate flag.
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
oBlade pretty much hit the nail on the head, but there's a lot of towns where your only alternative to Walmart for some of the goods it sells is dozens of miles away, if not more. And a lot of that open space is in formerly Confederate areas where people like that kind of merchandise.
Sure on paper you could find one, but unless you sail to China or break into a warehouse, it's not going to be easy for people in those areas.
And?
This isn't internet service or groceries or any other necessity of life.
This is a flag.
There is absolutely zero obligation for any retailer to carry it. Even having this discussion and trying to frame it as some kind of intellectual, moral debate is utterly ridiculous.
There is absolutely zero obligation for any retailer to carry it. Even having this discussion and trying to frame it as some kind of intellectual, moral debate is utterly ridiculous.
For real. This is all pretty absurd.
All this crying wolf screws us on the real problems going on.
And if you really, honestly need a confederate flag, and absolutely no one is willing to sell one to you, you can still buy some red, white and blue cloth, a needle, and twirn. (Btw, this is not the case, 30 seconds of google gave me three seperate different places to order a confederate flag from. So you will not need to go without one.)
On July 01 2015 05:19 SoSexy wrote: I think it is a really stupid decision. You can't ban a symbol for what it represents, because you would have to literally ban everything.
Nothing has been or will be banned so...
On July 01 2015 05:24 Plansix wrote: People don't seem to understand the concept of willingly disassociating with a racist symbol and just assume its banning because "people are offended blah blah blah more dismissive crap"
You might be confusing the fact that these are companies, and not an arm of government, with the question of whether it's a ban (which it is). If your account gets suspended from battle.net, it's a ban, not a "willing dissociation." If I kick smokers out of my store, then I've banned smoking from that store. If I create a hundreds of dollars piece of technology that fits in your pocket, and that grants exclusive access to the only shopping mall available exclusively for the millions of people who bought that technology, and then in one corner of the probably hundreds of square kilometers shopping mall, there's a couple of people selling things with a certain arrangement of colors and shapes on them, and I shut down whatever they're doing, that's commonly understood to be "banning" which is why you see the OP and its links all say that these places have banned the flag or the symbol.
My ability walk naked through the mall is also banned. When will the oppression of private entities making decisions for themselves end.
Unless you are for the government forcing these companies to carry the flag, which would be weird.
The difference is, you can go walk naked in your house, or in the woods, or you could lobby your government to make it legal to walk naked in the street if it already isn't. People are satisfied by these alternatives, so there isn't a push to get stores to allow walking naked on their property.
It's too early to say, but if demand is high enough above supply and there isn't some chain that starts advertising their Confederate flags, popular pressure will rise. This is why NASCAR, also a private organization, is condemning the flag but not outright banning it (at least for now), since they have a lot of people in their fanbase that fly it.
Life is hard, get a helmet. 5 black churches were burned in South Carolina, so people have bigger shit to worry about than people who want to express their love of "states rights" have to wait a week for shipping of their flag.
So people can't have problems because someone has it worse? That's like saying the death of
On July 01 2015 06:10 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:
On July 01 2015 06:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:50 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:30 Plansix wrote:
On July 01 2015 05:26 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: [quote]
From OP:
[quote]
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
oBlade pretty much hit the nail on the head, but there's a lot of towns where your only alternative to Walmart for some of the goods it sells is dozens of miles away, if not more. And a lot of that open space is in formerly Confederate areas where people like that kind of merchandise.
Sure on paper you could find one, but unless you sail to China or break into a warehouse, it's not going to be easy for people in those areas.
Boooohoooo, people can't buy their racist flags on their weekly trip to Walmart, whatever will they do. They might have to special order one using the internet, the place where you can order a full body cat suit or replica of the gun from Blade Runner. The suffering and inconvenience.
Sales of three versions of the flag were up 1,670% to 2,305% over a period of 24 hours, according to Amazon data. One of those flags, priced at $1.80 plus shipping, is currently the ninth best-selling item in the Patio, Lawn & Garden department and the top-selling item among all outdoor flags and banners sold on Amazon.
I kinda wish I had some flags to sell.
Sounds like people are getting what they want before they stop carrying it. I hear sales of Disney movies got up when are put into the vault too.
A nice little confederate flag Truck 'parade' in Georgia too.
It is absolutely pathetic that the Flag is what got all the attention from TL and actually inspired a noted member to post about it.
If it weren't for the people trying to speak sense to those who are clearly clueless I'd just lose all hope for TL.
It's the internet, its filled with all sorts and free market worshiping conservatives love it here. When people liked to a rag like clickbait Breitbart, you know who you're talking to. Seriously, Buzzfeed is better that that shit hole.
How is the article I linked clickbait? The article is called "Amazon Bans Confederate Flags, Still Sells Nazi Merchandise". It then links to Amazon's decision to remove all Confederate flags from its sales, and links to some Nazi merchandise which, other than the Einsatz sign, are still up. There is literally no embellishment in the title.
But keep up those strawman arguments, I'm sure they'll amount to something eventually.
On July 01 2015 07:07 Simberto wrote: And if you really, honestly need a confederate flag, and absolutely no one is willing to sell one to you, you can still buy some red, white and blue cloth, a needle, and twirn. (Btw, this is not the case, 30 seconds of google gave me three seperate different places to order a confederate flag from. So you will not need to go without one.)
I could only find the stars and bars.
No way to prove it, but I think Google might be blocking results for confederate/dixie flag. I could find Nazi/ISIS and anti Nazi/ISIS paraphernalia by looking up the respective flags. I got absolute zero for this one.
On July 01 2015 03:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Personally I believe symbols mean what people want them to mean. The gays used the pink triangle that originally labeled them as sexual deviants in Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of gay pride. If a bunch of people start flying the Confederate flag and saying it means southern pride, and there's enough of them, they're not wrong. Of course for the people who don't believe that, they're not wrong either, because the symbol means something completely different there. But we don't have many people left who believe gays should wear a symbol for public identification.
As for the issue itself, my only opposition to the flag is that flying a symbol of sedition above public or government property isn't right. Other than that, it doesn't really matter. My neighbor can keep a swastika flag or a Confederate flag or an ISIS flag in his house, and as long as he isn't bothering me, more power to him; it's his right. If I want to buy apps or shirts or flags with Confederate symbols, I should have that right, whether I'm just a fan of Civil War history, or I like the south, or I actually want slavery to be reinstated. And the flip side is that if I wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on the street, people have the right to call me a racist if that's how they interpret the message.
Nah, southerners claiming the Confederate flag is a symbol of southern pride are wrong now matter how many of them there are. It is a symbol of hate, subjugation and intimidation. It is an evil vile symbol. Southerners are just as wrong claiming it is about cultural pride than Germans would be if they claimed the swastika is a symbol of German pride. The thing is Germany came to terms with their history, the south still has not.
So are gays masochists for adopting their concentration camp symbol into one of pride?
Granted, it's sometimes inverted, but not always: + Show Spoiler +
LOL! In your example it is the oppressed group taking back the symbol. That is not what is happening with the confederate flag. Black people aren't trying to take back the confederate flag. See my example above with german pride and the swastika for a more relevant comparison.
On July 01 2015 07:07 Simberto wrote: And if you really, honestly need a confederate flag, and absolutely no one is willing to sell one to you, you can still buy some red, white and blue cloth, a needle, and twirn. (Btw, this is not the case, 30 seconds of google gave me three seperate different places to order a confederate flag from. So you will not need to go without one.)
I could only find the stars and bars.
No way to prove it, but I think Google might be blocking results for confederate/dixie flag. I could find Nazi/ISIS and anti Nazi/ISIS paraphernalia by looking up the respective flags. I got absolute zero for this one.
Google removed them from their store, as is their right.
On July 01 2015 03:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Personally I believe symbols mean what people want them to mean. The gays used the pink triangle that originally labeled them as sexual deviants in Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of gay pride. If a bunch of people start flying the Confederate flag and saying it means southern pride, and there's enough of them, they're not wrong. Of course for the people who don't believe that, they're not wrong either, because the symbol means something completely different there. But we don't have many people left who believe gays should wear a symbol for public identification.
As for the issue itself, my only opposition to the flag is that flying a symbol of sedition above public or government property isn't right. Other than that, it doesn't really matter. My neighbor can keep a swastika flag or a Confederate flag or an ISIS flag in his house, and as long as he isn't bothering me, more power to him; it's his right. If I want to buy apps or shirts or flags with Confederate symbols, I should have that right, whether I'm just a fan of Civil War history, or I like the south, or I actually want slavery to be reinstated. And the flip side is that if I wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on the street, people have the right to call me a racist if that's how they interpret the message.
Nah, southerners claiming the Confederate flag is a symbol of southern pride are wrong now matter how many of them there are. It is a symbol of hate, subjugation and intimidation. It is an evil vile symbol. Southerners are just as wrong claiming it is about cultural pride than Germans would be if they claimed the swastika is a symbol of German pride. The thing is Germany came to terms with their history, the south still has not.
So are gays masochists for adopting their concentration camp symbol into one of pride?
Granted, it's sometimes inverted, but not always: + Show Spoiler +
LOL! In your example it is the oppressed group taking back the symbol. That is not what is happening with the confederate flag. Black people aren't trying to take back the confederate flag. See my example above with german pride and the swastika for a more relevant comparison.
On July 01 2015 07:07 Simberto wrote: And if you really, honestly need a confederate flag, and absolutely no one is willing to sell one to you, you can still buy some red, white and blue cloth, a needle, and twirn. (Btw, this is not the case, 30 seconds of google gave me three seperate different places to order a confederate flag from. So you will not need to go without one.)
I could only find the stars and bars.
No way to prove it, but I think Google might be blocking results for confederate/dixie flag. I could find Nazi/ISIS and anti Nazi/ISIS paraphernalia by looking up the respective flags. I got absolute zero for this one.
Google removed them from their store, as is their right.
Of course. I just couldn't find where I could buy one, in 30 seconds or 10 minutes.
On July 01 2015 03:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Personally I believe symbols mean what people want them to mean. The gays used the pink triangle that originally labeled them as sexual deviants in Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of gay pride. If a bunch of people start flying the Confederate flag and saying it means southern pride, and there's enough of them, they're not wrong. Of course for the people who don't believe that, they're not wrong either, because the symbol means something completely different there. But we don't have many people left who believe gays should wear a symbol for public identification.
As for the issue itself, my only opposition to the flag is that flying a symbol of sedition above public or government property isn't right. Other than that, it doesn't really matter. My neighbor can keep a swastika flag or a Confederate flag or an ISIS flag in his house, and as long as he isn't bothering me, more power to him; it's his right. If I want to buy apps or shirts or flags with Confederate symbols, I should have that right, whether I'm just a fan of Civil War history, or I like the south, or I actually want slavery to be reinstated. And the flip side is that if I wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on the street, people have the right to call me a racist if that's how they interpret the message.
Nah, southerners claiming the Confederate flag is a symbol of southern pride are wrong now matter how many of them there are. It is a symbol of hate, subjugation and intimidation. It is an evil vile symbol. Southerners are just as wrong claiming it is about cultural pride than Germans would be if they claimed the swastika is a symbol of German pride. The thing is Germany came to terms with their history, the south still has not.
So are gays masochists for adopting their concentration camp symbol into one of pride?
Granted, it's sometimes inverted, but not always: + Show Spoiler +
LOL! In your example it is the oppressed group taking back the symbol. That is not what is happening with the confederate flag. Black people aren't trying to take back the confederate flag. See my example above with german pride and the swastika for a more relevant comparison.
On July 01 2015 07:07 Simberto wrote: And if you really, honestly need a confederate flag, and absolutely no one is willing to sell one to you, you can still buy some red, white and blue cloth, a needle, and twirn. (Btw, this is not the case, 30 seconds of google gave me three seperate different places to order a confederate flag from. So you will not need to go without one.)
I could only find the stars and bars.
No way to prove it, but I think Google might be blocking results for confederate/dixie flag. I could find Nazi/ISIS and anti Nazi/ISIS paraphernalia by looking up the respective flags. I got absolute zero for this one.
Google removed them from their store, as is their right.
Of course. I just couldn't find where I could buy one, in 30 seconds or 10 minutes.
You should learn how to internet then. Its not hard, in fact by clicking the "shopping" tab instead of leaving it on the default "Web" tab you worked harder than you needed to.
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
oBlade pretty much hit the nail on the head, but there's a lot of towns where your only alternative to Walmart for some of the goods it sells is dozens of miles away, if not more. And a lot of that open space is in formerly Confederate areas where people like that kind of merchandise.
Sure on paper you could find one, but unless you sail to China or break into a warehouse, it's not going to be easy for people in those areas.
There's a constitutionally protected (per the SCOTUS) right to get an abortion, and yet primarily Southern states are making it far more difficult to get one of those than your completely unprotected right to find a specific flag at a retail outlet.
You can't get abortions mailed to you in case you were curious.
Of course. I just couldn't find where I could buy one, in 30 seconds or 10 minutes.
Haha jesus I provided a google link to this like ten pages ago and it took me about 30 seconds. Shouldn't surprise me that folks defending the CBS are bad at finding information though.
On July 01 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's stupid to talk about banning it since that's not what people are asking for.
From OP:
Apple is removing from the App Store any games or other software featuring the Confederate Flag. This, of course, follows the recent shooting in South Carolina, which triggered a nationwide debate over whether the flag should be flown at government buildings (or anywhere).
I think that last part implies banning.
That's called opinion. Apple of of the opinion that the flag is a worthless racist rag that isn't fit to mop of dog poo. Other people have the same opinion. That doesn't mean a law is going to be passed, just people expressing how they feel on the subject. Sorry if that scares you, but that's what freedom of expression is all about.
Some people have the opinion it should be banned. Some people are asking for it, which is exactly the opposite of what GreenHorizons said. I don't have any problem with this opinion, and I even respect the right of people who whole this opinion, I just disagree with it. I even agree with you on the fact that it shouldn't be flying in Charleston. But if someone in Charleston wants to hang one on their own house, I support their decision.
Apple can express their opinion all they want, and I also can express mine criticizing theirs. That's why I love freedom of expression. And the awesome thing about the free market is people can vote with their money where they want. Personally I don't use the Apple Store, so regarding the Apple ban itself, I don't have a horse in this race. But just like them, and just like you, I can express how I feel on this subject and the surrounding debate.
Some people are asking for a condo on Mars. People asking for something isn't the bar for it to be treated with any credibility.
There is no credible efforts to ban the flag, it's just a stupid thing to talk about. A way to distract from the actual issues.
On July 01 2015 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As if anyone who wants one of the flags can't still easily find one? It's not like China gives a shit about whether it is offensive or not.
People are just being outright stupid about this.
oBlade pretty much hit the nail on the head, but there's a lot of towns where your only alternative to Walmart for some of the goods it sells is dozens of miles away, if not more. And a lot of that open space is in formerly Confederate areas where people like that kind of merchandise.
Sure on paper you could find one, but unless you sail to China or break into a warehouse, it's not going to be easy for people in those areas.
There's a constitutionally protected (per the SCOTUS) right to get an abortion, and yet primarily Southern states are making it far more difficult to get one of those than your completely unprotected right to find a specific flag at a retail outlet.
Okay great, we actually do need stronger federal laws defending and expanding women's rights to abort, although stronger federal oversight where states' rights are concerned might be touchy as state laws did give us gay marriage and marijuana legalization in the states that wanted it before it was made legal nationwide (at least in the former case). What does that have to do with the sale of Confederate flags?
You can't get abortions mailed to you in case you were curious.
Of course. I just couldn't find where I could buy one, in 30 seconds or 10 minutes.
Haha jesus I provided a google link to this like ten pages ago and it took me about 30 seconds. Shouldn't surprise me that folks defending the CBS are bad at finding information though.
See usually in the few times I've had to look up products online, I can use a major retailer like Amazon and Ebay. It's a bit new for me.
Two of the sites are out of stock. The other one's selling 3x5 flags for $100. I'd say they're doing pretty well for themselves.
Okay great, we actually do need stronger federal laws defending and expanding women's rights to abort, although stronger federal oversight where states' rights are concerned might be touchy as state laws did give us gay marriage and marijuana legalization in the states that wanted it before it was made legal nationwide (at least in the former case). What does that have to do with the sale of Confederate flags?
One is constitutionally protected, the other isn't. Guess which is more easy to get in the South?
Two of the sites are out of stock. The other one's selling 3x5 flags for $100. I'd say they're doing pretty well for themselves.
Yes and guns/ammo sales skyrocket every time there is a mass shooting.
As I said before, the same goes for Disney movies every time they are going into the vault.
Also, what is the problem? Stores don't carry a product any more and people act like their rights are being infringed upon. I can't buy new SNESs anymore without going the shady bootleg route.
Okay great, we actually do need stronger federal laws defending and expanding women's rights to abort, although stronger federal oversight where states' rights are concerned might be touchy as state laws did give us gay marriage and marijuana legalization in the states that wanted it before it was made legal nationwide (at least in the former case). What does that have to do with the sale of Confederate flags?
One is constitutionally protected, the other isn't. Guess which is more easy to get in the South?
I still don't understand what your point is. Why can't we have both?
Two of the sites are out of stock. The other one's selling 3x5 flags for $100. I'd say they're doing pretty well for themselves.
Yes and guns/ammo sales skyrocket every time there is a mass shooting.[/QUOTE] Right but Walmart doesn't start banning bullets until after they start to have the shortage in supply. This time it's the other way around.
On July 01 2015 08:27 Plansix wrote: As I said before, the same goes for Disney movies every time they are going into the vault.
Also, what is the problem? Stores don't carry a product any more and people act like their rights are being infringed upon. I can't buy new SNESs anymore without going the shady bootleg route.
Didn't know about the vault until now. Market always finds a way.
Like I said, Walmart can go and ban anything they want. Just like I'm not obligated to sell anything out of my own house. People just have a right to complain about it and petition them in some way. Or get their flag from somewhere else.
On July 01 2015 08:27 Plansix wrote: As I said before, the same goes for Disney movies every time they are going into the vault.
Also, what is the problem? Stores don't carry a product any more and people act like their rights are being infringed upon. I can't buy new SNESs anymore without going the shady bootleg route.
Didn't know about the vault until now. Market always finds a way.
Like I said, Walmart can go and ban anything they want. Just like I'm not obligated to sell anything out of my own house. People just have a right to complain about it and petition them in some way. Or get their flag from somewhere else.
Well no one is contesting that so I guess we went in circles for nothing.
I still don't understand what your point is. Why can't we have both?
You can. But not from WalMart because they decided to stop selling them.
So... what is your point?
What is yours? I think we're overdue for it.
That the ban on Confederate flags by Apple, Walmart, Amazon, etc. is stupid considering all the other stuff they continue to sell, like Nazi and Soviet paraphernalia. Obviously they disagree with me. And they have the right to do so.
On July 01 2015 08:27 Plansix wrote: As I said before, the same goes for Disney movies every time they are going into the vault.
Also, what is the problem? Stores don't carry a product any more and people act like their rights are being infringed upon. I can't buy new SNESs anymore without going the shady bootleg route.
Didn't know about the vault until now. Market always finds a way.
Like I said, Walmart can go and ban anything they want. Just like I'm not obligated to sell anything out of my own house. People just have a right to complain about it and petition them in some way. Or get their flag from somewhere else.
On July 01 2015 08:27 Plansix wrote: As I said before, the same goes for Disney movies every time they are going into the vault.
Also, what is the problem? Stores don't carry a product any more and people act like their rights are being infringed upon. I can't buy new SNESs anymore without going the shady bootleg route.
Didn't know about the vault until now. Market always finds a way.
Like I said, Walmart can go and ban anything they want. Just like I'm not obligated to sell anything out of my own house. People just have a right to complain about it and petition them in some way. Or get their flag from somewhere else.
So you didn't have one....
I'm touchy on Walmart because oftentimes they and other big stores like Target become the only big stores in the area where I can get certain products since they can undercut prices but also limit diversity. Now that the f.y.e. in my area closed down, I have to drive 25-30 miles to the nearest brick-and-mortar store that sells the albums I want to buy (Amazon has them about 70% of the time, but that percentage drops with smaller bands I want to support but can't find elsewhere or new releases), which is a pretty big stretch considering I live right between New York and Philadelphia in what Wikipedia tells me is the most urbanized region in the US. Couldn't imagine what it would be like somewhere in the Great Plains.
Now obviously there aren't enough of me to make Walmart sell more power metal (yet. I have plans for that particular endeavor) but until then I can gnash my teeth and spend my money at the stores that do have what I want.
Unfortunately that's just the reality of brick-and-mortar retail. I've spent my years in retail deserts and I understand the frustration, but it's no basis for a retailer to stock something they find controversial enough to otherwise not be worth the bad PR (WalMart has no social conscience as demonstrated in countless ways).
As far as blowback from southerners goes, I stand by my claim that if they truly understood their own history and the history of that flag, the only ones complaining that they'd have to order a flag online or drive a great distance (and let's be honest: it's a FLAG, and normal people do not order FLAGS on any kind of a regular basis) are people who actually don't give a shit about the African Americans to whom they owe the only parts of their culture anyone else cares about.
On July 01 2015 01:23 overt wrote: I think it's important to note that the civil war was pretty much just fought over money. The north was pissed because the south was getting rich off slave labor and they were buying from the Europeans instead of the north which hurt the north's industrialization and manufacturing. Only reason it's important to note is because I think a lot of people in America have this colored view of history that the union was fighting against the evil institution of slavery when in reality they had their own selfish goals in mind (just like the south did) and very few people actually gave a shit that African Americans were being enslaved (except for, y'know, actual abolitionists).
With that said I don't think it's crazy that minorities (especially black people) are offended by the flag and I don't think it's crazy that businesses feel like it makes more business sense to remove the Confederate flag from their stores. I also think it's stupid that a southern state would display a Confederate flag for so long. I'm not really arguing that retailers or states shouldn't have the right to display a Confederate flag because I don't think that's even up for debate. But if I was the governor of South Carolina or a CEO at a major retailer I'd sure as hell remove the flag because it's in the best business interest of my state/company. At the end of the day it's all about money anyway just like the actual civil war.
Or you could read what southern governors had to say when their states seceded:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
Or the Vice President of the CSA:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization" and further that "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea ["equality of the races"]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
On July 01 2015 08:55 FHDH wrote: Unfortunately that's just the reality of brick-and-mortar retail. I've spent my years in retail deserts and I understand the frustration, but it's no basis for a retailer to stock something they find controversial enough to otherwise not be worth the bad PR (WalMart has no social conscience as demonstrated in countless ways).
As far as blowback from southerners goes, I stand by my claim that if they truly understood their own history and the history of that flag, the only ones complaining that they'd have to order a flag online or drive a great distance (and let's be honest: it's a FLAG, and normal people do not order FLAGS on any kind of a regular basis) are people who actually don't give a shit about the African Americans to whom they owe the only parts of their culture anyone else cares about.
Moonshine was all white, from Irish immigrants iirc. It gave us Jack Daniels.
As far as PR goes, it depends. Protein World made crazy profits (about 1 million GBP in four days) after telling a member of the HAES crowd, who was criticizing their ads, to fuck off. Personally I'm not a fan of HAES myself, bought a round of supplements from them, paid about double because of the import fee, and then went back to buying it from cheap old Amazon.
Now, that debate was an entirely different beast, since Walmart is already established, approval of the "southern pride" mentality is at an all-time low with the shootings, etc. but I feel like a moderately-sized company, maybe even one of those three on the Google search selling rebel flags and running out of them, could make huge profits by doing the same kind of "accidental" PR stunt.
And it's not a regular basis, but I bought three flags this year. An American flag, a Russian flag (my birthplace), and another American flag after my college confiscated my first one over spring break, calling it a fire hazard. Maybe if I move to a house someday, I'll get a bigger American flag to put on my porch or something. Not exactly common, but an equivalent product in my mind is those sticker families that people put on the rear window of their cars. It's not a huge or necessary good, but it still sells in big numbers.
The point is is that its hypocritical. They ban the selling of the symbol of slavery and yet sell goods made from slavery. Instead of getting anything actually positive done out of all this anger people are being satisfied and justified in doing what amounts to absolutely nothing.
On July 01 2015 10:57 Sermokala wrote: The point is is that its hypocritical. They ban the selling of the symbol of slavery and yet sell goods made from slavery. Instead of getting anything actually positive done out of all this anger people are being satisfied and justified in doing what amounts to absolutely nothing.
So don't shop there. Like I said, they have no social conscience. People who are outraged by this are just as hypocritical.
On July 01 2015 10:57 Sermokala wrote: The point is is that its hypocritical. They ban the selling of the symbol of slavery and yet sell goods made from slavery. Instead of getting anything actually positive done out of all this anger people are being satisfied and justified in doing what amounts to absolutely nothing.
So don't shop there. Like I said, they have no social conscience. People who are outraged by this are just as hypocritical.
But whining about it on the internet and the not changing what you do in any way is so much easier.
On July 01 2015 10:57 Sermokala wrote: The point is is that its hypocritical. They ban the selling of the symbol of slavery and yet sell goods made from slavery. Instead of getting anything actually positive done out of all this anger people are being satisfied and justified in doing what amounts to absolutely nothing.
So don't shop there. Like I said, they have no social conscience. People who are outraged by this are just as hypocritical.
The problem is is that people are actually praising these companies for doing this purely symbolic gesture without doing anything but helping modern slavery continue.
On July 01 2015 10:57 Sermokala wrote: The point is is that its hypocritical. They ban the selling of the symbol of slavery and yet sell goods made from slavery. Instead of getting anything actually positive done out of all this anger people are being satisfied and justified in doing what amounts to absolutely nothing.
So don't shop there. Like I said, they have no social conscience. People who are outraged by this are just as hypocritical.
The problem is is that people are actually praising these companies for doing this purely symbolic gesture without doing anything but helping modern slavery continue.
Social norms have meanings. Change isn't all-or-nothing. You think the massive amounts of black southerners don't appreciate not having the CBS shoved in their faces every time they go to a WalMart?
Is WalMart worthy of praise? Did that even enter the discussion at any point prior to this? Obviously it's not "the" problem or we'd have heard fifteen pages ago how it's bad people are praising them. Instead those of us on the right side of history keep saying that they are fucked, greedy, soulless corporations with no social conscience. I don't think they ever should have been stocking that fucking banner. I think it's good they no longer are. But I'm not praising them. Even though it doesn't mean nothing. Symbols have meanings.
From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote: From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on.
On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote: From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on.
So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism?
It's like a bunch of white people from cities are pretending to know the rural south. + That one guy from the deep south talking about how black people never complained about the flag until now. Hilarious.
On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote: From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on.
So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism?
Plansix, what the fuck
I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values.
Its almost like racists have been lying about being racists for a very long time.
On July 02 2015 00:14 Jormundr wrote: It's like a bunch of white people from cities are pretending to know the rural south. + That one guy from the deep south talking about how black people never complained about the flag until now. Hilarious.
I like the people from other counties explaining the most. Its like me commenting on racial and cultural dynamics Korea between Japan like I know ANYTHING.
On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote: From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on.
So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism?
Plansix, what the fuck
I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values.
Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either.
We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan.
On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote: From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on.
So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism?
Plansix, what the fuck
I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values.
Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either.
We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan.
You are so wrong it hurts....
"Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona was upset, too. 'What this guy just did set back everything I've been trying to do for years,' said Ancona, who leads the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. [...] " 'I believe in racial separation but it doesn't have to be violent,' he told CNN. 'People in the Klan are professional people, business people, working types. We are a legitimate organization.'
“We don’t hate people because of their race. I mean, we’re a Christian organization,” Frank Ancona, an Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, told WWBT on Thursday.
He insisted that the KKK had been unfairly maligned for its acts of violence against black people in the United States.
“Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen our Klansmen are supposed to be murderers and want to lynch black people, and we are supposed to be terrorists, and that is a complete falsehood.”
They don't think segregation is racist. So that's how you have a bunch of racist dipshits claiming not to be racist. It's become abundantly clear the people here are pretty clueless about race in the south.
On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote: From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on.
So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism?
Plansix, what the fuck
It's also a bit disingenuous to say that it "wasn't a thing" in the 30's. It's been part of the Mississipi flag since the 1890's, used by this Veterans organization (which, as far as I can tell, is not a hate group) for just as long, and was used by some American military units during WWII.
But there are certainly a lot of racist groups that adopted it in the late 40's/early 50's.
And it's true that it only became part of popular culture in the 50's or so, but the same is basically true of everything. "American Culture" is basically defined by whatever the Baby Boomers grew up with, much to the rue of every other generation to follow.
Traditional American Knights is a single branch of a bunch of Klans who all call themselves the KKK. There's no central leadership anymore, so I'm going off of the one who maintains the site.
A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of pleasantly habitable land (the Bailey), which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier, such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible, and so neither is the Bailey. Rather, one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.
For my original purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents philosophical propositions with similar properties: desirable to their proponents but only lightly defensible. The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed.
On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote: From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on.
So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism?
Plansix, what the fuck
It's also a bit disingenuous to say that it "wasn't a thing" in the 30's. It's been part of the Mississipi flag since the 1890's,
Well I did say it "wasn't really* a thing", so it was much smaller. Also Mississippi very much is Mississippi... It's... very particular.
On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote: From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on.
So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism?
Plansix, what the fuck
I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values.
Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either.
We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan.
"Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona was upset, too. 'What this guy just did set back everything I've been trying to do for years,' said Ancona, who leads the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. [...] " 'I believe in racial separation but it doesn't have to be violent,' he told CNN. 'People in the Klan are professional people, business people, working types. We are a legitimate organization.'
“We don’t hate people because of their race. I mean, we’re a Christian organization,” Frank Ancona, an Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, told WWBT on Thursday.
He insisted that the KKK had been unfairly maligned for its acts of violence against black people in the United States.
“Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen our Klansmen are supposed to be murderers and want to lynch black people, and we are supposed to be terrorists, and that is a complete falsehood.”
They don't think segregation is racist. So that's how you have a bunch of racist dipshits claiming not to be racist. It's become abundantly clear the people here are pretty clueless about race in the south.
MWahahaha "Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights"
On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote: From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on.
So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism?
Plansix, what the fuck
I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values.
Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either.
We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan.
You are so wrong it hurts....
"Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona was upset, too. 'What this guy just did set back everything I've been trying to do for years,' said Ancona, who leads the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. [...] " 'I believe in racial separation but it doesn't have to be violent,' he told CNN. 'People in the Klan are professional people, business people, working types. We are a legitimate organization.'
“We don’t hate people because of their race. I mean, we’re a Christian organization,” Frank Ancona, an Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, told WWBT on Thursday.
He insisted that the KKK had been unfairly maligned for its acts of violence against black people in the United States.
“Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen our Klansmen are supposed to be murderers and want to lynch black people, and we are supposed to be terrorists, and that is a complete falsehood.”
They don't think segregation is racist. So that's how you have a bunch of racist dipshits claiming not to be racist. It's become abundantly clear the people here are pretty clueless about race in the south.
MWahahaha "Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights"
How does anyone take these guys seriously.
I'm pretty sure a lot of the KKK is delusional idiots believing they're Crusaders or medieval militia or something.
On July 02 2015 05:27 tshi wrote: This might be the wrong thread for it, but this is really funny in terms of the prospects for the republican party in the 2016 presidential election
Particularly when they are quoting the KKK verbatim.
On July 02 2015 05:27 tshi wrote: This might be the wrong thread for it, but this is really funny in terms of the prospects for the republican party in the 2016 presidential election
Particularly when they are quoting the KKK verbatim.
Gotta win that primary by pandering to that base. And nothing rallies that base like quoting the KKK.
On July 02 2015 04:47 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Traditional American Knights is a single branch of a bunch of Klans who all call themselves the KKK. There's no central leadership anymore, so I'm going off of the one who maintains the site.
A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of pleasantly habitable land (the Bailey), which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier, such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible, and so neither is the Bailey. Rather, one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.
For my original purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents philosophical propositions with similar properties: desirable to their proponents but only lightly defensible. The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed.
Lol I read this in the comments and immediately thought of Jonny.
The two-step of terrific triviality: “Say something that is ambiguous between something so strong it is absurd and so weak that it would be absurd even to mention it. When attacked, hop from foot to foot as necessary, keeping a serious expression on your face. With luck, you will be able to generate the mistaken impression that you haven’t been knocked flat...”
On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote: From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on.
So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism?
Plansix, what the fuck
I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values.
Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either.
We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan.
"Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona was upset, too. 'What this guy just did set back everything I've been trying to do for years,' said Ancona, who leads the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. [...] " 'I believe in racial separation but it doesn't have to be violent,' he told CNN. 'People in the Klan are professional people, business people, working types. We are a legitimate organization.'
“We don’t hate people because of their race. I mean, we’re a Christian organization,” Frank Ancona, an Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, told WWBT on Thursday.
He insisted that the KKK had been unfairly maligned for its acts of violence against black people in the United States.
“Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen our Klansmen are supposed to be murderers and want to lynch black people, and we are supposed to be terrorists, and that is a complete falsehood.”
They don't think segregation is racist. So that's how you have a bunch of racist dipshits claiming not to be racist. It's become abundantly clear the people here are pretty clueless about race in the south.
They said they didn't hate them, not that they don't think they're racist.
Nvm. Should probably have looked at the image, lol.
On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote: From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on.
So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism?
Plansix, what the fuck
I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values.
Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either.
We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan.
You are so wrong it hurts....
"Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona was upset, too. 'What this guy just did set back everything I've been trying to do for years,' said Ancona, who leads the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. [...] " 'I believe in racial separation but it doesn't have to be violent,' he told CNN. 'People in the Klan are professional people, business people, working types. We are a legitimate organization.'
“We don’t hate people because of their race. I mean, we’re a Christian organization,” Frank Ancona, an Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, told WWBT on Thursday.
He insisted that the KKK had been unfairly maligned for its acts of violence against black people in the United States.
“Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen our Klansmen are supposed to be murderers and want to lynch black people, and we are supposed to be terrorists, and that is a complete falsehood.”
They don't think segregation is racist. So that's how you have a bunch of racist dipshits claiming not to be racist. It's become abundantly clear the people here are pretty clueless about race in the south.
They said they didn't hate them, not that they don't think they're racist.
In case you're serious...
But is the latest effort to adopt a highway an introduction of a new era of a kinder, gentler Klan or merely an effort to gain attention? After more than a century and a half, what is the Ku Klux Klan today?
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
On July 02 2015 10:52 TanGeng wrote: Folks, self-segregation happens all the time...
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
On July 02 2015 10:52 TanGeng wrote: Folks, self-segregation happens all the time...
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
Seriously.
The hell are you talking about?
Are you obtuse??
As obnoxious as it is for those white people to claim that they are proud of white company and then self-segregate into white only communities, it's equally obnoxious for other people to equate that behavior with outright racism and then ignore it when "minorities" do the same fucking thing.
On July 02 2015 10:52 TanGeng wrote: Folks, self-segregation happens all the time...
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
Seriously.
The hell are you talking about?
Are you obtuse??
As obnoxious as it is for those white people to claim that they are proud of white company and then self-segregate into white only communities, it's equally obnoxious for other people to equate that behavior with outright racism and then ignore it when "minorities" do the same fucking thing.
Clearly you are ignorant about the situation. Black people didn't "Self-segregate" not to mention this all came up because they didn't think twice about a strange white guy coming into their church which is not exclusionary at all.
Hard to imagine how people can be so oblivious and not just being intentionally disingenuous.
On July 02 2015 10:52 TanGeng wrote: Folks, self-segregation happens all the time...
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
Seriously.
The hell are you talking about?
Are you obtuse??
As obnoxious as it is for those white people to claim that they are proud of white company and then self-segregate into white only communities, it's equally obnoxious for other people to equate that behavior with outright racism and then ignore it when "minorities" do the same fucking thing.
Clearly you are ignorant about the situation. Black people didn't "Self-segregate" not to mention this all came up because they didn't think twice about a strange white guy coming into their church which is not exclusionary at all.
Hard to imagine how people can be so oblivious and not just being intentionally disingenuous.
Wow, You are obtuse.
Self-segregation and self-selection happens all the time. Marriage and children is a severe case of self-selection and self-segregation.
If you are going to attack white supremacy groups, at least attack them for the white supremacy rather than common everyday occurrences.
The billboard is obnoxious and probably doesn't accuracy reflect their more severe private opinions but simply trotting out segregation as an indicator of racism is really really weak.
On July 02 2015 10:52 TanGeng wrote: Folks, self-segregation happens all the time...
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
Seriously.
The hell are you talking about?
Are you obtuse??
As obnoxious as it is for those white people to claim that they are proud of white company and then self-segregate into white only communities, it's equally obnoxious for other people to equate that behavior with outright racism and then ignore it when "minorities" do the same fucking thing.
Clearly you are ignorant about the situation. Black people didn't "Self-segregate" not to mention this all came up because they didn't think twice about a strange white guy coming into their church which is not exclusionary at all.
Hard to imagine how people can be so oblivious and not just being intentionally disingenuous.
Wow, You are obtuse.
Self-segregation and self-selection happens all the time. Marriage and children is a severe case of self-selection and self-segregation.
If you are going to attack white supremacy groups, at least attack them for the white supremacy rather than common everyday occurrences.
The billboard is obnoxious and probably doesn't accuracy reflect their more severe private opinions but simply trotting out segregation as an indicator of racism is really really weak.
And this is where we are...
"Separate but equal" nothing racist to see here folks, move right along... That's two different notable members trotting out this non-sense faux-intellectualizing.
Sorry TanGeng but what you're talking about right now is clearly something you don't understand.
I don't have time to go into it, but:
1) Black people are in clusters because they were put there. By white people. Who want to claim the same right to sequester themselves.
2) The demographic in power is held to a different standard. When it comes to "race" - a social construct created by white people - there are two interrelated but distinct definitions of racism. One refers to individual biases based on one's concept of race. This is hardly exclusive to whites, as has been pointed out by defensive white people for centuries. The other is the systemic oppression of minorities by the dominant race. Historically black churches represent neither of these.
On July 02 2015 12:55 FHDH wrote: Sorry TanGeng but what you're talking about right now is clearly something you don't understand.
I don't have time to go into it, but:
1) Black people are in clusters because they were put there. By white people. Who want to claim the same right to sequester themselves.
2) The demographic in power is held to a different standard. When it comes to "race" - a social construct created by white people - there are two interrelated but distinct definitions of racism. One refers to individual biases based on one's concept of race. This is hardly exclusive to whites, as has been pointed out by defensive white people for centuries. The other is the systemic oppression of minorities by the dominant race. Historically black churches represent neither of these.
Race isn't just a "social construct", and white people had nothing to do with it. Racism goes back to virtually any culture who came across a different looking people semi-frequently. As for race itself, there's actually different physiological differences among the races. For example, blacks have higher testosterone levels on average than whites
With respect to the Black/White difference in testosterone level, African Americans have a clear testosterone advantage over Euro-Americans only from puberty to about 24 years of age. This advantage then shrinks and eventually disappears at some point during the 30s. The pattern then seems to reverse at older ages.
Critics say that more recent studies done since the early 2000'ss have shown no differences between Black and White testosterone levels. Perhaps they are referring to recent studies that show lower testosterone levels in adult Blacks than in adult Whites. This was the conclusion of one recent study (Alvergne et al. 2009) which found lower T levels in Senegalese men than in Western men. But these Senegalese men were 38.3 years old on average.
These critics may also be referring to various studies by Sabine Rohrmann which show no significance difference in T levels between Black and White Americans. Age is poorly controlled for in her studies.
Not saying it justifies racism, or this is the only example, but to say that white people made up the idea of race for their own benefit is silly.
On July 02 2015 12:55 FHDH wrote: Sorry TanGeng but what you're talking about right now is clearly something you don't understand.
I don't have time to go into it, but:
1) Black people are in clusters because they were put there. By white people. Who want to claim the same right to sequester themselves.
2) The demographic in power is held to a different standard. When it comes to "race" - a social construct created by white people - there are two interrelated but distinct definitions of racism. One refers to individual biases based on one's concept of race. This is hardly exclusive to whites, as has been pointed out by defensive white people for centuries. The other is the systemic oppression of minorities by the dominant race. Historically black churches represent neither of these.
Race isn't just a "social construct", and white people had nothing to do with it. Racism goes back to virtually any culture who came across a different looking people semi-frequently. As for race itself, there's actually different physiological differences among the races. For example, blacks have higher testosterone levels on average than whites
With respect to the Black/White difference in testosterone level, African Americans have a clear testosterone advantage over Euro-Americans only from puberty to about 24 years of age. This advantage then shrinks and eventually disappears at some point during the 30s. The pattern then seems to reverse at older ages.
Critics say that more recent studies done since the early 2000'ss have shown no differences between Black and White testosterone levels. Perhaps they are referring to recent studies that show lower testosterone levels in adult Blacks than in adult Whites. This was the conclusion of one recent study (Alvergne et al. 2009) which found lower T levels in Senegalese men than in Western men. But these Senegalese men were 38.3 years old on average.
These critics may also be referring to various studies by Sabine Rohrmann which show no significance difference in T levels between Black and White Americans. Age is poorly controlled for in her studies.
Not saying it justifies racism, or this is the only example, but to say that white people made up the idea of race for their own benefit is silly.
Race is a social construct. There is no biological basis that differentiates "races" as we know them. Black people don't have genetic markers that make them "black". Asians don't have genetic markers that make them "Asian". These delineations (primarily relying on skin color) are arbitrary, and only loosely (at best) correlate with certain physical characteristics. The random examples of physical characteristics that are "typical" of a race are merely genetic variations due to population clustering throughout history, and not because a certain race has a certain genetic makeup that is different than another's.
On July 02 2015 13:15 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Show nested quote +
Race isn't just a "social construct", and white people had nothing to do with it. Racism goes back to virtually any culture who came across a different looking people semi-frequently. As for race itself, there's actually different physiological differences among the races. For example, blacks have higher testosterone levels on average than whites
Show nested quote +
Not saying it justifies racism, or this is the only example, but to say that white people made up the idea of race for their own benefit is silly.
Race is a social construct. There is no biological basis that differentiates "races" as we know them. Black people don't have genetic markers that make them "black". Asians don't have genetic markers that make them "Asian". These delineations (primarily relying on skin color) are arbitrary, and only loosely (at best) correlate with certain physical characteristics. The random examples of physical characteristics that are "typical" of a race are merely genetic variations due to population clustering throughout history, and not because a certain race has a certain genetic makeup that is different than another's.
Well we can identify genetic markers if we really wanted to. For example, all non-African people have some Neanderthal in them. There are definitely genetic differences due to population clustering over time.
On July 02 2015 10:52 TanGeng wrote: Folks, self-segregation happens all the time...
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
Seriously.
The hell are you talking about?
Are you obtuse??
As obnoxious as it is for those white people to claim that they are proud of white company and then self-segregate into white only communities, it's equally obnoxious for other people to equate that behavior with outright racism and then ignore it when "minorities" do the same fucking thing.
Clearly you are ignorant about the situation. Black people didn't "Self-segregate" not to mention this all came up because they didn't think twice about a strange white guy coming into their church which is not exclusionary at all.
Hard to imagine how people can be so oblivious and not just being intentionally disingenuous.
Wow, You are obtuse.
Self-segregation and self-selection happens all the time. Marriage and children is a severe case of self-selection and self-segregation.
If you are going to attack white supremacy groups, at least attack them for the white supremacy rather than common everyday occurrences.
The billboard is obnoxious and probably doesn't accuracy reflect their more severe private opinions but simply trotting out segregation as an indicator of racism is really really weak.
And this is where we are...
"Separate but equal" nothing racist to see here folks, move right along... That's two different notable members trotting out this non-sense faux-intellectualizing.
It kinda depends on context, though.
If there is a subgroup that consists of mostly black or mostly white people, that does not necessarily mean that it is racist. As mentioned before in the case of "black" churches, there are mostly black people there. That doesn't mean that those are racist against white people. That would only be the case if white people were not welcome.
And there are probably other groups that attract mostly white people and thus consist of mostly white people without being racist.
It starts becoming racist the second people of other colours are not welcome.
On July 02 2015 10:52 TanGeng wrote: Folks, self-segregation happens all the time...
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
Seriously.
The hell are you talking about?
Are you obtuse??
As obnoxious as it is for those white people to claim that they are proud of white company and then self-segregate into white only communities, it's equally obnoxious for other people to equate that behavior with outright racism and then ignore it when "minorities" do the same fucking thing.
Clearly you are ignorant about the situation. Black people didn't "Self-segregate" not to mention this all came up because they didn't think twice about a strange white guy coming into their church which is not exclusionary at all.
Hard to imagine how people can be so oblivious and not just being intentionally disingenuous.
Wow, You are obtuse.
Self-segregation and self-selection happens all the time. Marriage and children is a severe case of self-selection and self-segregation.
If you are going to attack white supremacy groups, at least attack them for the white supremacy rather than common everyday occurrences.
The billboard is obnoxious and probably doesn't accuracy reflect their more severe private opinions but simply trotting out segregation as an indicator of racism is really really weak.
And this is where we are...
"Separate but equal" nothing racist to see here folks, move right along... That's two different notable members trotting out this non-sense faux-intellectualizing.
It kinda depends on context, though.
If there is a subgroup that consists of mostly black or mostly white people, that does not necessarily mean that it is racist. As mentioned before in the case of "black" churches, there are mostly black people there. That doesn't mean that those are racist against white people. That would only be the case if white people were not welcome.
And there are probably other groups that attract mostly white people and thus consist of mostly white people without being racist.
It starts becoming racist the second people of other colours are not welcome.
You're a post away from 5k, don't waste it on this dumbass topic.
The word duh comes to mind though. It's only being brought up to pretend there is even anything of substance to discuss about the flag and it's availability, when the OP clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
This is about 10 posts from just turning into typical intellectualized racism (not that there hasn't been plenty already).
On July 02 2015 10:52 TanGeng wrote: Folks, self-segregation happens all the time...
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
Seriously.
The hell are you talking about?
Are you obtuse??
As obnoxious as it is for those white people to claim that they are proud of white company and then self-segregate into white only communities, it's equally obnoxious for other people to equate that behavior with outright racism and then ignore it when "minorities" do the same fucking thing.
Clearly you are ignorant about the situation. Black people didn't "Self-segregate" not to mention this all came up because they didn't think twice about a strange white guy coming into their church which is not exclusionary at all.
Hard to imagine how people can be so oblivious and not just being intentionally disingenuous.
Wow, You are obtuse.
Self-segregation and self-selection happens all the time. Marriage and children is a severe case of self-selection and self-segregation.
If you are going to attack white supremacy groups, at least attack them for the white supremacy rather than common everyday occurrences.
The billboard is obnoxious and probably doesn't accuracy reflect their more severe private opinions but simply trotting out segregation as an indicator of racism is really really weak.
And this is where we are...
"Separate but equal" nothing racist to see here folks, move right along... That's two different notable members trotting out this non-sense faux-intellectualizing.
It kinda depends on context, though.
If there is a subgroup that consists of mostly black or mostly white people, that does not necessarily mean that it is racist. As mentioned before in the case of "black" churches, there are mostly black people there. That doesn't mean that those are racist against white people. That would only be the case if white people were not welcome.
And there are probably other groups that attract mostly white people and thus consist of mostly white people without being racist.
It starts becoming racist the second people of other colours are not welcome.
You're a post away from 5k, don't waste it on this dumbass topic.
The word duh comes to mind though. It's only being brought up to pretend there is even anything of substance to discuss about the flag and it's availability, when the OP clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
This is about 10 posts from just turning into typical intellectualized racism (not that there hasn't been plenty already).
You talked about gentrification, which is a socio-economic consequence, not a racist one, to wit you attributed it to. In your lens, anything remotely majority white is racist, but the latter isn't. I just wanted to point out how idiotic it is to say gentrification is racist, but hey, I've heard all the complaints from folks from Detroit about whites moving into the city and 'making it expensive' to know the street is two ways.
On July 02 2015 10:52 TanGeng wrote: Folks, self-segregation happens all the time...
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
Seriously.
The hell are you talking about?
Are you obtuse??
As obnoxious as it is for those white people to claim that they are proud of white company and then self-segregate into white only communities, it's equally obnoxious for other people to equate that behavior with outright racism and then ignore it when "minorities" do the same fucking thing.
Clearly you are ignorant about the situation. Black people didn't "Self-segregate" not to mention this all came up because they didn't think twice about a strange white guy coming into their church which is not exclusionary at all.
Hard to imagine how people can be so oblivious and not just being intentionally disingenuous.
Wow, You are obtuse.
Self-segregation and self-selection happens all the time. Marriage and children is a severe case of self-selection and self-segregation.
If you are going to attack white supremacy groups, at least attack them for the white supremacy rather than common everyday occurrences.
The billboard is obnoxious and probably doesn't accuracy reflect their more severe private opinions but simply trotting out segregation as an indicator of racism is really really weak.
And this is where we are...
"Separate but equal" nothing racist to see here folks, move right along... That's two different notable members trotting out this non-sense faux-intellectualizing.
It kinda depends on context, though.
If there is a subgroup that consists of mostly black or mostly white people, that does not necessarily mean that it is racist. As mentioned before in the case of "black" churches, there are mostly black people there. That doesn't mean that those are racist against white people. That would only be the case if white people were not welcome.
And there are probably other groups that attract mostly white people and thus consist of mostly white people without being racist.
It starts becoming racist the second people of other colours are not welcome.
You're a post away from 5k, don't waste it on this dumbass topic.
The word duh comes to mind though. It's only being brought up to pretend there is even anything of substance to discuss about the flag and it's availability, when the OP clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
This is about 10 posts from just turning into typical intellectualized racism (not that there hasn't been plenty already).
You talked about gentrification, which is a socio-economic consequence, not a racist one, to wit you attributed it to. In your lens, anything remotely majority white is racist, but the latter isn't. I just wanted to point out how idiotic it is to say gentrification is racist, but hey, I've heard all the complaints from folks from Detroit about whites moving into the city and 'making it expensive' to know the street is two ways.
On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote: From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing.
I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on.
So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism?
Plansix, what the fuck
I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values.
Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either.
We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan.
You are so wrong it hurts....
"Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona was upset, too. 'What this guy just did set back everything I've been trying to do for years,' said Ancona, who leads the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. [...] " 'I believe in racial separation but it doesn't have to be violent,' he told CNN. 'People in the Klan are professional people, business people, working types. We are a legitimate organization.'
“We don’t hate people because of their race. I mean, we’re a Christian organization,” Frank Ancona, an Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, told WWBT on Thursday.
He insisted that the KKK had been unfairly maligned for its acts of violence against black people in the United States.
“Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen our Klansmen are supposed to be murderers and want to lynch black people, and we are supposed to be terrorists, and that is a complete falsehood.”
They don't think segregation is racist. So that's how you have a bunch of racist dipshits claiming not to be racist. It's become abundantly clear the people here are pretty clueless about race in the south.
MWahahaha "Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights"
How does anyone take these guys seriously.
I'm pretty sure a lot of the KKK is delusional idiots believing they're Crusaders or medieval militia or something.
Either that or they've become a self-parody.
The KKK Nowadays isnt a whole lot, but way back early 1900s or so and the 60's the KKK was a real scary thing tbh.
Well we can identify genetic markers if we really wanted to. For example, all non-African people have some Neanderthal in them. There are definitely genetic differences due to population clustering over time.
Not all non-African people have been proven to have some Neanderthal in them. Africans may have bred with Neanderthals, it hasn't been proven. You may be correct, and one day the answer might be proven beyond doubt, but as of now, it is too early in the field to make such imperical claims, even if there is evidence it could be true.
The large genetic differences came from thousands of years of inbreding.
That is why I love white supremists, "My family inbred so much that we can claim to be a difference race!"
In a similar vein, it is pretty funny when white supremists get WHITE tattooed in BLACK ink.
Well we can identify genetic markers if we really wanted to. For example, all non-African people have some Neanderthal in them. There are definitely genetic differences due to population clustering over time.
Not all non-African people have been proven to have some Neanderthal in them. Africans may have bred with Neanderthals, it hasn't been proven. You may be correct, and one day the answer might be proven beyond doubt, but as of now, it is too early in the field to make such imperical claims, even if there is evidence it could be true.
The large genetic differences came from thousands of years of inbreding.
That is why I love white supremists, "My family inbred so much that we can claim to be a difference race!"
In a similar vein, it is pretty funny when white supremists get WHITE tattooed in BLACK ink.
It's the small things in life....
Almost as funny as the people having a tattoo of the leviticus phrase about homosexuals, when~ half a page earlier the same text says "don't tattoo yourself."
EPT
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51eMaJ-7SSL._SX940_.jpg)
i was still on volume 1![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EsTrRLT.png)
have fun
.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4rFazba.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cagOfNi.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Hmj73Wz.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/57/175363907_0e174d3ca9_z.jpg?zz=1)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GEU47jv.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n2YccCc.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZwEP3a2.jpg)
