The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Yaakov ben Avraham on June 23, 2015, 05:22:00 AM
-
Vote and leave any comments here. I voted Yeeha! Its a part of history. The Civil War was about A LOT more than slavery, like States Rights, and the ability of a State to challenge unconstitutional power grabs by the Federal Government. Slavery would have ultimately ended anyway. It was an impractical institution that held the South back, and most sensible Southerners knew that. As far as States Rights, one only has to see what the power-hungry Federal Government has managed to do, trampling all over the rights of the States in its quest for domination. Its a bloody disgrace.
Obama has been the worst in that regard, but Bush II wasn't much better. No State is safe from these power-hungry bastards.
EDIT:
Slight Orthographic correction to the poll. My apologies. The voting tally remains unchanged.
-
Guy shoots up a black church and everyone's reaction is to remove a flag. 'Murica
-
Actually, the flag they want to remove is the full-scale Battle Flag in front of the Statehouse in South Carolina. The one I am talking about is the flag of State of Mississippi, that has a Battle Flag as the canton of the overall flag. The subject has come up again since the shooting in South Carolina, however. In 2002 or thereabouts, voters in Mississippi did vote by a 2 to 1 margin to keep the State Flag as it was and is. But now the subject is up again. it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
-
It is a weird thing to be busy discussing considering all other possible political issues; even stranger still that a mass shooting brought it up. Feels like the media is busy throwing people an irrelevant bone to chew on.
-
I don't usually engage in point by points, but I'll give this gem a go.
Vote and leave any comments here. I voted Yeeha! Its a part of history. The Civil War was about A LOT more than slavery, like States Rights, and the ability of a State to challenge unconstitutional power grabs by the Federal Government.
You only list two reasons despite describing them as, "A LOT." Lets look at them. Sure, it was about states rights... to own slaves. Sure, it was about the ability of a state to challenge unconstitutional power grabs (sub-reason of states rights?) by the federal government... about slavery. In Mississippi's declaration of secession, they write, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." Oops, I bet your face is red.
Slavery would have ultimately ended anyway.
How do you know that? Seriously, how?
It was an impractical institution that held the South back, and most sensible Southerners knew that.
Monopolies hold back the economy but they don't naturally dissolve. Why would slavery? How do you know that most sensible Southerns knew this? Are you speculating or do you have a source for this claim?
As far as States Rights, one only has to see what the power-hungry Federal Government has managed to do, trampling all over the rights of the States in its quest for domination. Its a bloody disgrace.
What is the federal government doing about Colorado and Washington's drug laws? What these states are doing is against federal laws but the federal government seem to be respecting the states laws. Wow, that's like, a direct contradiction to your point that's easily fact-checked and verified by anyone reading this.
Obama has been the worst in that regard, but Bush II wasn't much better. No State is safe from these power-hungry bastards.
Ahhhhh, so we've found the crux. It's a political statement about the current administration and your dislike of "big government." I'm not sure if this was your intent all along or if your argument just meandered its way here on its own, but the Obama -- or Bush -- administration has very little to do with the the flag of Mississippi. Why bring them up? Either it's a thinly veiled attack on the incumbent administration, it's an accident, or you have some point connecting the two that you've failed to mention. In the case of the first, if your argument can't stand on it's own, then it's probably a bad argument. In the case of the last two, write better.
-
Actually, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, & others were all on record as opposing slavery. Even the Vice President, Alexander Stephens, who publicly spoke about the superiority of Whites, questioned slavery. Yes, part of State's Rights was about slavery. But tariff laws, taxation, all that was involved too. & re: the pot laws, the govt simply doesn't KNOW what to do yet. That is all.
-
Actually, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, & others were all on record as opposing slavery. Even the Vice President, Alexander Stephens, who publicly spoke about the superiority of Whites, questioned slavery. Yes, part of State's Rights was about slavery. But tariff laws, taxation, all that was involved too. & re: the pot laws, the govt simply doesn't KNOW what to do yet. That is all.
Okay, so three leaders in the South were opposed to slavery so the Civil War was not about slavery. By that logic everyone living in American right now is a Conservative Democrat just like Obama. Every senator, every representative, every governor, every judge, and every damn comptroller. I think many of them would be surprised to learn this.
The feds raid drug operations all the time. What don't they "know" what to do?
-
The feds raid drug operations all the time. What don't they "know" what to do?
Are you disputing the extreme inefficiency and futility of "the war on drugs"?
-
The feds raid drug operations all the time. What don't they "know" what to do?
Are you disputing the extreme inefficiency and futility of "the war on drugs"?
No.
-
No.
Then I think it's fair to say that they have no idea what they're doing. They're sinking immense amounts of money and man-hours into something that brings no results.
More on the OP's actual subject, while I won't delve into my views on racism (I'm sure anyone can guess what I'd say anyway), I'd like to point out that banning symbols is a very ineffective and often counter-productive measure. Poland currently has a ban on the swastika and the hammer and sickle (except for justifiable uses, which are frankly sensible). In practice, all this ban means is that history enthusiasts need to seek approval when they want to host educational events, some people continue using the swastika to voice their support for hateful policies, others use similar-but-different symbols1, and others (me) are given citations for wearing a hammer-and-sickle belt buckle (which I admittedly did/do to be w0w so edgy, so fair enough).
What this doesn't address is the actual culture of hate which may or may not be connoted with these symbols. It's an empty, meaningless measure which at best results in giving the symbol a "taboo" or "let's stick it to the man" taste that some people enjoy. And, lo and behold, Confederate flag sales are already skyrocketing following the national debate (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/23/1395861/-As-states-reconsider-its-role-Confederate-Flag-sales-skyrocket-2-300-on-Amazon). How unpredictable.
1 - Example: One of Poland's most radical nationalist parties, Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski (The National Rebirth of Poland) uses symbols like this:
(http://www.nop.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/logoNOP.jpg)
together with such wonderful slogans as "Naziści? Jesteśmy gorsi!" ("Nazis? We're worse than that!")
-
No.
Then I think it's fair to say that they have no idea what they're doing. They're sinking immense amounts of money and man-hours into something that brings no results.
Sure, I can agree with that. However, that's not what we were talking about. Yaakov claimed that the reason that the US Federal government isn't going into Colorado or Washington and raiding the easily findable and public store fronts that sell federally illegal drugs is that the US Federal Government doesn't know what to do. I called out the absurdity of that statement by saying that they raid things all the time, they know "what to do," (even if that is ineffectual) they just aren't doing it because they are respecting the states laws.
Summary: Feds aren't raiding places in Colorado or Washington because they are respecting state laws, not because they don't know what to do.
-
Yeah, fair enough.
-
Will the Dukes of Hazzard have to respray their car?
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/153/1226207.jpg)
-
Nobody's calling for the Confederate flag to be banned; only that it shouldn't be an "official" part of a state's representation, such as flying above a capitol or being part of a state flag. It's an ugly relic of a horrible period of this country's history, and nowadays it doesn't belong anywhere but a museum.
-
I always thought it to be an anti-government libertarian symbol of rebellion. Nothing to do with racism. I thought it was against federalism.
But I'm not American and I'm not going to pretend that its possible to understand what you fruitcakes think about anything.
-
One more point I would like to make about symbolism. It's great to have a symbol that means something. If your aligned with a party that has a swastika that's perfect for conveying the message that your ideals align with the ideals of the Third Reich. In that sense, it's a wonderful symbol for communicating your ideals. If your ideals don't align with that of the Third Reich, then using a swastika is probably a bad idea because everyone is going to think that you condone everything that symbol means.
However, these concepts apply to all symbols. Southerners in the United States in the mid to late 1800's cultivated a very specific meaning for the flag that became the symbol of their movement; namely, pro slavery. So, if you have ideals that don't match with this symbol, then using it will be a very poor way to communicate your stance on issues. It would be like someone opening up a charity with a swastika symbol. They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.
So, when a State has a symbol on its symbol -- a flag on a flag in this case -- they are saying that their ideals align with the ideals of that symbol. They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.
I'm not saying they should ban the symbol, we can all agree that would not be effective. I'm saying that a state shouldn't be using a symbol that means slavery, oppression, hate, inequality, and bigotry even if it also means history.
-
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.
-
The only reason the Federal Government hasn't enforced Federal marijuana laws on Washington and Colorado is because they are afraid of the mass revolt in those two states that would occur if they did. And I still maintain that the Civil War was only in part about slavery, and only in small part about it for that matter. For once, Thork and I agree.
-
However, these concepts apply to all symbols. Southerners in the United States in the mid to late 1800's cultivated a very specific meaning for the flag that became the symbol of their movement; namely, pro slavery. So, if you have ideals that don't match with this symbol, then using it will be a very poor way to communicate your stance on issues. It would be like someone opening up a charity with a swastika symbol. They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.
So, when a State has a symbol on its symbol -- a flag on a flag in this case -- they are saying that their ideals align with the ideals of that symbol. They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.
The meaning of symbols also changes over time. The swasitka is a good example - it's rather quite much older than the Third Reich, and quite clearly did not always mean "Nazi beliefs". I don't think it's fair to say that since the Confederate flag had racist connotations 200 years ago (if it did, rather), then it must always carry these connotations. The phrase "heritage, not hate" is thrown around quite frequently when it comes to this flag, and, frankly, I don't see the reason to believe that the actually racist supporters of the flag are the majority of all its supporters.
-
The only reason the Federal Government hasn't enforced Federal marijuana laws on Washington and Colorado is because they are afraid of the mass revolt in those two states that would occur if they did.
That would very strange, seeing how mass revolts have never been an issue with enforcing federal drug laws in the past.
-
However, these concepts apply to all symbols. Southerners in the United States in the mid to late 1800's cultivated a very specific meaning for the flag that became the symbol of their movement; namely, pro slavery. So, if you have ideals that don't match with this symbol, then using it will be a very poor way to communicate your stance on issues. It would be like someone opening up a charity with a swastika symbol. They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.
So, when a State has a symbol on its symbol -- a flag on a flag in this case -- they are saying that their ideals align with the ideals of that symbol. They can talk all they want about heritage, history, or how they have different ideals, but people are going to see that symbol and think one thing.
The meaning of symbols also changes over time. The swasitka is a good example - it's rather quite much older than the Third Reich, and quite clearly did not always mean "Nazi beliefs". I don't think it's fair to say that since the Confederate flag had racist connotations 200 years ago (if it did, rather), then it must always carry these connotations. The phrase "heritage, not hate" is thrown around quite frequently when it comes to this flag, and, frankly, I don't see the reason to believe that the actually racist supporters of the flag are the majority of all its supporters.
The swastica was repurposed, it didn't gradually mean something different over time. The Nazi's choose the symbol, for whatever reasons, and made it something different. The Mississippi flag was not repurposing the Confederate flag, it was "piggy-backing" on its preexisting symbolism.
The Civil War was not that long ago. The last Civil War widow died in 2004. There were many people alive during the Civil War that watched the moon landing. Symbols do change over time, but this one hasn't been given enough.
-
http://io9.com/the-power-of-symbols-why-people-still-defend-the-confe-1713229880
Here is an interesting and related article I came across today.
-
And I still maintain that the Civil War was only in part about slavery, and only in small part about it for that matter.
Well, historians and facts disagree with you, but you're welcome to maintain whatever you want.
-
The Mississippi flag was not repurposing the Confederate flag, it was "piggy-backing" on its preexisting symbolism.
From my perspective, the only way you could make this relevant is if you argued that Mississippi currently upholds that old symbolism, but your posts don't read like that's an implication you're trying to make.
-
The most important voice has been heard. Wal-Mart is going to stop selling confederate flag merchandise.
-
And I still maintain that the Civil War was only in part about slavery, and only in small part about it for that matter.
Well, historians and facts disagree with you, but you're welcome to maintain whatever you want.
Which side's historians? Which side's "facts"?
-
The Mississippi flag was not repurposing the Confederate flag, it was "piggy-backing" on its preexisting symbolism.
From my perspective, the only way you could make this relevant is if you argued that Mississippi currently upholds that old symbolism, but your posts don't read like that's an implication you're trying to make.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You're asking me to demonstrate that Mississippi is currently holding all the ideals of the Confederacy? If I can't then it's not relevant that they have a Confederate flag on their flag?
-
The only reason to bring up the flag's historical meaning would be to claim that that meaning still holds. In other words, that by flying the flag the state is identifying itself with whatever bad things you think the flag used to mean.
If we agree that the flag is not used in that context in this case, then it's clear that the meaning has changed.
-
Well, historians and facts disagree with you, but you're welcome to maintain whatever you want.
I would like to see these "facts". Most facts concerning this issue are just quotes from individuals.
Historians are also a terrible authority on this subject and it's always dependent on who you ask. During my interview at a Civil War historic site, I was asked "what was the Civil War about?" I gave him the obvious answer he was looking for after swimming around it in a delicate way. But he needed me to say it was about slavery because that was his opinion. And he wanted me to fall in line with that opinion before working with the international public.
Historians are very much influenced by contemporary political issues and will always shift their narratives.
At the end of the day, a flag is just a symbol and I think it should be up to the individual state to decide if they want it to represent them or not.
-
And I still maintain that the Civil War was only in part about slavery, and only in small part about it for that matter.
Well, historians and facts disagree with you, but you're welcome to maintain whatever you want.
The American civil war was about debt. All war is always about money. It had nothing to do with slavery. European central bankers didn't like how prosperous the US was becoming without a central bank and debt based money. So they instigated rebellion in the southern states. There is a famous article that appeared in British newspapers explaining it.
If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic [i.e. honest Constitutionally authorized no debt money] should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without a debt [to the international bankers]. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
Once a war is won by those who seek to profit from it, then you write the history to make it seem about the people that got killed and their rights.
Lincoln happened to win, so they shot him 41 days later. More than one way to skin a cat I suppose.
-
That quote doesn't appear to be real, according to (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Money#Attributed_1865_Quote_from_the_bank_of_England) our fine friends at Wikipedia. And even if it were real, it would hardly invalidate all the historical evidence we have of the tensions over slavery and other matters.
-
Well, historians and facts disagree with you, but you're welcome to maintain whatever you want.
I would like to see these "facts". Most facts concerning this issue are just quotes from individuals.
That's an interesting, if not irrelevant "fact." However, a careful reader will note that I quoted Mississippi's declaration of secession (which isn't a quote from an individual). In the deceleration, they list many reasons for secession, from not getting enough land in the Louisiana Purchase to some obscure laws on inheritance. However, front and center, reason number one, is an unambiguous endorsement of slavery and a clear statement for that being the reason they are calling for a "dissolution of the Union". I hope that "fact" satiates you.
So, on one hand, we have the actual document that the rebel state of Mississippi forged and publicly released obviously stating their primary reason for leaving the Union was slavery. On the other, we have people putting the work fact in scare quotes and repeating ad nauseum that they think that the Civil was really about some other ineffable reasons. Q.E.D.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
-
Fine. So that was Mississippi's reason. But can you say that was the reason for the entire Civil War?
To me, the flag and war itself always represented rebellion from the USA. Even Abraham Lincoln didn't want black people in America. The Union still had slaves and not all Confederates were slaveowners. So how can all those things be true when the Civil War was just about Southerners keeping slaves?
-
The only reason to bring up the flag's historical meaning would be to claim that that meaning still holds. In other words, that by flying the flag the state is identifying itself with whatever bad things you think the flag used to mean.
If we agree that the flag is not used in that context in this case, then it's clear that the meaning has changed.
I thought that I had demonstrated that the historic meaning of the flag has not had time to change. Here is a great proof that the meaning hasn't changed and the the people waving it know it.
(http://www.customlicenseplatesandkeytags.com/images/LP-030%20Heritage%20Not%20Hate%20Confederate%20License%20Plate%20-%206420.jpg)
The people that brandish this flag have to attach an addendum to qualify that they don't think that their symbol means what you think it means.
I agree some of the meanings behind the symbol of the Confederacy has changed, but the salient meanings of hate and slavery have not. This symbol still means these things. If it didn't, then no one would care that it's on a flag. However, as it stands, the Confederate flag means many hateful things that a state should not be endorsing; whether implicitly or not.
To continue with our Nazi analogy, members in the KKK will occasionally use the swastika to convey a meaning of white supremacy. They don't attach the political and economical issues associated with the Nazi party that created our contemporary meaning for the swastika, but again, the salient points of white supremacy are still there. So while the meaning of the symbol has changed, it still represents more or less the same thing. Likewise, if the meaning of the Confederate flag had changed, there would be no reason to attach a caveat about heritage.
-
Fine. So that was Mississippi's reason. But can you say that was the reason for the entire Civil War?
I can't quite see where you moved those goal posts. Can you be more clear?
-
Fine. So that was Mississippi's reason. But can you say that was the reason for the entire Civil War?
I can't quite see where you moved those goal posts. Can you be more clear?
I just broadened the scope to include states outside of MS.
I thought this discussion had evolved into what the flag stands for and the reason for the Civil War. But if you want to focus on MS, then that's fine. I was pretty sure this whole thing started with a tragedy in SC though...
If we're sticking to MS, how bout we just let them vote on it? What Pongo thinks the flag represents doesn't really matter.
-
MS did vote on it about 2002, and by a 2 to 1 margin, voted to keep the flag as is.
-
I thought that I had demonstrated that the historic meaning of the flag has not had time to change. Here is a great proof that the meaning hasn't changed and the the people waving it know it.
(http://www.customlicenseplatesandkeytags.com/images/LP-030%20Heritage%20Not%20Hate%20Confederate%20License%20Plate%20-%206420.jpg)
The people that brandish this flag have to attach an addendum to qualify that they don't think that their symbol means what you think it means.
No, they have to use the addendum because you keep trying to shove your opinion down their throat. Much like atheists have to keep using addenda about how their stance doesn't mean they hate god, but that they simply lack the belief in deities, or how Gamergaters keep having to say "Actually, it's about ethics in video games journalism", or how (some) feminists feel the need to point out that they don't hate men. Regardless of the validity of any of these claims, the reason they have to keep making them is that their opposition keeps trying to force a certain narrative on them instead of letting them represent their own views.
Personally, I'd argue that those who fly the flag are likely to know better what message they're trying to send when they fly it than you do (n.b. I do assume that you don't fly the Confederate flag. I don't think that's too controversial an assumption). They were even kind enough to write it out for you in a fancy red-and-blue font, so you don't have to guess.
I agree some of the meanings behind the symbol of the Confederacy has changed, but the salient meanings of hate and slavery have not. This symbol still means these things. If it didn't, then no one would care that it's on a flag. However, as it stands, the Confederate flag means many hateful things that a state should not be endorsing; whether implicitly or not.
In saying that, you're saying that those who think the flag is racist are right, while those who say it's not are wrong. To justify this, you use the fact that some people claim it's racist. That's not on.
To continue with our Nazi analogy, members in the KKK will occasionally use the swastika to convey a meaning of white supremacy. They don't attach the political and economical issues associated with the Nazi party that created our contemporary meaning for the swastika, but again, the salient points of white supremacy are still there. So while the meaning of the symbol has changed, it still represents more or less the same thing. Likewise, if the meaning of the Confederate flag had changed, there would be no reason to attach a caveat about heritage.
You just said it's possible to use a well-known symbol to mean something else than what it originally meant (swastika as white supremacy rather than swastika as Nazis). That, to me, sounds like an attack on your argument, not a defence of it.
-
I actually don't fly the thing. I am from California, and now Iowa. I lived in Tennessee for three years, but not long enough to acquire any loyalty to the South.
I just think it should be up to the people of the Sovereign State of Mississippi to make the decision what their flag looks like. in 2002 they chose by a 2 to 1 margin to keep it as it has been since something like 1894. That is their prerogative. As to whether or not they choose to vote on it again, that is ALSO up to them.
-
I thought that I had demonstrated that the historic meaning of the flag has not had time to change. Here is a great proof that the meaning hasn't changed and the the people waving it know it.
(http://www.customlicenseplatesandkeytags.com/images/LP-030%20Heritage%20Not%20Hate%20Confederate%20License%20Plate%20-%206420.jpg)
The people that brandish this flag have to attach an addendum to qualify that they don't think that their symbol means what you think it means.
No, they have to use the addendum because you keep trying to shove your opinion down their throat. Much like atheists have to keep using addenda about how their stance doesn't mean they hate god, but that they simply lack the belief in deities, or how Gamergaters keep having to say "Actually, it's about ethics in video games journalism", or how (some) feminists feel the need to point out that they don't hate men. Regardless of the validity of any of these claims, the reason they have to keep making them is that their opposition keeps trying to force a certain narrative on them instead of letting them represent their own views.
Personally, I'd argue that those who fly the flag are likely to know better what message they're trying to send when they fly it than you do (n.b. I do assume that you don't fly the Confederate flag. I don't think that's too controversial an assumption). They were even kind enough to write it out for you in a fancy red-and-blue font, so you don't have to guess.
I agree some of the meanings behind the symbol of the Confederacy has changed, but the salient meanings of hate and slavery have not. This symbol still means these things. If it didn't, then no one would care that it's on a flag. However, as it stands, the Confederate flag means many hateful things that a state should not be endorsing; whether implicitly or not.
In saying that, you're saying that those who think the flag is racist are right, while those who say it's not are wrong. To justify this, you use the fact that some people claim it's racist. That's not on.
To continue with our Nazi analogy, members in the KKK will occasionally use the swastika to convey a meaning of white supremacy. They don't attach the political and economical issues associated with the Nazi party that created our contemporary meaning for the swastika, but again, the salient points of white supremacy are still there. So while the meaning of the symbol has changed, it still represents more or less the same thing. Likewise, if the meaning of the Confederate flag had changed, there would be no reason to attach a caveat about heritage.
You just said it's possible to use a well-known symbol to mean something else than what it originally meant (swastika as white supremacy rather than swastika as Nazis). That, to me, sounds like an attack on your argument, not a defence of it.
Let me see if I can sum up my replies in a few paragraphs; I'm loath to engage in deeply branched quote trees. While I may not have ever lived in Mississippi, I spent 29 years living in the American South. I lived in both Kentucky and Georgia and these years constituted both my formative years as well as the vast majority of my life. In this time, I formed an opinion about the Confederate flag standing for racism, hate, bigotry, ignorance (especially in the case of individuals from West Virgina), and oppression. All this talk about me telling them what their flag means, feels to me more like I'm telling people what a flag that's been flown over my head feels like to me.
Regardless, my background aside, it's ludicrous to argue that the Confederate flag does not mean racism. I typed in "confederate flag" into Google and the fourth predictive result, right after history, was "confederate flag racist."
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q579/nickjmichal/flag.jpg)
The Confederate Flag means racism. This should be an axiom.
Now, I am fully aware that people say that it does not mean racism and I do maintain that they are wrong. You don't get to hang a swastika somewhere and claim it means environmentalism. You cannot rewrite the meaning of a symbol because you don't like part of it. It's what I was saying earlier about a failure of communication. If you want to have a symbol that represents your Southern heritage and don't want people to think you're racist, then pick something different than a Confederate flag. Semiotics is a serious field of study with deep insights into not only how people perceive things, but also the way in which we associate feelings of loyalty, aversion, and pride; to say that all that can be undone by whatever the person flying the symbol thinks is frankly arrogant.
Now, I will fully admit that it's my opinion that the Confederate Flag means racism, but it's not a lonely opinion. While it may not mean racism to everyone, one of the core meanings of the confederate flag is racism. When you use that symbol, you get that meaning. Plain and simple. When the KKK uses the swastika, they are achieving the white supremacy meaning that they desire, but they are also getting strong antisemitic feelings attached to that. If the KKK said that they are just using the swastika to only mean white supremacy (I don't think they would, but lets pretend) they can't change the feelings that the symbol evokes in those that see it. If the KKK wanted to use the swastika to convey a meaning of only white supremacy, then they are doing a very poor job of communicating.
However, as it turns out, the KKK doesn't mind getting these other elicitations because the symbolism of the swastika so closely aligns with their ideals. I was criticized for this sounding that I was making an argument for symbols being able to mean different things. It was in part (they can mean different things, but one meaning does not invalidate the other meanings), but what's really at work here is symbols can mean many things. Lets say that the swastika means three things: Ayran supremacy, environmentalism, and Nazi Germany. The KKK has no environmentalism agenda as far as I'm aware, but white supremacy is very close to Ayran supremacy and the things that Nazi Germany did do achieve Ayran supremacy align closely with the KKK's goals. What about environmentalism? Well, they don't much care for that, but that's fine because the swastika still is very close to their message and does an effective job of communicating their ideals. Now, if an environmentalist group wants to use the swastika, because in our pretend scenario the swastika also means environmentalism, they cannot lose the Ayran supremacy or Nazi connotations associated with that symbol simply because they don't' want them. One meaning does not invalidate the others.
People flying the Confederate flag cannot lose the meanings of racism associated with the symbol no more than our pretend environmentalist group can lose the negative connotations associated with the swastika.
-
KKK members also really enjoy toting around the plain old stars and stripes. Under the stars and stripes we achieved a very successful genocide. But hey, genocide is only a part of the symbolism so let's just ignore the part we don't like... oh wait.... We're not allowed to pick and choose in this scenario.
I have lived in TN for 22 years. The Confederate flag means "I'm a redneck" to me, but that doesn't necessarily mean racism since there are plenty of black rednecks as well.
-
Regardless, my background aside, it's ludicrous to argue that the Confederate flag does not mean racism. I typed in "confederate flag" into Google and the fourth predictive result, right after history, was "confederate flag racist."
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q579/nickjmichal/flag.jpg)
Does that surprise you? There's a debate on whether or not the flag is racist. People are looking for resources on the subject. I thought we buried the "Google says so, so it's true" fallacy when Thork started spamming Google Trends graphs all over the place to claim that Microsoft is more relevant than bread and what-not.
But hey, I learned some facts too using your method:
(http://i.imgur.com/jTEbKdP.png)
9/11 was, in fact, a conspiracy. After all, "9/11 conspiracy" is the third (objectively more factual than your fourth!!!) suggestion for 9/11.
Homeopathy is legit - after all, if it weren't, the fourth suggestion for it would indicate it somehow.
America is not #1. Shame, I was hoping to move there in a few years. :(
EDIT: America is also Israel. After all, the two words occurred one after the other, and thus this is the only possible interpretation.
The Confederate Flag means racism. This should be an axiom.
I'm sorry, but using "my claim should be an axiom" to back up your claim is not gonna work.
Now, I am fully aware that people say that it does not mean racism and I do maintain that they are wrong. You don't get to hang a swastika somewhere and claim it means environmentalism.
You do, however, get the hammer and sickle somewhere and have it mean "airline".
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/964040/thumbs/o-RUSSIA-AEROFLOT-90TH-BIRTHDAY-facebook.jpg)
Unsurprisingly, Aeroflot are not trying to kill Putin and reclaim the power for the proletariat.
You cannot rewrite the meaning of a symbol because you don't like part of it.
You can, and it happens rather frequently.
If you want to have a symbol that represents your Southern heritage and don't want people to think you're racist, then pick something different than a Confederate flag.
Alternatively, stop telling people that you know what they're saying better than they are.
Semiotics is a serious field of study with deep insights into not only how people perceive things, but also the way in which we associate feelings of loyalty, aversion, and pride; to say that all that can be undone by whatever the person flying the symbol thinks is frankly arrogant.
I have just decided that by "semiotics" you mean "vanilla ice cream". That should be axiomatic because of Bing, or something. Your sentence now makes no sense and you should feel really bad for it.
Now, I will fully admit that it's my opinion that the Confederate Flag means racism, but it's not a lonely opinion.
w0w, I never knew! This changes everything and immediately makes you right! After all, the popularity of an idea always determines its truth value.
While it may not mean racism to everyone, one of the core meanings of the confederate flag is racism.
Define "core".
When you use that symbol, you get that meaning. Plain and simple. When the KKK uses the swastika, they are achieving the white supremacy meaning that they desire, but they are also getting strong antisemitic feelings attached to that. If the KKK said that they are just using the swastika to only mean white supremacy (I don't think they would, but lets pretend) they can't change the feelings that the symbol evokes in those that see it. If the KKK wanted to use the swastika to convey a meaning of only white supremacy, then they are doing a very poor job of communicating.
Restating your claim over and over does nothing to strengthen it.
However, as it turns out, the KKK doesn't mind getting these other elicitations because the symbolism of the swastika so closely aligns with their ideals. I was criticized for this sounding that I was making an argument for symbols being able to mean different things. It was in part (they can mean different things, but one meaning does not invalidate the other meanings), but what's really at work here is symbols can mean many things. Lets say that the swastika means three things: Ayran supremacy, environmentalism, and Nazi Germany.
No, let's say the swastika means four things, and that this list is not exhaustive: Aryan supremacy, the Purushartha, Suparśvanātha and the Sun. See, the funny thing here is that you don't need to make up new meanings for it - you just need to stop being a stuck up American who's only willing to examine the culture of his immediate surroundings.
white supremacy is very close to Ayran supremacy
No, it's not. Please learn some history or something.
People flying the Confederate flag cannot lose the meanings of racism associated with the symbol
They already have. It just looks like the American left wing hasn't caught up with it and are now up in arms over "I don't understand it, therefore it's evil!" I thought that was the Republicans' modus operandi, but the horseshoe theory is as strong as ever.
-
I do indeed understand the comparison that many of you are making between the Nazi flag and Confederate Battle Flag. As a Jew, I am sensitive to that. At the same time, I also get the fact that for many Southerners, the flag has nothing to do with slavery. Having lived in TN myself, I know that to many, the flag represents Southern pride, and has nothing to do with people per se. And yes, there are the racists.
Somehow, it seems that the the Nazi flag has acqired a strictly negative connotation, whereas the Battle Flag, for many people, has positive connotations of heritage and even honour, in spite of the slavery aspect. No one defends that unless they're psychotic.
-
Meanwhile, the paranoia spreads to viddy games (http://toucharcade.com/2015/06/25/apple-removes-confederate-flag/). America is looking as silly as always.
-
omg, SexWarrior. It's going to take me forever to deconstruct all these fallacies.
-
omg, SexWarrior. It's going to take me forever to deconstruct all these fallacies.
Yes, responding to ~25 sentences is a very arduous task. I heard only the brightest of Mensa members can even attempt it.
-
Meanwhile, the paranoia spreads to viddy games (http://toucharcade.com/2015/06/25/apple-removes-confederate-flag/). America is looking as silly as always.
This is literally the dumbest thing. I guess forcing your own agenda on others is the politically correct thing to do now.
-
omg, SexWarrior. It's going to take me forever to deconstruct all these fallacies.
Yes, responding to ~25 sentences is a very arduous task. I heard only the brightest of Mensa members can even attempt it.
I didn't say arduous, I said it would take forever. It would take a long time to dig a mile of trenches, but you don't need the brightest members Mensa to do it.
-
This is literally the dumbest thing. I guess forcing your own agenda on others is the politically correct thing to do now.
Hopefully, they'll take that decision back. Historically, Apple are very reactionary about current events, but once they get enough bad press they get back in line.
I didn't say arduous, I said it would take forever. It would take a long time to dig a mile of trenches, but you don't need the brightest members Mensa to do it.
A wonderful thing about online forums is you don't need to announce your activity and response times to everyone, since the conversations are known not to be real-time (unless you're Yaakov). How about you just make contributive posts when you're ready for them?
Edit: Also, please look up "arduous". It's my Mensa quip you have a problem with, not my use of that word.
-
Meanwhile, the paranoia spreads to viddy games (http://toucharcade.com/2015/06/25/apple-removes-confederate-flag/). America is looking as silly as always.
This is literally the dumbest thing. I guess forcing your own agenda on others is the politically correct thing to do now.
Oh jesus take the wheel.
This kind of behavior is why I agreed with SexWarrior in the feminist thread. General extreme PC reactions are driving me crazy. It sets a scary precedent in my opinion, which is just a slippery slope fallacy, I know, but damn. I'm a socially progressive person but cleansing out all offensive materials and opinions is frightening.
-
Meanwhile, the paranoia spreads to viddy games (http://toucharcade.com/2015/06/25/apple-removes-confederate-flag/). America is looking as silly as always.
This is literally the dumbest thing. I guess forcing your own agenda on others is the politically correct thing to do now.
Oh jesus take the wheel.
This kind of behavior is why I agreed with SexWarrior in the feminist thread. General extreme PC reactions are driving me crazy. It sets a scary precedent in my opinion, which is just a slippery slope fallacy, I know, but damn. I'm a socially progressive person but cleansing out all offensive materials and opinions is frightening.
A socially progressive person should not even be afraid of people being offensive. Hitchens gave a great talk on free speech outlining why it is in fact the most offensive ideas that require the most protection from censorship. After all, you do not need free speech rights to talk about how great your country is, for example, you need free speech rights to lay heavy criticism upon ideas, people, etc...
Anyway, being upset over accurately representing history because you think history was bad is literally one of the dumbest positions ever.
-
This is still going. Amazing.
-
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.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/Sd0QGe5.png)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Except the fact that people in the Confederacy, notably General Robert E Lee, argued against slavery; all the while President Lincoln centered an entire speech on the inferiority of the black race.
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.
The North made the war about slavery because they knew ending slavery after the war would economically crush the South. The South was beginning to rebel long before the North intended on fully banning slavery, especially considering an awful lot of northerners owned slaves at the time. It's the very same reason that General Grant burned his path through the South. The North even made it pretty clear they didn't care at all what actually happened to the slaves after the war.
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.
The flag is a symbol of states fighting for their rights and losing. Your logic equates to me saying the US shouldn't be allies with the UK because the US flag represents treason to the UK.
-
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.
(https://notesfromcamelidcountry.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/img_5546.jpg)
"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.
-
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.
(https://notesfromcamelidcountry.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/img_5546.jpg)
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
That being said, I wouldn't call it a free speech issue, either, not when it concerns what a government is "officially" saying. For example, I bet that in some states, a majority of voters would support the construction of a giant plaque that says "FUCK ISLAM" next to a statue of a soldier with his boot on the head of a turbaned guy on statehouse grounds. But I think most reasonable people would agree that shouldn't be allowed.
-
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.
-
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.
A state capitol has the right to fly whatever the state deems as their flag. You are, quite literally, claiming states don't have the right to free speech. Even worse, you claim that flying a specific kind of flag is tantamount to treason. Has your brain melted recently?
-
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.
-
Nobody is talking about not letting southerners fly the confederate flag. That would be dumb.
Unfortunately, it's already happening, and the issues do not exist in a vacuum, separated from one another.
You're also supporting a decision made at the federal level overwriting the will of the people of the state. So yes, you quite directly are supporting an anti-free-speech measure.
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.
Noted: South Carolina is not part of South Carolina. It is exclusively part of the United States.
-
Nobody is talking about not letting southerners fly the confederate flag. That would be dumb.
Unfortunately, it's already happening, and the issues do not exist in a vacuum, separated from one another.
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.
Noted: South Carolina is not part of South Carolina. It is exclusively part of the United States.
South Carolina is not a state currently betraying the US. You're thinking of the confederacy which, when it existed, was 'traitor's soil'. Since it no longer exists, it's sort of irrelevant.
Anyway, I can't find any examples of people outside of the military (which is within its rights) calling for an actual ban of the confederate flag. I can find people using the word 'ban', but only as shorthand, and they're mostly the people arguing against it. If there is a real movement dedicated to making it illegal for individual citizens to fly the confederate flag, please show me evidence of their existence because my google-fu has failed to do so.
-
“It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their indepdence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.” Woodrow Wilson, “A History of The American People”, page 231
-
They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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
If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it
-
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
The seceding states themselves made it abundantly clear that the potential abolition of slavery was one of the primary motivating factors for leaving the Union.
-
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.
That being said, I wouldn't call it a free speech issue, either, not when it concerns what a government is "officially" saying. For example, I bet that in some states, a majority of voters would support the construction of a giant plaque that says "FUCK ISLAM" next to a statue of a soldier with his boot on the head of a turbaned guy on statehouse grounds. But I think most reasonable people would agree that shouldn't be allowed.
Well duh, you are simultaneously insulting dead people and a religion and quite intentionally and beligerently. It's not the same thing as flying the confederate flag except that some people infer an insult from said flag which is not implicit in the flag itself.
-
Anyway, I can't find any examples of people outside of the military (which is within its rights) calling for an actual ban of the confederate flag. I can find people using the word 'ban', but only as shorthand, and they're mostly the people arguing against it. If there is a real movement dedicated to making it illegal for individual citizens to fly the confederate flag, please show me evidence of their existence because my google-fu has failed to do so.
It's actions, not words, that matter. If you don't know about major retailers withdrawing the flag and prohibiting others from selling it via their platforms, as well as Apple removing any and all apps that feature the flag in any context, then... well, you haven't even read this thread. Please do so before posting in it. It helps.
South Carolina is not a state currently betraying the US.
And Benedict Arnold is not a person currently betraying the US.
Yes, the thing with celebrating history is that it generally refers to things which happened in the past, not to things which are currently happening. It's strongly implied in the meaning of the word.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/2DWXfGR.jpg?2)
-
You need to post that in the edgy thread.
-
Regardless, my background aside, it's ludicrous to argue that the Confederate flag does not mean racism. I typed in "confederate flag" into Google and the fourth predictive result, right after history, was "confederate flag racist."
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q579/nickjmichal/flag.jpg)
Does that surprise you? There's a debate on whether or not the flag is racist. People are looking for resources on the subject. I thought we buried the "Google says so, so it's true" fallacy when Thork started spamming Google Trends graphs all over the place to claim that Microsoft is more relevant than bread and what-not.
But hey, I learned some facts too using your method:
(http://i.imgur.com/jTEbKdP.png)
9/11 was, in fact, a conspiracy. After all, "9/11 conspiracy" is the third (objectively more factual than your fourth!!!) suggestion for 9/11.
Homeopathy is legit - after all, if it weren't, the fourth suggestion for it would indicate it somehow.
America is not #1. Shame, I was hoping to move there in a few years. :(
EDIT: America is also Israel. After all, the two words occurred one after the other, and thus this is the only possible interpretation.
The Confederate Flag means racism. This should be an axiom.
I'm sorry, but using "my claim should be an axiom" to back up your claim is not gonna work.
Now, I am fully aware that people say that it does not mean racism and I do maintain that they are wrong. You don't get to hang a swastika somewhere and claim it means environmentalism.
You do, however, get the hammer and sickle somewhere and have it mean "airline".
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/964040/thumbs/o-RUSSIA-AEROFLOT-90TH-BIRTHDAY-facebook.jpg)
Unsurprisingly, Aeroflot are not trying to kill Putin and reclaim the power for the proletariat.
You cannot rewrite the meaning of a symbol because you don't like part of it.
You can, and it happens rather frequently.
If you want to have a symbol that represents your Southern heritage and don't want people to think you're racist, then pick something different than a Confederate flag.
Alternatively, stop telling people that you know what they're saying better than they are.
Semiotics is a serious field of study with deep insights into not only how people perceive things, but also the way in which we associate feelings of loyalty, aversion, and pride; to say that all that can be undone by whatever the person flying the symbol thinks is frankly arrogant.
I have just decided that by "semiotics" you mean "vanilla ice cream". That should be axiomatic because of Bing, or something. Your sentence now makes no sense and you should feel really bad for it.
Now, I will fully admit that it's my opinion that the Confederate Flag means racism, but it's not a lonely opinion.
w0w, I never knew! This changes everything and immediately makes you right! After all, the popularity of an idea always determines its truth value.
While it may not mean racism to everyone, one of the core meanings of the confederate flag is racism.
Define "core".
When you use that symbol, you get that meaning. Plain and simple. When the KKK uses the swastika, they are achieving the white supremacy meaning that they desire, but they are also getting strong antisemitic feelings attached to that. If the KKK said that they are just using the swastika to only mean white supremacy (I don't think they would, but lets pretend) they can't change the feelings that the symbol evokes in those that see it. If the KKK wanted to use the swastika to convey a meaning of only white supremacy, then they are doing a very poor job of communicating.
Restating your claim over and over does nothing to strengthen it.
However, as it turns out, the KKK doesn't mind getting these other elicitations because the symbolism of the swastika so closely aligns with their ideals. I was criticized for this sounding that I was making an argument for symbols being able to mean different things. It was in part (they can mean different things, but one meaning does not invalidate the other meanings), but what's really at work here is symbols can mean many things. Lets say that the swastika means three things: Ayran supremacy, environmentalism, and Nazi Germany.
No, let's say the swastika means four things, and that this list is not exhaustive: Aryan supremacy, the Purushartha, Suparśvanātha and the Sun. See, the funny thing here is that you don't need to make up new meanings for it - you just need to stop being a stuck up American who's only willing to examine the culture of his immediate surroundings.
white supremacy is very close to Ayran supremacy
No, it's not. Please learn some history or something.
People flying the Confederate flag cannot lose the meanings of racism associated with the symbol
They already have. It just looks like the American left wing hasn't caught up with it and are now up in arms over "I don't understand it, therefore it's evil!" I thought that was the Republicans' modus operandi, but the horseshoe theory is as strong as ever.
Okay, I think that most of these objections can be answered with me being more clear. People railed on me in IRC for saying what I'm about it and I wasn't able to express it fully there either, so I am glad for this opportunity.
The mere fact that a significant number of people are arguing that the Confederate Flag means racism proves that it does. This is because a symbol can be made up of parts, and those parts can mean different things to different people (what others have been arguing all along). However, it does NOT mean that a symbol loses, or gains, meaning depending who is using it (coincidental convergent symbols aside).
For example, a police shield might stand for pride to someone, but mean fear to another. Whenever a person who associates it with fear sees it, it will evoke emotional responses of fear for them. If they use it, they use it to mean fear. Does that mean it no longer means pride to anyone who associates it with pride? Of course not. This is because the symbol means different things and pride is one of them. This is why a Confederate flag means racism regardless of what meanings the user intends to portray. The people who associate it with racism still see it as racist.
This is also why having people argue that the flag is racist means that it is racist; assuming that they are not a fringe few. This was why the Google search I provided demonstrated that the Confederate Flag is racist. If you were asking "Do people think that 911 was a conspiracy?" then your picture would have demonstrated that. If you were asking "Do people think Homeopathy is legit?" then your picture would have demonstrated that as well. If you were asking "Do people have negative opinions about America?" then your third picture would have shown that yes, yes they do. However, you bizarrely tried to show that having Google results return a statement proved the statement. I asked "Do people think the Confederate Flag is Racist." I typed in "confederate flag" into Google and one of the top few results was "racist". This shows that people think the Confederate Flag is racist. Therefore, racism is one of the meanings that make up the Confederate Flag.
Lets look at this to help demonstrate the point further. Lets pretend we have three people and each person represents a significant portion of the population. Here is what the Confederate Flag means to them:
Person 1:
Southern Pride
Redneck Lifestyle
Heritage
Person 2:
Redneck Lifestyle
History
Discomfort
Person 3:
History
Racism
Bigotry
This is obviously not a definitive list and certainly not 100% accurate, but from this example (and, because again, they are representative of a pretend population) of we can conclude that the Confederate Flag stands for southern pride, heritage, redneck lifestyle, discomfort, history, racism, and bigotry. It doesn't matter if Person 1 intends to use the symbol differently than how Person 3 will perceive it, Person 3 will still perceive it as racist just as a person who thinks a police shield means pride regardless of the intent of the person who is displaying it.
Furthermore, there are people that overtly use the Confederate Flag to mean racism. Are they using the symbol incorrectly? Does it really mean "redneck pride" when they use it?
Symbolism is messy and tricky. In this case, for many people, the Confederate Flag means racism and that is what they see when they see a bumper sticker of a confederate flag. What if the person with the bumper sticker really means southern pride? Then they are doing a very poor job of communicating and need to pick a new symbol; that particular symbol comes with a lot of baggage and one of which is racism.
I did not address many of your other points. If you would still like me to, I suppose I could do a point by point, but I would rather not unless you had a particular argument you would like me to speak to.
-
In the end, I don't mind if it's taken down from state buildings. I can understand that.
But I wish companies and organizations would get off the bandwagon and stop trying to ban the flag. It seems pretty fucked up to ban a symbol, regardless of what it is. I thought this was 'Merica!
-
The mere fact that a significant number of people are arguing that the Confederate Flag means racism proves that it does. This is because a symbol can be made up of parts, and those parts can mean different things to different people (what others have been arguing all along). However, it does NOT mean that a symbol loses, or gains, meaning depending who is using it (coincidental convergent symbols aside).
This is the crux of your fallacy. To many people, the star and crescent is a symbol of hatred. That doesn't make it one in any way, shape, or form.
For example, a police shield might stand for pride to someone, but mean fear to another. Whenever a person who associates it with fear sees it, it will evoke emotional responses of fear for them. If they use it, they use it to mean fear. Does that mean it no longer means pride to anyone who associates it with pride? Of course not. This is because the symbol means different things and pride is one of them. This is why a Confederate flag means racism regardless of what meanings the user intends to portray. The people who associate it with racism still see it as racist.
...are you suggesting the government should stop displaying police shields because some wuss out there is afraid of it? If not, you just provided an excellent example for why "some people think X and therefore X holds" is a terrible line of reasoning.
This is also why having people argue that the flag is racist means that it is racist; assuming that they are not a fringe few. This was why the Google search I provided demonstrated that the Confederate Flag is racist. If you were asking "Do people think that 911 was a conspiracy?" then your picture would have demonstrated that. If you were asking "Do people think Homeopathy is legit?" then your picture would have demonstrated that as well. If you were asking "Do people have negative opinions about America?" then your third picture would have shown that yes, yes they do. However, you bizarrely tried to show that having Google results return a statement proved the statement. I asked "Do people think the Confederate Flag is Racist." I typed in "confederate flag" into Google and one of the top few results was "racist". This shows that people think the Confederate Flag is racist. Therefore, racism is one of the meanings that make up the Confederate Flag.
What?
You typed in "confederate flag" and got "racist" (as the 4th suggestion)
I typed in "9/11" and got "conspiracy" (as the 3rd suggestion)
Why should I type in questions while you can type in names of things? Again, if your argument holds, then so does mine. Either we agree that Google's autocomplete feature gives us a good idea of what words mean (it doesn't - a short reading on what a web crawler is and how it works would tell you this much), or we agree that it doesn't (and thus stick to reality).
The problem with your interpretation of "confederate flag racist" is that it provides you with the exact same amount of information as "america israel" - you can choose to interpret it as "the Confederate flag is racist", and I can choose to interpret it as "America is Israel"[1]. We both have exactly as much information backing up our interpretations - none. If we double down on the "Google is facts" fallacy, we could inspect what the actual results of the search you proposed are. Interestingly, Google's semantic web engine chooses to serve this paragraph on top of the results page:
(http://i.imgur.com/L3vIK0Z.png)
Dagnabbit, turns out it ain't racist after all. Google says so.
Lets look at this to help demonstrate the point further. Lets pretend we have three people and each person represents a significant portion of the population. Here is what the Confederate Flag means to them:
Person 1:
Southern Pride
Redneck Lifestyle
Heritage
Person 2:
Redneck Lifestyle
History
Discomfort
Person 3:
History
Racism
Bigotry
This is obviously not a definitive list and certainly not 100% accurate, but from this example (and, because again, they are representative of a pretend population) of we can conclude that the Confederate Flag stands for southern pride, heritage, redneck lifestyle, discomfort, history, racism, and bigotry.
No, we can't. What we can conclude is that it means different things to different people. We cannot conclude that it somehow magically means a sum total of all beliefs in some objective sense. This is true of all invented symbols in existence.
It doesn't matter if Person 1 intends to use the symbol differently than how Person 3 will perceive it, Person 3 will still perceive it as racist just as a person who thinks a police shield means pride regardless of the intent of the person who is displaying it.
That is correct. Why should Person 1 or 2 give a fuck? If I choose to interpret the name "Pongo" as "I literally hate Polish people", will you change it? Should I petition Parsifal to bammywham the name "Pongo" because I unilaterally decided that it's offensive? Because I'm pretty sure I'd be told to piss off if I did that.
Furthermore, there are people that overtly use the Confederate Flag to mean racism. Are they using the symbol incorrectly? Does it really mean "redneck pride" when they use it?
No, but I already made the point about punishing everyone for the behaviour of the minority. You responded to that by claiming that since some people think it's racist, it must be racist, full stop. Either stick to that claim or take it back.
Symbolism is messy and tricky. In this case, for many people, the Confederate Flag means racism and that is what they see when they see a bumper sticker of a confederate flag. What if the person with the bumper sticker really means southern pride? Then they are doing a very poor job of communicating and need to pick a new symbol; that particular symbol comes with a lot of baggage and one of which is racism.
Yes, silencing people because someone might interpret their words wrong is a great idea. I'm sure we'll be banning the USA flag any moment now because it, too, carries negative connotations for some people.
I did not address many of your other points. If you would still like me to, I suppose I could do a point by point, but I would rather not unless you had a particular argument you would like me to speak to.
You did omit many of my counter-points and just restated the points that were being countered, but I think we'd be wasting both of our times if we continued this. Each and every claim you made so far contradicted the previous one, and you've done a much better job at burying your argument than I ever could. I don't really think you can redeem your claims that:
- If somebody thinks that a symbol means a bad thing, they're right. If somebody thinks that a symbol means a good thing, that doesn't matter. What's that? The latter are the majority? Well, screw that, they're clearly wrong!
- If a symbol offends a group of people, it should be banned, but only if it's the Confederate flag. Other symbols are ok because they're not the symbol you picked.
- Google autocomplete gives us a good idea of what's factual, but only if it happens to agree with you. If it doesn't, this profound technique is obviously being misused.
You provided no support for any of these claims other than restating and rephrasing them, and you provided plentiful reasoning for why none of your claims hold.
[1] - Note that this still makes very little sense even with your "Confederate flag means racism to people" sidestep. I'm pretty sure America doesn't mean Israel to many people. They're fairly separate locations.
-
In what sense is the Confederate Flag being banned?
-
You did omit many of my counter-points and just restated the points that were being countered, but I think we'd be wasting both of our times if we continued this. Each and every claim you made so far contradicted the previous one, and you've done a much better job at burying your argument than I ever could. I don't really think you can redeem your claims that:
- If somebody thinks that a symbol means a bad thing, they're right. If somebody thinks that a symbol means a good thing, that doesn't matter. What's that? The latter are the majority? Well, screw that, they're clearly wrong!
- If a symbol offends a group of people, it should be banned, but only if it's the Confederate flag. Other symbols are ok because they're not the symbol you picked.
- Google autocomplete gives us a good idea of what's factual, but only if it happens to agree with you. If it doesn't, this profound technique is obviously being misused.
You provided no support for any of these claims other than restating and rephrasing them, and you provided pl
I completely agree. I've done an appalling job of addressing any of these points. However, I feel that this is because none of there are any points I was trying to make -- and one of them is the opposite of my opinion. In light if this, I understand your confusion and contrary replies. May I suggest rif.org and perhaps a reread?
-
In what sense is the Confederate Flag being banned?
Anyway, I can't find any examples of people outside of the military (which is within its rights) calling for an actual ban of the confederate flag. I can find people using the word 'ban', but only as shorthand, and they're mostly the people arguing against it. If there is a real movement dedicated to making it illegal for individual citizens to fly the confederate flag, please show me evidence of their existence because my google-fu has failed to do so.
It's actions, not words, that matter. If you don't know about major retailers withdrawing the flag and prohibiting others from selling it via their platforms, as well as Apple removing any and all apps that feature the flag in any context, then... well, you haven't even read this thread. Please do so before posting in it. It helps.
-
In what sense is the Confederate Flag being banned?
If there is a real movement dedicated to making it illegal for individual citizens to fly the confederate flag, please show me evidence of their existence...
If you don't know about major retailers withdrawing the flag and prohibiting others from selling it via their platforms, as well as Apple removing any and all apps that feature the flag in any context, then...
I meant in the legal/first amendment sense of the term "ban."
Retailers choosing not to sell and distribute this or that product isn't a ban on a product; that's just a marketing decision.
e: I cut the quote down to better highlight the discrepancy. PP's response is remarkably far afield from Tausami's question (was it...dare I say it...intellectually dishonest?!?!?!). Precisely the thing Tausami and others are trying to understand is why y'all are conflating voluntary marketing practices with constitutional free speech issues.
-
I thought this was America and companies were free to choose which products they carry.
-
I thought this was America and companies were free to choose which products they carry.
Only when it doesn't hurt the feelings of those who support a free-market.
-
I thought this was America and companies were free to choose which products they carry.
Yeah, but why choose to stop selling it when flag sales suddenly spiked over the controversy? There's no business sense in it.
There's no need for a legal ban when major retailers (and even Apple) refuse to sell anything featuring the battle flag. It's an emotional reaction from them, which is so so dumb.
Pardon me, if I think that major retailers shouldn't be so emotional and subject to whim.
-
I thought this was America and companies were free to choose which products they carry.
Yeah, but why choose to stop selling it when flag sales suddenly spiked over the controversy? There's no business sense in it.
There's no need for a legal ban when major retailers (and even Apple) refuse to sell anything featuring the battle flag. It's an emotional reaction from them, which is so so dumb.
Pardon me, if I think that major retailers shouldn't be so emotional and subject to whim.
I'd argue that billion dollar corporations are not reacting emotionally. They aren't in the business of emotion and likely couldn't care less that some guy murdered a bunch of people and made a video with a confederate flag in the background. There's currently a negative connotation associated with that particular symbol, so PR and marketing groups want to distance themselves to avoid bad press.
-
They are also riding the wave to catch support from the crowd that wants the flag outright banned while only losing support from the most hardcore confederate flag wavers. The vast majority of people won't give a shit whether Wal-Mart stops selling the flag or not. It's really a win-win for them. In a couple of months when this has blown over, they will quietly sneak the flags back into their retail lists and there won't be any news about it.
-
I thought this was America and companies were free to choose which products they carry.
Yeah, but why choose to stop selling it when flag sales suddenly spiked over the controversy? There's no business sense in it.
There's no need for a legal ban when major retailers (and even Apple) refuse to sell anything featuring the battle flag. It's an emotional reaction from them, which is so so dumb.
Pardon me, if I think that major retailers shouldn't be so emotional and subject to whim.
That may not be entirely true. If sales of widgets spike at Walmart, but overall sales drop because Walmart sells widgets, then it would make better business sense to not sell widgets. Now, we obviously don't have the data to support this claim (or its obverse) but it is possible. However, while it's sometimes hard to believe, companies are more than just money generating machines. They have real people that run them and they aren't always rowing to the beat of "increase shareholder profits." Jack Welch is often quoted as saying, "On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world."
In Walmart's case, it may be hard to believe that they are making a decision that would result in non-maximized profits, but they could be looking at this as the cost of improving PR. Walmart has a reputation for catering to a lower echelon of society (Look at the websites that post pictures of people at Walmart. Close competitors of Walmart do not have this stigma.) and they may want to use this publicity to improve public perception.
Alternatively, companies are built on cultures and while I don't know Walmat's specific company culture, though I suspect it's something along the lines of do whatever we think Sam would have done, this may be in conflict with that culture.
Really, there are many reasons both monetary and not that would cause Walmart to want to stop selling merchandise with widgets stamped on it.
-
PR is exactly what I'm talking about though.
Whenever some controversy shows up, I don't want Amazon pulling stuff just to improve PR. But I don't see how keeping the flag on something like Amazon would create bad PR when a multitude of different companies sell through Amazon.
-
"Did you hear Amazon is taking a stand against the confederate flag? I support that cause and since I've never really checked out Amazon before, let me see what they are about. OMG wowzers I love this site! " a sample internal conversation from a prospective customer Amazonis trying to reach by doing this.
-
"Did you hear Amazon is taking a stand against the confederate flag? I support that cause and since I've never really checked out Amazon before, let me see what they are about. OMG wowzers I love this site! " a sample internal conversation from a prospective customer Amazonis trying to reach by doing this.
I don't believe anyone has ever said any of this.
-
PP's response is remarkably far afield from Tausami's question (was it...dare I say it...intellectually dishonest?!?!?!). Precisely the thing Tausami and others are trying to understand is why y'all are conflating voluntary marketing practices with constitutional free speech issues.
You know, you're not making it easier on yourself. Your dishonesty is shining because you're trying so hard to tell people what they said. You enjoy telling people that you know what they think better than they themselves do. I'd add gaslighting to the list of your atrocities, but something tells me you're just a character troll.
Now, to address your question: Tausami asked for the evidence of there being a movement that tries to ban the flag. I pointed right in its directions. The businesses which make these decisions are part of said movement. Yes, it's not illegal for them to make this decision, nor is it illegal for them to be part of an obvious political pressure group. No one other than you is saying anything about constitutional free speech issues, which should be quite telling.
-
"Did you hear Amazon is taking a stand against the confederate flag? I support that cause and since I've never really checked out Amazon before, let me see what they are about. OMG wowzers I love this site! " a sample internal conversation from a prospective customer Amazonis trying to reach by doing this.
I don't believe anyone has ever said any of this.
Expect for the marketing and pr group at Amazon when they were rushed in to a meeting to discuss other companies removing the flag from their stock. The general idea of trying to expand their customer base while not having to worry about losing a significant number of customers over the decision is the driving force behind this movement by companies. Then once a few did it, the rest followed suit to not be branded as a racist company.
-
"Did you hear Amazon is taking a stand against the confederate flag? I support that cause and since I've never really checked out Amazon before, let me see what they are about. OMG wowzers I love this site! " a sample internal conversation from a prospective customer Amazonis trying to reach by doing this.
I don't believe anyone has ever said any of this.
Expect for the marketing and pr group at Amazon when they were rushed in to a meeting to discuss other companies removing the flag from their stock. The general idea of trying to expand their customer base while not having to worry about losing a significant number of customers over the decision is the driving force behind this movement by companies. Then once a few did it, the rest followed suit to not be branded as a racist company.
Post links please.
-
You got me. I don't have proof those exact words were stated in a meeting at Amazon. It seems rather unlikely that a business of that size would rush into any decision with a controversial issue without discussing it first internally though. Unfortunately I don't have access to the business meetings of these businesses.
-
No one other than you is saying anything about constitutional free speech issues, which should be quite telling.
Um...what?
I'd like to point out that banning symbols is a very ineffective and often counter-productive measure. Poland currently has a ban on the swastika and the hammer and sickle (except for justifiable uses, which are frankly sensible)...[Some] are given citations for wearing a hammer-and-sickle belt buckle (which I admittedly did/do to be w0w so edgy, so fair enough).
You're also supporting a decision made at the federal level overwriting the will of the people of the state. So yes, you quite directly are supporting an anti-free-speech measure.
The OP also talks about this issue in terms of political free speech: "As far as States Rights, one only has to see what the power-hungry Federal Government has managed to do, trampling all over the rights of the States in its quest for domination. Its a bloody disgrace."
You know, you're not making it easier on yourself. Your dishonesty is shining because you're trying so hard to tell people what they said. You enjoy telling people that you know what they think better than they themselves do. I'd add gaslighting to the list of your atrocities, but something tells me you're just a character troll.
How is it dishonest to quote you verbatim? I didn't even quote you. I asked a question, and then Rooster quoted you. I only pointed out that your answer was irrelevant to my (and Tausami's) question. I gather you think that it was. That's actually just a disagreement, not dishonesty (hence the joke).
If you genuinely think I'm trolling you, then why not just add me to your ignore list?
Now, to address your question: Tausami asked for the evidence of there being a movement that tries to ban the flag. I pointed right in its directions. The businesses which make these decisions are part of said movement. Yes, it's not illegal for them to make this decision, nor is it illegal for them to be part of an obvious political pressure group.
And I'm asking why those two things are being conflated. I believe that spending money counts as speech. If a bunch of people don't want to spend their money on certain products or with certain firms, that's not a ban or oppression or authoritarianism or whatever. That's the market. If some firms want to adapt their sales to that market, that's not authoritarianism, and it isn't a ban on the products that they don't carry. It's just a marketplace. That's how they work.
Walmart also doesn't carry any swastika flags. Swastika flags haven't been banned in America, but it's hard to find them at popular retailers because they're Nazi flags and pretty much everyone thinks that flying a swastika is fucked up. That's really different from being fined by the government for flying a swastika. They're worlds apart. So, again, why are you conflating them?
Pardon me, if I think that major retailers shouldn't be so emotional and subject to whim.
It seems at least a little arrogant to suggest that you know how to maximize the revenue of their multi-billion dollar corporation more effectively than the executives of that corporation.
-
Pardon me, if I think that major retailers shouldn't be so emotional and subject to whim.
It seems at least a little arrogant to suggest that you know how to maximize the revenue of their multi-billion dollar corporation more effectively than the executives of that corporation.
If someone is going to legitimately stop shopping somewhere because they sell a flag, then I would like to meet that person.
But regardless, I think it's fucking bananas for a corporation to not sell something because of SJWs. I also think it sets a terrible precedent, but I won't go into a slippery slope argument.
-
The OP also talks about this issue in terms of political free speech: "As far as States Rights, one only has to see what the power-hungry Federal Government has managed to do, trampling all over the rights of the States in its quest for domination. Its a bloody disgrace."
Yes, but changing the Mississippi State flag is very different from de facto banning the Confederate flag. This is where your dishonesty comes into place - you meld different issues together to detract from the actual discussion. You're not interested in discussing things, merely in ruining productive discussions for others.
How is it dishonest to quote you verbatim? I didn't even quote you.
I'll just leave this here. It's funny enough as it stands.
If you genuinely think I'm trolling you, then why not just add me to your ignore list?
You're not successfully trolling me, and calling you out is kinda fun. I talk to you for the same reasons I talk to EJ or Saddam - it entertains me.
And I'm asking why those two things are being conflated.
And I'm answering: They're not being conflated. You fabricated that.
I believe that spending money counts as speech. If a bunch of people don't want to spend their money on certain products or with certain firms, that's not a ban or oppression or authoritarianism or whatever. That's the market. If some firms want to adapt their sales to that market, that's not authoritarianism, and it isn't a ban on the products that they don't carry. It's just a marketplace. That's how they work.
Given that Confederate flag sales are soaring in response to the ban, and that they weren't low at all when the ban came into effect, your argument is based on an assumption that directly contradicts current events. People want to buy the flags. It's just that they can't, because there's a de facto ban in place.
But yes, in your hypothetical world, you would be correct. It's just that your hypothetical world is not this world.
Walmart also doesn't carry any swastika flags. Swastika flags haven't been banned in America, but it's hard to find them at popular retailers because they're Nazi flags and pretty much everyone thinks that flying a swastika is fucked up. That's really different from being fined by the government for flying a swastika. They're worlds apart.
They do, however, happily sell swastika cakes and ISIS flag cakes. Just not Confederate cakes.
So, again, why are you conflating them?
Again, boo, that's you, not me.
It seems at least a little arrogant to suggest that you know how to maximize the revenue of their multi-billion dollar corporation more effectively than the executives of that corporation.
rofl. Look at yourself. This is how desperate you are right now.
-
So I'm worried that this post is going to seem like I'm trying to stick it to you after we had it out in IRC. I'm genuinely not trying to at all. But, you know, you attack my character a lot; I'm only trying to demonstrate that I'm absolutely having this conversation in good faith. It's 100% possible that I'm the one responsible for the miscommunication and subsequent misunderstanding, and if it's on me, then by all means attack my intelligence, writing, whatever. I can have a conversation with someone who thinks I'm stupid; but, I don't anymore want to have a conversation with someone who denies the possibility of my opinions even existing as anything other than a joke to affect anger. And frankly, I enjoy arguing with you on (in?) the fora in literally every other aspect.
And, totally fair enough, I got it all started again with the gag about your response being "dishonest." It wasn't dishonest, but that was meant to be the joke. I really did mean it lightheartedly (same for the 'magnanimous' bit). Interwebs humor failure.
PP's response is remarkably far afield from Tausami's question (was it...dare I say it...intellectually dishonest?!?!?!). Precisely the thing Tausami and others are trying to understand is why y'all are conflating voluntary marketing practices with constitutional free speech issues.
SexWarrior: I wasn't particularly fussed if we're talking legal restrictions or companies hopping on the social justice bandwagon, because I think the negative effects are more or less the same (varying in extent, perhaps)
Also you are a dick and are stupider as fuck [this wasn't in the original IRC quote, obviously]
Here's how I think this conversation could have gone down, and it would have saved us both some time. Your original post tells me that I'm inaccurately speaking for you, but it doesn't say how, so it just ends up confusing everything. Most importantly, because I see those two particular issues as separate, it isn't obvious to me that you don't. I probably should have surmised it from our previous argument about authoritarianism, but at the time it didn't occur to me.
And I'm asking why those two things are being conflated.
And I'm answering: They're not being conflated. You fabricated that.
Here you outright accuse me of making things up. Compare your statement on the matter to the definition of conflate:
1. SexWarrior: I wasn't particularly fussed if we're talking legal restrictions or companies hopping on the social justice bandwagon, because I think the negative effects are more or less the same
2. con·flate: combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one.
"the urban crisis conflates a number of different economic and social issues"
synonyms: mix, blend, fuse, unite, integrate
We don't have to agree on whether or not your conflation is legitimate. Perhaps I'm wrong and it is. But surely you can admit that you are taking two things that are different, at least superficially (a legal ban vs. what you describe as a de facto ban), and "combining them into one." Be real with me now: what's the deception I'm pulling? What am I fabricating? How am I not accurately describing your argument?
Given that Confederate flag sales are soaring in response to the ban, and that they weren't low at all when the ban came into effect, your argument is based on an assumption that directly contradicts current events. People want to buy the flags. It's just that they can't, because there's a de facto ban in place.
But yes, in your hypothetical world, you would be correct. It's just that your hypothetical world is not this world.
They do, however, happily sell swastika cakes and ISIS flag cakes. Just not Confederate cakes.
This isn't part of the other stuff; it's just a regular argument: Yes, in your hypothetical world, you would be correct. It's just at your hypothetical world in which one can't buy a confederate flag is not this world. How can a world in which confederate flag sales are "soaring" represent a de facto ban? I'm being totally genuine here: PM me a mailing address for you and I 100% promise to buy and ship a confederate flag to you ASAP.
http://www.proudrebel.com/rebel/reblflag.htm
http://dixierepublic.com/ [this place has sold so many flags recently that they've stopping taking orders]
You get the idea. Not to mention that you can have them made on demand by any print shop. You can get shirts made online, bumper stickers, decals, anything.
It seems at least a little arrogant to suggest that you know how to maximize the revenue of their multi-billion dollar corporation more effectively than the executives of that corporation.
rofl. Look at yourself. This is how desperate you are right now.
ar·ro·gant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
I mean, unless Rooster has some experience managing a corporation, let alone a corporation the size of Apple, then yeah, it seems like she has an exaggerated sense of her own ability to effectively manage a corporation the size of Apple. I'm only saying that it seems...possible, let's say...that Apple is making business decisions based on what it perceives to be in the best interests of Apple. Omg so desperate.