Lowering the Confederate Flag - and Wally World

[Cow Poke]

The flag is already demonized, and has been for decades, by those who find it offensive and that hasn't stopped anyone who wants to, including state governments, from displaying it.

I know this is really really hard for a liberal to comprehend, JimL - but the Confederate flag is a PIECE OF CLOTH! It has ZERO power over anybody. It doesn't have VOODOO power, or demonic power, or magic power. It's a freakin piece of cloth!

For somebody to afraid of it, or offended by it, is a CHOICE. It's the liberal "everybody gets a trophy" mentality that seems scared to death to tell people "get over it" or "deal with it", or "you are more powerful than that piece of cloth".

It's not the BOOGYMAN, JimL --- it's a piece of cloth!!!!

It's time for people to stop being such sissybutt wimps and stand up and say "I am BIGGER than that symbol of (whatever they thing it is a symbol of) and I am not controlled by it".

But that won't happen, because the liberal mind THRIVES on fear and fearmongering, and playing the victim.

[Teallaura]

It doesn't need to be the flag of the confederacy to be a symbol of the confederacy therefore still problematic.

No? the point made was that it was the confederate flag and therefore symbolized the confederacy - but it isn't and doesn't. It honestly has more to t\do with the Civil Rights Era. Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder - so too does symbolism. It's why the cross controversies would be funny if they weren't so darned sad - Christian symbolism is far more extensive and is virtually impossible to escape - if you know what you're talking about. Rainbows, unicorns, daisies, roses - every single one is a Christian symbol and has a long history of usage. But you don't see Christ when you see a picture of a unicorn, do you? The symbolism is there - but the meaning escapes you.

Nothing in the First Amendment guarantees - or was intended to guarantee - that people wouldn't be offended. Quite the opposite - it was intended to protect the right to express ideas regardless of how well received they might be with the only caveat being that those ideas further public discourse (this being why pornography need not apply). If offending someone were the criteria, then the only fair thing would be to insure no one was offended by anything - which would include your ideological opponents. You (general) shouldn't therefore be allowed to express ideas offensive to others - majority, plurality or minority. Which basically tosses the First Amendment out on its ear....

[Catholicity]

The flag is already demonized, and has been for decades, by those who find it offensive and that hasn't stopped anyone who wants to, including state governments, from displaying it.

So Jimmy, is my new Avatar Offensive? Are you going to demand I take it down? Can you correctly Identify historically both flags and their names and what they are?

[Jaecp]

No? the point made was that it was the confederate flag and therefore symbolized the confederacy - but it isn't and doesn't. It honestly has more to t\do with the Civil Rights Era. Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder - so too does symbolism. It's why the cross controversies would be funny if they weren't so darned sad - Christian symbolism is far more extensive and is virtually impossible to escape - if you know what you're talking about. Rainbows, unicorns, daisies, roses - every single one is a Christian symbol and has a long history of usage. But you don't see Christ when you see a picture of a unicorn, do you? The symbolism is there - but the meaning escapes you.

Nothing in the First Amendment guarantees - or was intended to guarantee - that people wouldn't be offended. Quite the opposite - it was intended to protect the right to express ideas regardless of how well received they might be with the only caveat being that those ideas further public discourse (this being why pornography need not apply). If offending someone were the criteria, then the only fair thing would be to insure no one was offended by anything - which would include your ideological opponents. You (general) shouldn't therefore be allowed to express ideas offensive to others - majority, plurality or minority. Which basically tosses the First Amendment out on its ear....

Rainbows and those flowers are actual real things though. Unlike the flags of the Confederacy, which are purely symbols of the Confederacy, they are not Christian symbols, per se, but they have been used symbolically to contain Christian symbolism (and plenty of other symbolism, as real world things are want to do over the years). The First Amendment and offense thing is not relevant to my statement about the flag in question not needing to be the flag of the confederacy proper to have the problematic symbolism. We shouldn't expect the general public to be parsing the distinction between the 3 different official confederate flags as well as the various battle flags, especially since how similar they all are. It just doesn't come up to often for most people. Going back to the similarity aspect, the blue X on a red background with white stars is what most people think of as the confederate flag. Thats wrong, of course, but for better or worse the more simple stars and bars is just what most people think of as the confederate flag. Blame the Dukes of Hazard. Blame the fact that it fits onto a shirt or decal much more easily. Blame whatever, but thats the association. Some Buddhist symbols get edited/censored when japanese cartoons are shown in America because of unfortunate implications. It happens.

Short answer,

It's a symbol of the confederacy. Racist murder sprees bring to mind people wondering why an obvious symbol of the confederacy, and therefore slavery, is still hanging at a state capitol. Fly it on your own personal property if you choose, you can do problematic things if you want to, but that doesn't change that it's problematic.

[Jaecp]

So Jimmy, is my new Avatar Offensive? Are you going to demand I take it down? Can you correctly Identify historically both flags and their names and what they are?

Why should he identify them? It's not like we're on the internet and just check the wiki.

Mostly, I think your new avatar is kind of dumb and reactionary #honest opinion

[Cow Poke]

Why should he identify them? It's not like we're on the internet and just check the wiki.

"check the wiki"?




I kinda like that!

[KingsGambit]

Nothing in the First Amendment guarantees - or was intended to guarantee - that people wouldn't be offended. Quite the opposite - it was intended to protect the right to express ideas regardless of how well received they might be with the only caveat being that those ideas further public discourse (this being why pornography need not apply).

I'm not sure... there isn't any caveat about ideas promoting discourse in the amendment. I prefer taking the tack that pornography simply isn't speech.

[Jaecp]

"check the wiki"?




I kinda like that!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_...tes_of_America

It's pretty detailed, too, a little over 100 citations

[Cow Poke]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_...tes_of_America

It's pretty detailed, too, a little over 100 citations

Ummm... I just like the expression "check the wiki". I already know everything I want to know about the Confederate flag.

[Jaecp]

Ah, gotcha

[Cow Poke]

So, exactly how big was the Confederate flag that the shooter carried into Mother Emanuel when he shot those people?

[Juvenal]

[...] off with their heads!

The irrational hysteria [...]

You couldn't make this stuff up.

[Cow Poke]

You couldn't make this stuff up.

I DID!


No Cookies for you - TWO WEEKS!

[Juvenal]

I don't think any young man was staring at anything OTHER than Daisy's derriere

I only watched to admire the flag.

[Cow Poke]

I only watched to admire the flag.

And you buy Playboy for the articles on men's health.