Activist removes Confederate Flag in South Carolina - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48067580]A crazy racist shot up a church and now we're up in arms trying to stamp out the existence of a flag that he associated with. Is that not a little bit silly? [editline]27th June 2015[/editline] Not only that but our attempts to rid the country of the flag has only [thread=1473216]drawn out the extremists[/thread]. That church burning is our fault.[/QUOTE] "It's our fault these extremists burned down churches, because that's a completely logical response to criticizing a flag used in racist and anti-black movements for nearly two centuries." If you fault yourself for the behavior of extremists, which are merely looking for a reason to burn property and otherwise be violent, you give them credibility and affirmation for burning those churches. You thereby justify it as a reasonable response to criticism.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48068121]Banning a flag doesn't cause violence. Shit-heads being prone to violence cause violence.[/QUOTE] And what caused those prone shitheads to go about being violent? I didn't see churches getting burnt down for quiet some time before this.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48066701]rather not, imo that flag has no business being flown by any government or public institution[/QUOTE] This. And racism doesn't even need to factor into this decision. We can argue about the modern outrage culture all we want; the fact of the matter is, this really shouldn't even have anything to do with that. The Confederate States of America was an illegal entity that rebelled against the federal government of the United States, fought the federal government of the United States in the bloodiest war in this country's history, and fucking lost in the end and was completely destroyed. That's reason enough to forbid it from being displayed like this and to ostracize individuals and organizations that attempt to glorify it or whitewash its history like it wasn't a travesty against the Constitution and our federal ideals. That's bad enough as it is, slavery and racism aside. The whole "well the Union and Lincoln weren't angels" argument is just a worthless attempt to try and ignore the fact that the Confederacy was wrong to divide the country as it did by seceding, its foundational institutions and ideals of extreme states' rights were ridiculous, and, again, that it just plain lost the war. The fact that this is still so polarized 150 years later since it ended shows just how stupid this all is. It's over and done with, has been for a long time, the Confederacy lost, deal with it. Stop pretending it's anything more or less than that; this is just how it is.

i think the best way to handle the Confederate Flag Situation is not through legislative means but through social means. i think a private person or entity is well within their rights to fly it, just as i and anyone else is well within their rights to denounce them [editline]27th June 2015[/editline] (i also think that the entire debate is distracting us from the important, but far more tough, discussions)

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48069457]And what caused those prone shitheads to go about being violent? I didn't see churches getting burnt down for quiet some time before this.[/QUOTE] I suppose that they reacted violently might have something to do with them being prone to violence to begin with. If you're prone to violence, that means you're more likely to be a violent cunt. It's possible to be offended by an event that's occurring without resorting to violence. And since you seem to believe that church arson hasn't happened recently: [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mo-church-torched-24-hours-mike-brown-sr-baptized-article-1.2024434[/url] You'd do well to pay better attention to the news, then. And for those curious, church arson happens more often than you would think. [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/churches/churches.htm[/url] Congress even passed a law in an attempt to prevent church arsons. [url]https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ155/PLAW-104publ155.pdf[/url] Here's another document for you: [url]https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12b873summ.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;48069133]Let's remove all flags then, 'cos just about every flag has been used in a racist or bigoted way, just so happens everyone's getting their panties in a twist over a flag that wasn't even representing slavery in most cases.[/QUOTE] The absolute [i]best[/i] way you can spin that flag is to say that it represents treason. Any whitewashing beyond that and you're just lying.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;48069558]The absolute [i]best[/i] way you can spin that flag is to say that it represents treason. Any whitewashing beyond that and you're just lying.[/QUOTE] i'd say that you could spin it to mean "rebellion" and not be lying although whether that is positive or not probably depends on which side of the mason-dixon you find yourself

[QUOTE=Jund;48068860]this fucking whole mess started because of this kind of mentality. leaving racists alone so they don't get violent clearly doesn't work because then they lie low for a few years then pull this bullshit. do you think racism and mental illness would still be such major problems in america if we earnestly tried to fix them instead of sweeping them under the rug like you're doing, like we always do?[/QUOTE][QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;48069141]"It's our fault these extremists burned down churches, because that's a completely logical response to criticizing a flag used in racist and anti-black movements for nearly two centuries." If you fault yourself for the behavior of extremists, which are merely looking for a reason to burn property and otherwise be violent, you give them credibility and affirmation for burning those churches. You thereby justify it as a reasonable response to criticism.[/QUOTE] What I'm saying is this wouldn't have happened if we didn't go crazy and try to ban the confederate flag because of what some crazy racist did. His shooting was racially motivated sure, and Elliot Rodger's was sexually motivated, and James Holmes just wanted to shoot people. They're all crazy people, but rather than try and prevent this from happening yet again, we're out trying to ban the confederate flag, inevitably pissing off more people who feel like their southern pride is under attack.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48069619]i'd say that you could spin it to mean "rebellion" and not be lying although whether that is positive or not probably depends on which side of the mason-dixon you find yourself[/QUOTE] All treason is rebellion.

[QUOTE=Jund;48068860]"that church burning is our fault". are you fucking kidding me? i expected better from you[/QUOTE] The point of that line is, we tried to ban a flag because of it's use by an extremist, and in the process all we did was stir up more violence. Because it's easier to try and ban a flag than admit there's a problem. This happens when there's a shooting, there's always a scapegoat. It's always videogames, or guns, or a flag, it's always something we can just try to ban and it'll solve our problems. And then it happens again.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48069722]The point of that line is, we tried to ban a flag because of it's use by an extremist, and in the process all we did was stir up more violence. Because it's easier to try and ban a flag than admit there's a problem. This happens when there's a shooting, there's always a scapegoat. It's always videogames, or guns, or a flag, it's always something we can just try to ban and it'll solve our problems. And then it happens again.[/QUOTE] i can agree with this, it upsets me that there's more uproar over a symbol of a problem rather the actual problem itself. i also think it is super-easy and a positive thing for government buildings to not fly it unless historically relevant

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48069557]I suppose that they reacted violently might have something to do with them being prone to violence to begin with. If you're prone to violence, that means you're more likely to be a violent cunt. It's possible to be offended by an event that's occurring without resorting to violence. And since you seem to believe that church arson hasn't happened recently: [URL]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mo-church-torched-24-hours-mike-brown-sr-baptized-article-1.2024434[/URL] You'd do well to pay better attention to the news, then. And for those curious, church arson happens more often than you would think. [URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/churches/churches.htm[/URL] Congress even passed a law in an attempt to prevent church arsons. [URL]https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ155/PLAW-104publ155.pdf[/URL] Here's another document for you: [URL]https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12b873summ.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE] I stand corrected. Forget my comment about that. Either way though, I still find it aggravating that theirs a lack of give-a-fuck for actual concerns. For example, how did Dylann's 4473s go through or rather why didn't the police seize his firearms after his convictions for drug manufacturing? Why weren't any alarms going off when the guy posted a huge manifesto on twitter and started posting tons of images of himself prepping? I understand people are still irked about the Confederate flag, but out of everything, like his supposed suboxone(and methadone) addiction, his extremist views, the confederate flag... The three things which actually piss me off is that with all the systems we supposedly have in place with the FBI, NSA, CIA, ATF, and otherwise, did not work and did not protect us in this case from a madman who was openly preparing for some form of attack. It's a failure on the part of the government for not acting on justifiable evidence, and a failure on the police for not committing to standard protocol regarding seizing firearms from someone with convictions or standing warrants.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48072006]I stand corrected. Forget my comment about that. Either way though, I still find it aggravating that theirs a lack of give-a-fuck for actual concerns. For example, how did Dylann's 4473s go through or rather why didn't the police seize his firearms after his convictions for drug manufacturing? Why weren't any alarms going off when the guy posted a huge manifesto on twitter and started posting tons of images of himself prepping? I understand people are still irked about the Confederate flag, but out of everything, like his supposed suboxone(and methadone) addiction, his extremist views, the confederate flag... The three things which actually piss me off is that with all the systems we supposedly have in place with the FBI, NSA, CIA, ATF, and otherwise, did not work and did not protect us in this case from a madman who was openly preparing for some form of attack. It's a failure on the part of the government for not acting on justifiable evidence, and a failure on the police for not committing to standard protocol regarding seizing firearms from someone with convictions or standing warrants.[/QUOTE] It's because the NSA thinks the only terrorists are in the Middle East.

What's with Americans focusing on pointless details such as this instead of the actual issue every time a mass shooting occurs? It's either about videogames, death metal, gun control or a fucking flag. No wonder the US has a problem with those when they're delusional enough to convince themselves that shit like that amounts to anything worthwhile.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48069772]i can agree with this, it upsets me that there's more uproar over a symbol of a problem rather the actual problem itself. i also think it is super-easy and a positive thing for government buildings to not fly it unless historically relevant[/QUOTE] The uproar over the actual shooting is part of the same uproar that's been happening since Baltimore, Ferguson, and to a lesser extent Sandy Hook, Columbine... The uproar over the flag is only more prominent to you because it's a fresh uproar, it hasn't been screaming at anything and everything for years and years.

[QUOTE=lavacano;48072783]The uproar over the actual shooting is part of the same uproar that's been happening since Baltimore, Ferguson, and to a lesser extent Sandy Hook, Columbine... The uproar over the flag is only more prominent to you because it's a fresh uproar, it hasn't been screaming at anything and everything for years and years.[/QUOTE] Either way all this bullshit around a flag won't achieve anything. Do people really believe racists will give up on being racist if that flag is banned? If anything it will only make their hatred more legitimate in their eyes.

The problem is there's no "solution" to racism; there's things which might help, but the country in general seems content to sit around silently and attempt to ignore the issue altogether, which hasn't seemed to have done a damn thing. [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48069722]This happens when there's a shooting, there's always a scapegoat. It's always videogames, or guns, or a flag, it's always something we can just try to ban and it'll solve our problems. And then it happens again.[/QUOTE] I agree with your general point here, but my question is what is the solution then? And, (because I don't think that question really has a definitive answer), is it better to ban vaguely related things (which tends to at least generate discussion and awareness) or ignore the issue altogether? Also, I really don't think people look at the flag as something which makes people racist, rather they see it as a symbol which represents racism to a lot of people. At least, I hope no one is stupid enough to think the former. [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48069722]The point of that line is, we tried to ban a flag because of it's use by an extremist, and in the process all we did was stir up more violence. Because it's easier to try and ban a flag than admit there's a problem.[/quote] The point of the line is to excuse the racist fucks though, correct? As I said above, I agree with your general point, that banning (at times) vague related things isn't a great solution, but if people's reactions of a flag being banned (though, it isn't to my understanding being banned by the government, it's just companies and individuals taking it upon themselves to do so, but anyway) is to lash out, then those people need to be locked away or given the mental help they need. What they don't need to be excused of their actions because they were "provoked" by people taking it upon themselves to remove a flag in a non-violent manner.

[QUOTE=_Axel;48072811]Either way all this bullshit around a flag won't achieve anything. Do people really believe racists will give up on being racist if that flag is banned? [b]If anything it will only make their hatred more legitimate in their eyes.[/b][/QUOTE] Whatever happened to not kowtowing to terrorists?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;48073828]Whatever happened to not kowtowing to terrorists?[/QUOTE] There's a difference between not bending to their will and provoking them without any benefit for your cause in return. When your actions achieve the same results as actively encouraging them to commit their abhorrent acts you seriously need to reconsider your way of thinking.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;48073828]Whatever happened to not kowtowing to terrorists?[/QUOTE] Wouldn't censoring the flag be kowtowing? As it proves that if you want to prove a point, all you have to do is act like a terrorist. I mean seriously, if you look at Dylann's Manifesto it says this: [quote] Black people view everything through a racial lense. Thats what racial awareness is, its viewing everything that happens through a racial lense. They are always thinking about the fact that they are black. This is part of the reason they get offended so easily, and think that some thing are intended to be racist towards them, even when a White person wouldnt be thinking about race. [/quote] By censoring the flag, you pretty much provide some form of ammo for his points. Hence what Axel mentioned by stating that you'll only make hatred legitimate in some people's eyes.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48074079]Wouldn't censoring the flag be kowtowing? As it proves that if you want to prove a point, all you have to do is act like a terrorist. I mean seriously, if you look at Dylann's Manifesto it says this: By censoring the flag, you pretty much provide some form of ammo for his points. Hence what Axel mentioned by stating that you'll only make hatred legitimate in some people's eyes.[/QUOTE] It's not censorship, it's removing an outdated flag that represents treason from a government building. Why does the state need to have a flag up from a rebellion that happened 150 years ago? Why are they honoring a rebellion against our country, a rebellion that failed? Yes, it's a part of our past, but do we need to have that part of our past on display forever? It's time to move on, honor the past in museums, not on the lawn of the state's capitol.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48074079]Wouldn't censoring the flag be kowtowing? As it proves that if you want to prove a point, all you have to do is act like a terrorist.[/QUOTE] Letting racists keep their favourite symbol flying high just so they don't get ticked off and start shooting people is the very definition of kowtowing to violent racists. As a society, we shouldn't tolerate that. Dylann's manifesto is a total moot point. The shit he wrote is only barely different from the shit you write.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48074079]Wouldn't censoring the flag be kowtowing? As it proves that if you want to prove a point, all you have to do is act like a terrorist. I mean seriously, if you look at Dylann's Manifesto it says this: By censoring the flag, you pretty much provide some form of ammo for his points. Hence what Axel mentioned by stating that you'll only make hatred legitimate in some people's eyes.[/QUOTE] why do you think people don't openly display ISIS flags on their porch? ask yourself that. csa: (defunct) rectionary rebellion isis: rectionary rebellion and terrorist group put the pieces together

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48074079]Wouldn't censoring the flag be kowtowing? As it proves that if you want to prove a point, all you have to do is act like a terrorist. I mean seriously, if you look at Dylann's Manifesto it says this: By censoring the flag, you pretty much provide some form of ammo for his points. Hence what Axel mentioned by stating that you'll only make hatred legitimate in some people's eyes.[/QUOTE] "they are always thinking about the fact that they are black" "think that some thing are intended to be racist towards them, [highlight]even when a white person wouldn't be thinking about race[/highlight]" Kid was a white supremacist who believed that black people don't deserve the same rights as we do because they're "not as good" as white people, yup black folks sure do think about race all the time when white folk don't yessir. I think that you would take any sort of validity from this bigot's ramblings is awfully damning. I mean I don't think they should ban the flag out-right either, but to give that creep any credence in an argument to keep the flag flying just so the racists don't get pissy is pretty fucked dude.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48074079]Wouldn't censoring the flag be kowtowing? As it proves that if you want to prove a point, all you have to do is act like a terrorist. I mean seriously, if you look at Dylann's Manifesto it says this: By censoring the flag, you pretty much provide some form of ammo for his points. Hence what Axel mentioned by stating that you'll only make hatred legitimate in some people's eyes.[/QUOTE] Did the government order it removed? no? Then it isn't censorship. So far, every single removal has been an activist (in the case of this flag) or a private entity [I][U]willingly removing[/U][/I] from sale or display. Agree with it or not, but censorship is not a word that applies in any of these cases. If the US government gives an order to remove all confederate flags from wherever they're being flown, then you have an argument.

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;48074690]It's not censorship, it's removing an outdated flag that represents treason from a government building. Why does the state need to have a flag up from a rebellion that happened 150 years ago? Why are they honoring a rebellion against our country, a rebellion that failed? Yes, it's a part of our past, but do we need to have that part of our past on display forever? It's time to move on, honor the past in museums, not on the lawn of the state's capitol.[/QUOTE] The flag in front of the capital building in Charleston was raised during the pro-segregation movement as a big "FUCK YOU!" to the civil rights movement, which is why there's so much controversy surrounding that one (and any others that were raised in front of government buildings for the same reason) in particular.

I don't see how people can honestly say that the flag is not a symbol of racism. The flag was created to support a rebellion that existed for almost the sole reason of keeping the institution of slavery alive. The Constitution of the Confederate States says that all current and future territories [I]must[/I] recognize slavery, and that the right to own slaves can [I]never[/I] be changed by law or bill or anything. The Constitution of the CSA outlined that slavery [I]was integral to the country's existence.[/I] I've heard people argue that there were provisions outlined to get rid of slavery, like banning international slave trade, but that's moot - the international slave trade was banned in [I]1807[/I] and hadn't existed for over half a century before the start of the civil war. All slaves in those years were born slaves - that's what the confederacy planned to keep alive. The confederate battle flag represents the people that fought and died to support the Confederacy. You can argue all you want that it stood for the individuals, but you're wrong. Someone flying a US flag in battle is saying "we are fighting for the existence and the beliefs of the USA." They've tied that they are fighting and dying for those beliefs - which happen to be undeniably and irreversibly racist and oppressive beliefs in the case of the CSA. General Lee's battle flag had next to no usage until the 1950s and 60s, when the KKK co-opted it for use in fighting the civil rights movement. The flag would not be in use [I]at all[/I] if not for the KKK. People would not be flying the flag to remember their southern heritage if not for the most racist and bigoted group in the history of the USA. That ties the flag [I]even moreso[/I] to racist anti-black white supremacist beliefs. The creator of one version of the Confederate flag decided to put the battle cross in the corner and make the rest of the flag white, to represent "the white man's flag" and to show white superiority. It was commonly used until people started confusing it with a flag of surrender - but it was an official flag of the Confederate government for years. The biggest argument I hear is that "the KKK flew the US flag too! The US flag represents slavery and other things too!" You're completely correct. The US was born from rebellion, just like the CSA. But the US didn't rebel from the UK [I]almost entirely[/I] to protect a racist institution. The US got rid of slavery - the CSA protected it. That's why the US flag doesn't stand for slavery. That's why the Union Jack doesn't really stand for the imperialist oppression and abuse of aborigines and indians and other groups - they stopped. Even then, the Union Jack is being removed from colonial flags across the globe because of those views. It shouldn't be different for the Confederate flag - it should be worse. The Confederate battle flag was created to represent a rebellion that fought to ensure that black people would continue to have less rights than any other humans. It was designed to represent "the white man" and white supremacy. It was co-opted to fight against civil rights by a racist group that systematically killed black people for sport and enjoyment. It doesn't mean "I'm proud of my southern heritage" any more than flying a black swastika in a white circle on a red background means "I'm really proud of my south-central asian heritage." Flags stand for the beliefs of the countries they represent. Unless you think families of German WW2 vets should be flying swastikas to express their pride in their grandparents, and you think that is perfectly okay and nobody should get offended, you can't defend use of the confederate flag. [I]Especially by a state government.[/I]

Well, if people want the symbol to change; why can't it change? Actual question here. Like I don't think it should be on the State Capitol but what if people really wanted to change the symbol to meaning something else?

[QUOTE=bdd458;48075992]Well, if people want the symbol to change; why can't it change? Actual question here. Like I don't think it should be on the State Capitol but what if people really wanted to change the symbol to meaning something else?[/QUOTE] The swastika has been a symbol of fascism and neo-nazism since the 1930's despite the attempts of people who want to reclaim it as a peaceful symbol of hindu and bhuddism. The confederate flag we know never was always a symbol of racist hate. If something that was formerly a symbol of peace can't be reclaimed from it's standing as a symbol of hate, how can something that was always a symbol of hate be turned into something peaceful? Trust me, I would like to see the confederate flag become a thing that symbolizes love for the south, but with it's history and usage I can't ever see that happening.

[QUOTE=bdd458;48075992]Well, if people want the symbol to change; why can't it change? Actual question here. Like I don't think it should be on the State Capitol but what if people really wanted to change the symbol to meaning something else?[/QUOTE] I think we agree. People are free to display the flag themselves if they want, and companies are free to either sell/not sell the flag. You can do whatever you want with the flag on your own private property. But such a symbol has no place on public property.