[garygreen]

In what sense is the Confederate Flag being banned?

[Pongo]

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?

[rooster]

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.

[garygreen]

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.

[DuckDodgers]

I thought this was America and companies were free to choose which products they carry. 

[juner]

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.

[rooster]

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.

[juner]

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.

[DuckDodgers]

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.

[Pongo]

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.

[rooster]

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.

[DuckDodgers]

"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.

[rooster]

"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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[DuckDodgers]

"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.

[rooster]

"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.

[DuckDodgers]

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.

[garygreen]

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.

[rooster]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.