41

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 27, 2015, 03:16:51 PM »

Calling it treason is ridiculous.  That was specifically defined in the Constitution so it wouldn't be be spuriously applied to anything the government didn't like:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

I'm not talking about it breaking laws. I never claimed to be. It could never be, because the constitution also says that the term 'enemy' doesn't apply to rebels but rather only to members of foreign nations actively at war with us. That said, one could make the argument that raising the flag is giving aid and comfort to the rebels, but it's irrelevant because of the above.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT RAISING THE FLAG IS OR SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. THAT WOULD BE SILLY. I'm saying it's in poor taste. When I use the word treason, I'm using it not in its legal sense but in its colloquial sense. The point I'm making is that raising the flag of a failed rebellion at the statehouse of the state that started the rebellion is rude. I'm not going any farther than that. Just rude. They shouldn't do it.

42

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 27, 2015, 03:00:28 PM »

This is exactly why we need free speech. If Mississippi wants to be proud of their rebellious past they can do so. Traitorous is being melodramatic because the flag does not represent a security risk to the country unless you get really jingoistic.

This has nothing to do with free speech. Nobody is talking about not letting southerners fly the confederate flag. That would be dumb. We're talking about a state capitol doing it.

43

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 27, 2015, 05:08:25 AM »

We're not talking about flying the Battle Flag in DC, but we're talking about flying it at a state capitol, which is the state's equivalent of DC. You do get that, right?

Yes, I do. It's flying the traitors' flag on the traitors' soil. I already said that.

Celebrating Benedict Arnold is one thing, but celebrating him at the embassy your country keeps in America would be actively disrespecting the US. Another example would be building a statue of J. R. Oppenheimer in Hiroshima, or a statue to Andrew Jackson at Wounded Knee.

The SC Capitol is nothing like an embassy.

Wounded Knee isn't an embassy either. And no, it isn't flying the traitor's flag on the traitor's soil. It's flying the traitor's flag on the soil of the country they betrayed. South Carolina is no longer a member of the confederacy. It's a member of the US. Choosing to fly the Traitor's Flag at their capitol is their showing that they don't respect the union and long to break off again. Thus, it's treason at worst and rude at best.

44

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: June 27, 2015, 03:29:44 AM »

...

I mean, you have the right to your own opinion. It's just kind of a fucked up opinion, is all.

45

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 27, 2015, 03:28:13 AM »

There's nothing wrong with that. Benedict Arnold was a great man who did a lot of great things, and he deserves everything you just mentioned. I'm invoking the UK Embassy in the US for a reason. Putting a statue of a man who, in the US, is mostly famous for betraying us to the UK in front of the UK's embassy here would be rather rude. Similarly, putting the flag of the confederacy on your state's flag, or raising it at your statehouse, is rather rude.

I don't see what you're trying to say. You're saying that one case of celebraiting traitors in the traitors' homeland is ok, but in another case it's inappropriate. We're not calling for flying the Battle Flag in DC, you know.

We're not talking about flying the Battle Flag in DC, but we're talking about flying it at a state capitol, which is the state's equivalent of DC. You do get that, right? Flying the flag at the South Carolina Statehouse (especially considering the fact that S.C. was the first state to secede and fired the first shots) is just like flying it in DC, except on the state level.

Celebrating Benedict Arnold is one thing, but celebrating him at the embassy your country keeps in America would be actively disrespecting the US. Another example would be building a statue of J. R. Oppenheimer in Hiroshima, or a statue to Andrew Jackson at Wounded Knee.

46

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: June 27, 2015, 03:18:09 AM »

Again, legislating civil rights doesn't work when the majority is fine with discrimination.

What do you mean? The passing of the Civil Rights Act did wonders for the racial wage gap, and with this new ruling Texan gays can get married. Bigots still exist (look at Yaakov!), and this probably won't change anyone's minds, but it still has a profound impact on the lives of the people affected. I'd call that working.

47

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 27, 2015, 03:13:43 AM »

Regardless, the flag itself is the symbol of treason. It's no different from building a statue of Benedict Arnold at the UK embassy in DC. The are excuses you can make for why he deserves a statue, but it's still in poor taste to put it in that particular place.

Notably, Benedict Arnold does have memorials in the UK - there's no need to invoke embassies. His tomb, also located in the UK, is well upkept, treated with the respect it deserves, and open for visitors.



"The two nations whom he served
in turn in the years of their enmity
have united in this memorial
as a token of their enduring
friendship."

Europeans tend not to value their feelings more than their history. Until recently, this was also true about Americans.

There's nothing wrong with that. Benedict Arnold was a great man who did a lot of great things, and he deserves everything you just mentioned. I'm invoking the UK Embassy in the US for a reason. Putting a statue of a man who, in the US, is mostly famous for betraying us to the UK in front of the UK's embassy here would be rather rude. Similarly, putting the flag of the confederacy on your state's flag, or raising it at your statehouse, is rather rude.

48

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: June 27, 2015, 03:10:48 AM »

First off, you are assuming I agree with Loving v. Virginia. I don't. I think SCOTUS exceeded its authority there, too. I think the Sovereign States should have been left to make that decision. And no, I disagree with you. The only reason States aren't sovereign (any more) is the South's loss of the Civil War, and earlier, the Anti-Federalists' loss in the creation of the American government.

And personally, although I don't presume to tell two people who can marry whom, I don't personally like interracial marriage. Miscegenation, to be quite frank, offends my sensibilities. If you want to do it, feel free, but don't ask me to fucking like it.

Dude, what the fuck?

And yes, the National Guard can be Federalised. They can also refuse to be Federalised, by refusing to follow an order they consider to be in violation of their own State's constitution.

Technically this is possible, sort of, but it also would never happen, especially in the hypothetical instance you're proposing.

49

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 27, 2015, 01:25:50 AM »

I'm still pretty sure that, regardless of revisionist theories about how the civil war wasn't really about slavery, and regardless of whether or not the flag is inherently racist, it's a symbol of high treason and it's, at the very least, in bad taste for a state to fly it in any official capacity.

The civil war was revised by the both north to be about slavery, not the other way around.

This is usually the argument about historical revisionism. There's no question that it happened, just the question of who did the revising. Here, historical documents much more readily support the idea that the civil war was largely to do with slavery. Many high-ranking officials and important documents considered slavery the primary impetus for the war, and arguments against this tend to be... limited.

It's true that the North's only goal was to reunite the nation. Lincoln only gave the Emancipation Proclamation to drum up support for the war effort, and he very notably excluded border states from the order. However, the South's secession was in order to protect its right to own slaves, in order to protect its wealthy from the significant losses that would occur if they lost their slaves. No matter how you turn it, it wouldn't have happened had slavery not been an issue.

Regardless, the flag itself is the symbol of treason. It's no different from building a statue of Benedict Arnold at the UK embassy in DC. The are excuses you can make for why he deserves a statue, but it's still in poor taste to put it in that particular place.

50

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 27, 2015, 12:28:42 AM »

I'm still pretty sure that, regardless of revisionist theories about how the civil war wasn't really about slavery, and regardless of whether or not the flag is inherently racist, it's a symbol of high treason and it's, at the very least, in bad taste for a state to fly it in any official capacity.

51

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

« on: June 27, 2015, 12:17:28 AM »

And the State would declare independence and start Civil War II. Frankly, on a personal level, I don't care who marries whom; but I believe in States' Rights. I would also call up the State National Guard to kill on sight any Federal agent, military or otherwise, who attempted to enter the State to enforce a law that violates the Constitution of my State and that of the USA.

Even if the governor had the authority to declare war on the rest of the US (which they don't), the state National Guard can be federalized under order from the president. Famously, Kennedy did this to stop the governor of Alabama from disobeying the Supreme Court's order to desegregate schools.

Also, you would be a terrible leader. Your response to things you disagree with is "kill everyone who disagrees with me" an uncomfortable amount of the time.

52

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confederate Flag in the Mississippi State flag

« on: June 23, 2015, 09:50:42 PM »

I rather think that a state flying the confederate flag is treason, and that regardless of the racial motivations it's unacceptable. Obviously an individual has every right to use the symbol however they want.

53

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?

« on: June 22, 2015, 02:00:47 AM »

Pizza (or Sexy or whatever we're calling you now), I'm a little confused by your position. You're arguing with feminists about what feminism is. First you get around this by defining the argument as about 'mainstream' feminism, but only refer to the most extreme examples you can find. Then, when they tell you that what you're describing isn't really mainstream feminism and that feminism as serious, 3rd wave feminists tend to describe it is about combating gender bias, which (for example) includes making women part of the draft (if the draft must exist) and combating the belief that men can't get raped, you change the conversation again to be about extremist wings of feminism that you've pre-defined as authoritarian.

I guess my answer to you is: if we're defining feminism as only being the authoritarian sects of feminism, then yes. Feminism is authoritarian.

Your assumption that I never "actually talked to feminists" is something I'm not going to waste my time with.

Given how open-minded you are talking to feminists right now, at this very moment, I don't deny that you've done it but I somehow suspect your mind was made up before you entered the conversation.

54

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Party Membership

« on: June 21, 2015, 03:11:37 AM »

Also, how is feminism authoritarian?

Oh, come on. Quoting a tumblog that's either a) satirical or b) run by a 13 year old girl who doesn't entirely understand the concepts she's angry about isn't fair. Even most of tumblr makes fun of people like that.

Also, the tags 'male tears' and 'kill all men' generally represent someone who is being tongue-in-cheek. There might be people who actually believe that shit, but mostly they're not. The hardcore feminists I know are usually just trying to get a rise out of men's rights activists with shit like that.

55

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: When will this **** stop?

« on: June 20, 2015, 08:13:45 PM »

Considering the mess that our trillions of dollars have had on the region, are you sure that you want that gaze turned inwards?

True. But it's interesting what spurs us to action and what doesn't.

56

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Party Membership

« on: June 20, 2015, 03:46:39 PM »

The problem is that in this country, economics and morals have gotten all mixed and muddled. If you are a Conservative morally speaking, you are invariably a Republican. If you are a Liberal morally speaking, you are invariably a Democrat.

The terms "conservative" and "liberal" are fundamentally screwed up as well, even outside America. It's generally accepted that if you oppose gay marriage, for instance, you are a "conservative". Meanwhile, if you support it, you are a "liberal".

But there are those who want to force practitioners of marriage ceremonies to not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in order to achieve their goal. That's not liberalism at all. Then there's the fact that so many groups that have fought for their freedom in the past -- women and blacks, for instance -- are now most vocally advocated for by people who want to achieve domination over their perceived oppressors, rather than real freedom.

I don't see "conservative" and "liberal" as antonyms anymore. Conservative-progressive is one spectrum; authoritarian-liberal is another. You can be a conservative liberal (e.g., the many people who spoke out against the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation in other countries), and you can be a progressive authoritarian (e.g., modern feminism).

I don't think modern progressivism is authoritarian. Perhaps it sometimes promotes authoritarian views, but I don't think that's a defining characteristic. It's just an unfortunate side-effect of the us-vs-them mentality that exists in modern politics. To use gay marriage as an example, 'we' have finally defeated 'them', and now 'we' are afraid of 'them' finding a loophole that allows 'them' to undo all of 'our' progress. So, 'we' want to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. (please note the quotations around 'we'. I don't necessarily support the point of view that people should be forced to provide services to gay marriages)

Whether or not taking away someone's right to discriminate is authoritarian is a whole different question.

Also, how is feminism authoritarian?

57

Arts & Entertainment / Re: E3 2015

« on: June 20, 2015, 01:43:35 AM »

I'm excited for fallout, dishonored, and battlefront.

58

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Party Membership

« on: June 20, 2015, 01:37:29 AM »

I'm not a member of any political party. In the US there are only two meaningful ones to choose from, and neither represent me well, so I have no desire to publicly support either. I vote, and I almost always would vote for the democrat, but it's more of a lesser-of-two-evils thing.

59

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: When will this **** stop?

« on: June 19, 2015, 03:33:06 AM »

Why are we spending trillions of dollars fighting ISIL and al-Qaeda over seas when we have plenty of domestic terrorists right here at home?

CHARLESTON, S.C. — A white gunman opened fire Wednesday night at a historic black church in downtown Charleston, S.C., killing nine people before fleeing and setting off an overnight manhunt, the police said.

At a news conference with Charleston’s mayor early Thursday, the police chief, Greg Mullen, called the shooting a hate crime.

“It is unfathomable that somebody in today’s society would walk into a church while they are having a prayer meeting and take their lives,” he said.

I think we classify domestic terrorism in the same category as mass murder, where it's sad and outrageous but we're used to it, and it's more of an issue for police and gun control, whereas foreign terrorists are exotic and exciting. We're not willing to treat domestic terrorism as an equal threat to terrorism from the middle east for the same reason that we wouldn't spend trillions of dollars to end gang violence. It's boring.

60

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Indigenous constitutional recognition referendum in Australia

« on: June 13, 2015, 02:24:39 AM »

I guess what I don't understand, Parsifal, is how your argument is valid in a situation where the positive discrimination only serves to counteract negative discrimination? I agree that randomly giving one group an edge over the other is terrible from a free market economy, but we're starting at a place where one group already has an edge over the other. How can we get anywhere if we aren't willing to address that fundamental problem?

So just to be clear, what I'm about to say has no source. It's just me applying the way I think in chem and eco to this situation, and thinking out loud about my conclusions. I rather suspect that there are social equilibriums that society can fall into. That is, there are comfortable positions where change is much more difficult than the status quo, and so no change occurs. During periods of upheaval, such as the Civil Rights Movement or Reconstruction for race relations in the US, we can move to a new and better equilibrium, but then little change will occur until the next period of upheaval. The only evidence I can think of for this theory is the observation that the wage gap between races hasn't done much in the last few decades.
 


If, as Parsifal says, all it took was waiting for the free market to do its job, we'd expect to see the wage gap decreasing on the scale of decades. We don't.

If this baseless speculation is true, and I think it probably is, then radical action is needed to change the current equilibrium. To apply this to Australia, this means that this referendum is, if not pleasant, then at least necessary.