Confederate Battle Flag.

[Deleted]

Jan 27, 2016 19:59:20 GMT -5 dondub said:

If that's true you must not have seen many of their interviews or press conferences or speeches... most of them are rife with racist rhetoric.

Who here uses racist symbolism? I know I don't... And I haven't seen anyone else use any...



I know you don't think you do and you are entitled to that opinion, but you are wrong and another board reminded you of that. Doesn't mean you won't make an additional 437 posts justifying. Just sayin'.


I have never heard either man express any thoughts that Black people are superior to other races.

rac·ist


/ˈrāsəst/


noun

noun: racist; plural noun: racists



1.


a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

There's no "think" involved in me saying I don't use racist symbols. It's a fact that I don't. Thinking about it is not required.

The fact that you've never heard either one being racist just means you haven't heard (or actually listened to the words and paid attention... if the sounds did penetrate your ears and wash over your eardrums) many (if any) of their speeches/interviews/commentary. I know I've heard both of them say so many times.

[Deleted]

Jan 27, 2016 20:27:33 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

A "pretty large segment" can agree on something and all be wrong, you know.

I do know. Right now in America a pretty large segment of the population doesn't believe the battle flag to be racist. They're wrong.

LOL

The facts are on "our" side and yet you believe "us" to be wrong. Apparently you didn't get the point that those three examples I gave sent.

The flag isn't racist, contrary to your beliefs. Facts back that up.

The only thing you have to go on is misuse by racist groups... and if that's your criteria, then you MUST ALSO say that Old Glory is racist, the Cross is racist and The US Constitution is racist... because the racists have improperly taken them as symbols as well. Do you say this? Do you call them symbols of racism as well?

You cannot have it both ways... either misuse makes something (what that "thing" is, is irrelevant... it's a general principle that applies to all things) a symbol for that misuse... or it doesn't. I say it doesn't. What do you say?

[gregintenn]

Jan 27, 2016 18:17:48 GMT -5 dondub said:

I think you referenced it somewhere in a derogatory fashion. Just wondered if a mirror was involved.

A very small percentage of what little I've managed to learn was learned in a public school system. I sat in one from k-12, but never witnessed much learning taking place.

[Sum Dum Gai]

The only thing you have to go on is misuse by racist groups... and if that's your criteria, then you MUST ALSO say that Old Glory is racist, the Cross is racist and The US Constitution is racist... because the racists have improperly taken them as symbols as well. Do you say this? Do you call them symbols of racism as well?

I did. On this thread. Just like a page or two ago.

Neither of us are going to change the other's mind, which is fine. Fly the "confederate" flag if you want. Just know that I think you're purposefully and proudly displaying a symbol with a lot of racist overtones and a racist history.

That belief doesn't affect you in the slightest, so whatever.

[Deleted]

Jan 27, 2016 20:40:09 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The only thing you have to go on is misuse by racist groups... and if that's your criteria, then you MUST ALSO say that Old Glory is racist, the Cross is racist and The US Constitution is racist... because the racists have improperly taken them as symbols as well. Do you say this? Do you call them symbols of racism as well?

I did. On this thread. Just like a page or two ago.

Neither of us are going to change the other's mind, which is fine. Fly the "confederate" flag if you want. Just know that I think you're purposefully and proudly displaying a symbol with a lot of racist overtones and a racist history.

That belief doesn't affect you in the slightest, so whatever.

LOL... you said (paraphrased) "all symbols are racist"... but then you went on to say (also paraphrased) "the Southern symbols are MORE racist". Since the only tie they have to racism is their appropriation by racist groups, all the other symbols are EQUALLY racist, therefore the "Southern symbols" cannot, in fact, be "more" anything.

So, the question again (slightly rephrased): Should we get rid of Old Glory, the Cross, and the US constitution as well... or should we admit that the "Southern symbols" are no worse than they are.

[Sum Dum Gai]

So, the question again (slightly rephrased): Should we get rid of Old Glory, the Cross, and the US constitution as well... or should we admit that the "Southern symbols" are no worse than they are.

Again, I disagree with the premise that the southern symbols are no worse. You venerate the exact same symbols used by groups of white men that literally owned black people and treated them little better than livestock and horses. Your choice bro, and it's a free country, but you're never going to convince me that those symbols aren't more inherently racist than Old Glory, the Constitution, or the the cross.

[Deleted]

Jan 28, 2016 11:48:50 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

So, the question again (slightly rephrased): Should we get rid of Old Glory, the Cross, and the US constitution as well... or should we admit that the "Southern symbols" are no worse than they are.

Again, I disagree with the premise that the southern symbols are no worse. You venerate the exact same symbols used by groups of white men that literally owned black people and treated them little better than livestock and horses. Your choice bro, and it's a free country, but you're never going to convince me that those symbols aren't more inherently racist than Old Glory, the Constitution, or the the cross.

You are ignoring that that's true of Old Glory, the Cross and the Constitution too...

Thomas Jefferson owned many slaves... he venerated Old Glory and the Constitution (as a Deist, he didn't venerate the cross though... but there were good upstanding Christians in his time that did own slaves. Heck Christianity even venerates slavery in it's holy book {as long as those slaves don't come from "God's chosen people"}!)

[verrip1]

Jan 24, 2016 16:36:20 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Jan 24, 2016 15:32:04 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

My, what pretentiousness.  I must have missed the election where you were put in charge of deciding what most people think. 

Personally, I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject, my friend.

Aham, my main man.  I'd stayed away until the intense, irrelevant crap kind of cooled off, since rational thought wasn't either acceptable or immune to the extreme hostility some espoused.

In this thread we have had an example of simple bullying.  Some people have a symbol, a flag, which means A to them.  Opponents see the same symbol and it means B to them, racism.  Opponents have repeatedly asserted that anyone who believes A is a f*&king racist.  What led them to that ridiculous conclusion lies within their own mind, and not (necessarily) in the mind of the supporters of A, or in persons who have the clarity not to let others do their critical thinking for them. 

Of course, those opponents of A have a reason for their intense rants.  Emotionally charged ideology.  A rather base emotion, actually.  It is a form of hatred, just like the hatred that they allege of ideological opposites (you see, they believe that others act with the same level of hatred they have).  They f*&king hate the battle flag, and they equally hate the people who support it.  They actually drip hatred.  You can no longer view them, but a number of personalizing, hate-spewing posts have been removed from this thread by the mods.

What these actions demonstrate is that the opponents of opinion A have complete contempt for anyone who dares not to slink away from an accusation of racism.  They simply cannot accept that anyone would question their judgement.  As though an accusation of racism is inherently accurate because it is about racism.  So they rip supporters of A a new orifice (repeatedly), as bloody as they can make it.  From this bloodying, they think that they can generate support for their warped, judgmental ranting.  Surprisingly, some people have such a level of guilt-ridden angst about US slavery, which legally ended a GODDAMNED CENTURY AND A HALF AGO, that they simply accede to the acceptability of the spewed hatred.  This is a designed tactic of intimidation, knowingly and willfully performed by those who otherwise profess opposition to intimidation.  One of the most damning kind of assertions are by those who think that their opinion is of such grandeur, and that of opponents is so pre-neanderthal, that they INHERENTLY are right because of the nature of their unwarranted accusations.  This tactic is frequently associated with statements which allege that "everybody" or "most people" agree with them (absent any justification for the assertion).  ie, "believe me for no other reason than that I say they are racists, and don't dare question my allegations, or I'll call YOU a racist, too".

So, you ask my opinion of what has transpired in this thread.  Mostly, the small core group of attack dogs disgusts me, and their followers convince me how gullible folks can be when led down the garden path of supposed "high moral value" into unsupported accusations (unless one believes that circular arguments constitute proofs) and ludicrous conclusions about how opponents are racist because they hold a different opinion.  I re-read the thread only to experience again the intensity of the hatred and overt manipulation of people.  Such drivel is not necessarily from either of the two main ideological sides, but only by the individuals who use these disgraceful tactics to smear others as intensely as they can possibly get away with.  No better place than a political message board to do that .

Resorting to such tactics is generally a sign of ideological incompetency, lack of ethics and fear of ideological failure (others on the conservative side of things sometimes do it too - that don't make it right, either).  Those who actually hold the moral high ground generally do not need to resort to such low tactics.

Aham-man, I would say that that is a pretty damn clear statement of my opinion of this issue and discussion, eh? 

And, Oh!  The battle flag is not an important symbol to me, no matter what it symbolizes to others.  If that has relevance.

Later, dude.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

When I read your post last night, Vman I was fired up! If I wasn't so tired at the time I would have went on a historical rant about Gestapo, Commie, Islamic, Dictatorial tactics...

After rereading it this morning, I'm glad I didn't - there is no reason. It's so f"@*-;# true that it is scary(yes it's also very clear what your opinion of the topic is)... So instead I will just add Aman to my name . and post this video that sums it up nicely..



One las thing. I remember when we were talking about who would be who in our bat pack. So, to me your opinions count a great deal on this matter, brother!

[Deleted]

O.k. ... LOL... that video was funny as hell.

[Deleted]

I went out to some land I own in rural Missouri.  It is way out in the boonies.  I went there with a friend to get something.  Anyway as we were leaving we saw an old mobile home with some junk cars around it and a flag pole with a confederate flag.  A few hundred yards further on we see the same thing, just a junked up place with a bunch of crap, flying a confederate flag.  A few hundred yards past that we see the third confederate flag and it is flying over a junked up place.  Who knows what these people thought, but it is hard to believe it had anything to do with any kind of pride.

to be clear, I like seeing the flag every now and then.  For me it symbolizes 'rebellion'  but I understand it symbolizes different things to different people.  For some it might be kind of like the nazi flag in what it symbolizes.  For me it is more like the Gadsen flag.  I would fly the Gadsen flag if I were going to fly a flag other then the US flag.

[Deleted]

You say that like it's exclusive to confederate flag owners... LOL.

I've seen some pretty nasty/junky/broken-down yards/homes with American flags "proudly" flying.

Not that I'm defending living in squalor... just saying it's not exclusive.

[mroped]

Went fishing yesterday in the bay with a southern born and raised man and I posed the question: what does the Confederate Battle Flag means to you?
A: states have rights!
Q: how about racism?
A: for what reason would you think that?
Me: none, just curiosity!

And then he went on to tell me that while is true that some got the flag and used it for their twisted reasons, most think of it as a reminder that something can be done if the rule of the federal government goes pushing too far. He also told me that in this specific area( west coast of Florida's panhandle) families were split most of the time during the Civil War. In his family, they had brothers fighting on opposite sides of the field, cousins that did the same and so on. That trend keeps on going in the same way today, families never agree completely on an issue.
As far as the racist symbolism of the flag, his exact words were "No way, no how, no siree!" 

It it is a shame that some people use it for that purpose but I believe it is a bigger shame that there are so many that believe that EVERYBODY is using it for the same reason.
Talk about generalizing!  

Sounds like "all people on welfare are lazy and they don't wanna get a job because the government pays all their expenses. They have it made!"

We all know that not to be true! 

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

I'll kill two birds with one stone here. Richard, in response to your comments and questions on the 2nd amendment thread. Should and forced are two separate things. We have laws and channels that people can use to protect themselves - especially in this day and age.

Once we remove choice, authoritarian beliefs become the norm, and then essentially anything can be forced. For instance, the majority is saying that the battle flag is racist and you are a racist for flying it. I know you aren't a racist. I know what the war of succession was about, but it matters not what our choices are, because the authorities have spoken...

www.sovanow.com/index.php?/news/article/confederate_flag_gets_teens_turned_away_at_the_movies/

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/23/retailers-ban-confederate-flags_n_7648614.html

[mroped]

All private entities are entitled to the "decline of service" based on the owners/shareholders beliefs.
All public places however, cannot ban the display of the flag by an individual. They cannot display it either unless it is an establishment dedicated for the purpose of commemorating the Civil War.
Any individual or private entity can display the flag upon choice and supporting the consequences. The interpretation of the display remains to them and the public but they cannot be stopped.

Take it as you will, understand and feel what you must but know this: General Lee is rolling in his grave!

[Deleted]

Jan 31, 2016 20:43:07 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

I'll kill two birds with one stone here. Richard, in response to your comments and questions on the 2nd amendment thread. Should and forced are two separate things. We have laws and channels that people can use to protect themselves - especially in this day and age.

Once we remove choice, authoritarian beliefs become the norm, and then essentially anything can be forced. For instance, the majority is saying that the battle flag is racist and you are a racist for flying it. I know you aren't a racist. I know what the war of succession was about, but it matters not what our choices are, because the authorities have spoken...

www.sovanow.com/index.php?/news/article/confederate_flag_gets_teens_turned_away_at_the_movies/

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/23/retailers-ban-confederate-flags_n_7648614.html

I appreciate the bolded. But to address the sentence that follows it, it matters as long as we have voices. If "because the authorities have spoken" mattered to this country, we wouldn't even HAVE a country.

The issues in the links shouldn't be allowed. It's unreasonably discriminatory.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jan 31, 2016 21:03:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 31, 2016 20:43:07 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

I'll kill two birds with one stone here. Richard, in response to your comments and questions on the 2nd amendment thread. Should and forced are two separate things. We have laws and channels that people can use to protect themselves - especially in this day and age.

Once we remove choice, authoritarian beliefs become the norm, and then essentially anything can be forced. For instance, the majority is saying that the battle flag is racist and you are a racist for flying it. I know you aren't a racist. I know what the war of succession was about, but it matters not what our choices are, because the authorities have spoken...

www.sovanow.com/index.php?/news/article/confederate_flag_gets_teens_turned_away_at_the_movies/

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/23/retailers-ban-confederate-flags_n_7648614.html

I appreciate the bolded. But to address the sentence that follows it, it matters as long as we have voices. If "because the authorities have spoken" mattered to this country, we wouldn't even HAVE a country.

The issues in the links shouldn't be allowed. It's unreasonably discriminatory.

I agree that we currently have voices. However, we are also seeing people being charged for what they say online. So, if say down the road the majority and the authorities say that any talk of the Confederates, etc, etc is deemed racism, some of the posters that have been absolutely deeming to you could contact the authorities on you. Don't think it can't happen either, because posters have quit posting here because of this same type of scenario.(on a smaller scale obviously, and I don't think the mods are bad on this site.)

I agree 100% that the links I posted are discrimination, and the comments in the article about the kids being turned away are even worse. In fact, lots of people see it this way, to the point that there are tons of websites out there about "reverse racism." These places - if you have never seen them - are interesting to say the least, and they love what was going on in Oregon. Which leads me to think that what Hickle was posting above about has more to do with marking territory than anything else.

If we continue to force people to believe one way or the other - regardless of the issue - we continue down the authoritative path when it's completely unnecessary. Why? Because like I was saying on the 2nd amendment thread, people chose to start serving people they weren't supposed to when segregation was the law.

[tallguy]

Jan 31, 2016 21:03:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 31, 2016 20:43:07 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

I'll kill two birds with one stone here. Richard, in response to your comments and questions on the 2nd amendment thread. Should and forced are two separate things. We have laws and channels that people can use to protect themselves - especially in this day and age.

Once we remove choice, authoritarian beliefs become the norm, and then essentially anything can be forced. For instance, the majority is saying that the battle flag is racist and you are a racist for flying it. I know you aren't a racist. I know what the war of succession was about, but it matters not what our choices are, because the authorities have spoken...

www.sovanow.com/index.php?/news/article/confederate_flag_gets_teens_turned_away_at_the_movies/

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/23/retailers-ban-confederate-flags_n_7648614.html

I appreciate the bolded. But to address the sentence that follows it, it matters as long as we have voices. If "because the authorities have spoken" mattered to this country, we wouldn't even HAVE a country.

The issues in the links shouldn't be allowed. It's unreasonably discriminatory.

I'm not sure how you make that statement regarding the second link.  Retailers chose to no longer market the flag.  They have every right to do so, for whatever reason they wish.  Don't they? 

[Deleted]

Jan 31, 2016 21:30:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jan 31, 2016 21:03:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I appreciate the bolded. But to address the sentence that follows it, it matters as long as we have voices. If "because the authorities have spoken" mattered to this country, we wouldn't even HAVE a country.

The issues in the links shouldn't be allowed. It's unreasonably discriminatory.

I'm not sure how you make that statement regarding the second link.  Retailers chose to no longer market the flag.  They have every right to do so, for whatever reason they wish.  Don't they? 

They do have the right. That doesn't mean it's not unreasonable. Rights can exist AND the usage of them can still be unreasonable.

Courtesy of "freedom of speech" anyone "has the right" to stand in front of someone and do "flying raspberries" for an hour, annoying the crap out of them... that doesn't make it reasonable... or even allowable by the conventions of modern society.

What they are trying to do is erase reality due to pressure from a minority that doesn't know history. In the case of the second link I'm not suggesting "shouldn't be allowed via punishment by government", I'm saying "shouldn't be allowed via boycott of them by people with common sense".

It'd be different if their reason for discontinuing was due to lack of demand. It's a known fact however that that's not the reason.

[tallguy]

"Unreasonable" wasn't my problem with it.  "Shouldn't be allowed" and "discriminatory" are a different matter.  And whether you meant it as "they shouldn't be made to cave to possible pressure" it is still their choice of how to respond.  They made a decision that was presumably in their best interest to make.  Hard to be upset by it.    

[Deleted]

Jan 31, 2016 22:34:07 GMT -5 tallguy said:

"Unreasonable" wasn't my problem with it.  "Shouldn't be allowed" and "discriminatory" are a different matter.  And whether you meant it as "they shouldn't be made to cave to possible pressure" it is still their choice of how to respond.  They made a decision that was presumably in their best interest to make.  Hard to be upset by it.    

Since they aren't treating all symbols hijacked by racists equally it's the very definition of "discriminatory".

I understand that "shouldn't be allowed" is somewhat subjective though.

Let me pose you the following paraphrase of the first line of a famous quote and see if you can guess the point:
First they came for the Symbols of Southern Pride, but I wasn't a supporter of those symbols, so I did not stand up against them...

[tallguy]

It's Niemoller, and I have used that argument here in anti-discrimination discussions.  You may recall....  

I still have trouble applying it to this, considering that a flag can't be "harmed" in any real sense.  And the obvious interpretation is that other symbols have not been hijacked equally.  If they had been they would likely have been removed as well.  Swastikas, for instance. 

[Deleted]

Jan 31, 2016 23:11:14 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It's Niemoller, and I have used that argument here in anti-discrimination discussions. You may recall....

I still have trouble applying it to this, considering that a flag can't be "harmed" in any real sense. And the obvious interpretation is that other symbols have not been hijacked equally.  If they had been they would likely have been removed as well. Swastikas, for instance.

I do recall... that's why I posted it

"The flag", itself, can't be harmed... true.
But people's pride based on the degradation of their representative emblems can be.

That "interpretation" is flawed though. because the symbol hijackers hijack the other symbols very much "equally". What's not equal is the ire that rises from the people that see them do it.

When an offended person sees the following picture he/she doesn't say "Racists using the American flag, the Rebel flag, and the Nazi flag disgust me".... they say "Racists using the rebel flag and Nazi flag disgust me":



The American flag is exempted from the ire for no good or valid reason. Reasonable would be ire against all or ire against none.