SC Governor calls for removal of Confederate flag

[Rogue 9]

Ghetto edit: I'll just leave this here.

Wrong flag.

Right flag; in the quotation he was specifically referring to the Stainless Banner and its white field.

[Grumman]

Think of it this way: the people railing against companies that decide that they no longer want to sell Confederate paraphernalia are, in essence, saying that they believe it should be compulsory for these companies to continue selling it. Is forcing a company to continue selling that symbol any less anathema to a free society than banning them from selling it?

In my view Walmart's actions are acceptable, eBay's and Apple's are not, and the reason I don't agree with their actions is basically the same reason I support Net Neutrality. While all three are market leaders with monopolistic power, Walmart is in the business of buying, stocking and selling goods, and as such it is impossible for them to not curate the goods they buy, stock and sell: they only have a finite amount of money to buy stock and they only have a finite amount of space to store it, so they have to pick and choose which items they buy and stock. EBay and Apple do not suffer from this limitation, which makes their decision to not allow others to sell particular goods or software through their service a choice rather than a necessity. I don't want banks to use their positions of power to try to kill off pornography, Paypal to kill off Wikileaks, Apple to kill off historical strategy games or Steam to kill off Hatred, and yet we've seen all of these things attempted in recent years.

Ghetto edit: I'll just leave this here.

Wrong flag.

Right flag; in the quotation he was specifically referring to the Stainless Banner and its white field.

Yes, that's what I meant - this whole thing has been about the Battle Flag, not the Stainless Banner, so the creator of the Stainless Banner talking about his racist reasons for creating the Stainless Banner isn't a very good argument against the Battle Flag.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It is not being banned. Private companies and government organizations are choosing, for political, ethical, and/or economic reasons, to distance themselves from a symbol with a toxic history, because recent events have made it so people can no longer ignore that toxicity. Nothing is legally preventing you from purchasing a Confederate flag and flying it in front of your home. Nothing is legally preventing a company that wants to sell Confederate flags to continue selling them. The only thing that's changed is that several companies that would have sold you that flag in the past have decided that they no longer will.

Think of it this way: the people railing against companies that decide that they no longer want to sell Confederate paraphernalia are, in essence, saying that they believe it should be compulsory for these companies to continue selling it. Is forcing a company to continue selling that symbol any less anathema to a free society than banning them from selling it?

While I don't disagree with you in general, there is something I find a little disturbing about Apple's actions, because they aren't making a decision to stop stocking/selling an item, they are banning the depiction of that item in an app, regardless of context.

[Simon_Jester]

It is not being banned. Private companies and government organizations are choosing, for political, ethical, and/or economic reasons, to distance themselves from a symbol with a toxic history, because recent events have made it so people can no longer ignore that toxicity. Nothing is legally preventing you from purchasing a Confederate flag and flying it in front of your home. Nothing is legally preventing a company that wants to sell Confederate flags to continue selling them. The only thing that's changed is that several companies that would have sold you that flag in the past have decided that they no longer will.

Think of it this way: the people railing against companies that decide that they no longer want to sell Confederate paraphernalia are, in essence, saying that they believe it should be compulsory for these companies to continue selling it. Is forcing a company to continue selling that symbol any less anathema to a free society than banning them from selling it?

The basic issue here is that a corporation is very unlikely to take a nuanced, reasoned approach to its attempts to edit out the parts of the historical record it deems 'toxic.'

The technology to identify and remove undesired images is improving along with all other image recognition. Even if it's not now possible, it will soon be possible to automatically block any image that contains anything that looks like a Confederate flag. It may become possible in the future to automatically delete Confederate flags from images in real time, replacing them with gray rectangles or something else.

A company that has the power to discreetly hide 'toxic' content is going to have a lot of incentive to do so. And they may not stop at things widely deemed toxic; they may try to apply it to, say, political speech that undermines the corporation.

And these are companies with a great deal of indirect control over 'our' images, our texts, our searches of archives and libraries, our video footage, and indeed almost every kind of recorded content in our lives..

In the extreme limiting case you get something as pervasive and toxic in its own right as Stalin's blatant efforts to delete inconvenient 'unpersons' from the historical record by airbrushing them out of photographs.

...

I'm not saying we're there yet, or that what Apple is doing is as bad as that would be. But somewhere between 'here' and 'there,' we have got to draw a line, if we want ANY semblance of historical truth to continue to exist in the Internet Age. So I don't like it when a private company takes it upon itself to censor my mail, or my purchases.

[Gandalf]

It's being said that the Confederate flag(s) is/are a symbol of slavery. Does it represent all of the slavery in the history of the US, or just the stuff in the Confederate states?

[K. A. Pital]

It's not "vigilance", it's just half-wited alarmism. What is every civil war game supposed to use the stars and bars? Is every history app supposed to just avoid talking about the confederacy, reconstruction, the klan, and the civil right movement?

If you don't want state governments to give it a place of honor, that's fine, under many circumstances I would agree with you, but to outright ban the symbol is anathema to a free society.

It is an admission that you are incapable of arguing against the ideals of the movements that use that flag and it grants a disgusting ideology credibility because shortsighted busybody like you tried to ban it.

Oh yeah, and apple doesn't ban the nazi swastika, so it's not as though their have high standards for "hate symbols".

Christ Stas, I expect this kind of petty authoritarianism from idiot children like Metahive and Flagg, but I really thought better of you.

I couldn't care less about what happens with the confederate flag, or computer entertainment in general. Games are just games. Get over it. The flag is not "banned", some companies just overreacted to the events.

I oppose the banning (as in, legal banning) of symbols, which include the confederate flag and the swastika.

What a bunch of capitalists does to it - sells it or stops selling - is no concern of mine. I find it deliciously ironic that capitalists are capable of swift and radical self-censorship though.

[Channel72]

What a bunch of capitalists does to it - sells it or stops selling - is no concern of mine. I find it deliciously ironic that capitalists are capable of swift and radical self-censorship though.

How is that ironic? It's not even surprising. Corporations practice self-censorship as a matter of course. They'll attempt to censor anything which may negatively affect their public image, share price, or anything that might piss off their major stockholders. Censorship is the norm, not the exception.

[Simon_Jester]

Censorship is the norm in any environment where unchecked power exists. Corporate power over their employees, products, and property is often unchecked.

So was the power of Stalin, and from that you got these weird haunting things like this:



...With people being sequentially edited out of a photo as they fell out of favor and/or were put to death, until he alone remained.

My concern is that it's not that big a step from what Apple's doing to things that fall into this range. They're barring all Confederate flags; does this include barring them from historical photos and footage? Educational tools? Media that says "this is what a Confederate flag looks like?"

And if a normal corporation like Wal-Mart did this with physical products they sell, then there would be alternatives... you can always in principle buy from somewhere else. But if you're an Apple device user, then as I understand it you have to get apps through them. Otherwise you don't just need a new app, you need a competing phone brand- and there are only a few on the market, any one of which could easily make the same decision Apple did.

Likewise, eBay is one of a very few major competing brands in the "online bazaar" market. Same problem.

I don't want large private corporations (or for that matter large public agencies) making the decision about what the American public can and cannot be allowed to see. Or where they can't see. Or who they can't see.

[Irbis]

I believe they last changed their flag around 115 years ago, well before the civil rights movement, but I've always been told it was in honor of the CSA. By teachers.

You mean the red cross flag? The one that was pretty much copied from Spanish flag? Because I have no idea how Spain might relate to CSA, albeit there might be some obscure link that eludes me.

[TheFeniX]

My concern is that it's not that big a step from what Apple's doing to things that fall into this range. They're barring all Confederate flags; does this include barring them from historical photos and footage? Educational tools? Media that says "this is what a Confederate flag looks like?"

Is that really in the same vein though? Apple is a retailer. No one is forcing you to buy an Apple product and use their service. Viable alternatives exist, and many of them, unlike Windows dominance and their anti-competitive practices concerning personal and business computing in the 90s and early 2000s.

I don't want large private corporations (or for that matter large public agencies) making the decision about what the American public can and cannot be allowed to see. Or where they can't see. Or who they can't see.

They do this all the time though: it's part of running a business. For just one example, no retailer I know of will stock Adults-Only games. Few theatres will show NC-17 movies. As far as I know, there's no actual law concerning the sale/viewing of said content. It's only the retailer trying to protect their image. They aren't making decisions on what you can and can't see, they just aren't carrying a product they don't see fit to carry. Even if there's no physical cost involved, they have the right, no matter how idiotic it can get, to not carry a product for fear of negative press.

Disney has done everything in it's power (so it seems) to make people forget "Song of the South" exists. And it actually has historical significance concerning racism: It's worth watching. Same with those old employee training videos that treated women like delicate snowflakes that needed a firm ass patting to get through a hard day of Manwork.™ I'm sure the creators of those videos would like them long gone and you couldn't/shouldn't force them to start selling copies again.

[Rogue 9]

Right flag; in the quotation he was specifically referring to the Stainless Banner and its white field.

Yes, that's what I meant - this whole thing has been about the Battle Flag, not the Stainless Banner, so the creator of the Stainless Banner talking about his racist reasons for creating the Stainless Banner isn't a very good argument against the Battle Flag.

Except he's going on about the Slave Power's cause as a whole. Any and all of the flags they used represent that cause.

[Rogue 9]

A woman climbed the flagpole and ripped down the flag this morning, though it was put back up after her arrest.

[Flagg]

I believe they last changed their flag around 115 years ago, well before the civil rights movement, but I've always been told it was in honor of the CSA. By teachers.

You mean the red cross flag? The one that was pretty much copied from Spanish flag? Because I have no idea how Spain might relate to CSA, albeit there might be some obscure link that eludes me.

Yeah. But like I said, teachers. Still, before the cross was added it was just the picture of the ships and native Americans.

[Flagg]

A woman climbed the flagpole and ripped down the flag this morning, though it was put back up after her arrest.

Stupid bitch. Should have brought lighter fluid and doused it, then set it on fire with a small butane torch.

[Flagg]

As for the "Waa, it's being banned!" whiners: I'd feel sorry for you if you understood the difference between a private company like Apple (you can boycott them) and the US Government (1st Amendment unfortunately doesn't allow banning even the most hateful of symbols).

And seriously, I used to whine about the swastika not being in some games (I'm looking at you Paradox), but in the end, who fucking cares? A black "+" in a round circle on a red flag makes it pretty fucking apparent who they are. I think we can live with the swastika, confederate flags, and other symbols of evil (I'm looking at you Japanese flag) relegated to museums and use in films set in that time period.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Most people don't even know what the "Stars and Bars" even looks like (most wrongly think it's the Confederate Battle Flag), easily mistaking it for a Revolutionary War Flag (The first time the South turned traitor ), a state flag, or even the flag of a Caribbean nation.

See, that's actually the problem with dismissing the Confederates as "traitors". You're all traitors to the Crown and Commonwealth so what's the difference? That the Confederates lost?

Minor problem with that analogy, we attempted to both work within the system to be allowed to attain representation in the Parliament that governed us and when that failed we asked for semi-autonomy. It's only after rejecting our other reasonable offers that the Revolution had to occur. The Confeds had disproportionate voting power in their states and seceded before even putting the matter of secession before Congress.

[Thanas]

One can easily argue the opposite, that the rebels engaged in a campaign of terror that made compromise unthinkable and were not interested in faithful negotiations anyway, as the correspondence of Ben Franklin shows.

[Gandalf]

Right flag; in the quotation he was specifically referring to the Stainless Banner and its white field.

Yes, that's what I meant - this whole thing has been about the Battle Flag, not the Stainless Banner, so the creator of the Stainless Banner talking about his racist reasons for creating the Stainless Banner isn't a very good argument against the Battle Flag.

Except he's going on about the Slave Power's cause as a whole. Any and all of the flags they used represent that cause.

Could one then claim that the US flag* represents the genocidal westward expansion of the US?

*Whatever it may be called in the relevant era(s).

[Ziggy Stardust]

Could one then claim that the US flag* represents the genocidal westward expansion of the US?

*Whatever it may be called in the relevant era(s).

Well, the flag at the time had fewer stars than the modern flag, so I guess they're different flags and we're off the hook.

[The Romulan Republic]

My reply would be that, while the US has done some truly horrific things and I have no desire to white wash that, the United States has a long and diverse history, so its flag can legitimately be said to stand for many things.

I suppose some might say something similar about the Confederacy, but the Confederacy had a very short history in comparison, and one that was dominated by an aggressive war against the United States and the fact that it came into existence in defiance of an election result its founders didn't like and to preserve slavery. Its just not the same.

[Simon_Jester]

My concern is that it's not that big a step from what Apple's doing to things that fall into this range. They're barring all Confederate flags; does this include barring them from historical photos and footage? Educational tools? Media that says "this is what a Confederate flag looks like?"

Is that really in the same vein though? Apple is a retailer. No one is forcing you to buy an Apple product and use their service. Viable alternatives exist, and many of them, unlike Windows dominance and their anti-competitive practices concerning personal and business computing in the 90s and early 2000s.

The issue I perceive is as follows:

Thanks to the way the Internet works, a very large fraction of our total information, ideas, and public speech is filtered through infrastructure controlled by a small number of corporations. A lot of those corporations are technically 'retailers selling a product' or 'vendors providing a service.' Apple sells apps, but technically search engines are vendors of a service as well, and so on.

So we have this complex of information infrastructure that is largely in the hands of private companies that, as you say, have a strong incentive to creatively filter their content to make themselves look good.

And it's not just a simple matter of these companies trying to take their own embarrassing products (e.g. Song of the South and sexist '50s era training films) and refuse to sell them. In this case, many of these apps were produced by third parties that rely on Apple's willingness to act as a middleman for their products. And many of them would presumably have put the Confederate flag in their apps without intent to offend. Say, because they are attempting a legitimate depiction of Civil War battlefields.

So what we're now seeing is an instance of a company not only refusing to sell its own old IP that it now regrets. They're refusing to sell someone else's content, and blocking it in a rather indiscriminate fashion.

Now, I get that this is legal and hardly unprecedented and not necessarily bad.

The problem is that if we say "corporations have an unlimited right not to pass on to their customers any material they deem bad, harmful, objectionable, or bad for their corporate image..." Well, as I've said, somewhere between this thing Apple's doing and the extreme limiting case, we need to draw a line.

Because there has to be an upper limit to the degree of for-profit censorship that a corporation should be allowed to enact, just because it happens to make its money through control of key information infrastructure.

As for the "Waa, it's being banned!" whiners: I'd feel sorry for you if you understood the difference between a private company like Apple (you can boycott them) and the US Government (1st Amendment unfortunately doesn't allow banning even the most hateful of symbols).

Well, you clearly completely ignored my actual argument in favor of repeating the same things people said before I made it.

[Gandalf]

My reply would be that, while the US has done some truly horrific things and I have no desire to white wash that, the United States has a long and diverse history, so its flag can legitimately be said to stand for many things.

I suppose some might say something similar about the Confederacy, but the Confederacy had a very short history in comparison, and one that was dominated by an aggressive war against the United States and the fact that it came into existence in defiance of an election result its founders didn't like and to preserve slavery. Its just not the same.

Why does the Confederacy's short lived nature matter? Is there some sort of atrocities per year rate that needs to be achieved?

[The Romulan Republic]

Frankly, yes. Every country in the world has probably done horrible things. If one atrocity is enough to make the country's flag unacceptable, how many countries would still have a flag?

Now, America has done way more than one. But the Confederacy does not have the varied history that America does, at least not close to the same extent, which is basically what I was saying before. America has profoundly great achievements to go with the bad, and the flag also represents them. What does the Confederacy have to compare to that?

Is that enough to make the meaning and worth of the two flags different? Debatable, but I can see how one could argue that their is a distinction.

And what's the alternative? Redesign the flag every time the country's government does something horrible?

Mind you, I think the entire concept of flags is preposterous and dangerous. The invite blind loyalty to a symbol rather than thinking about what its supposed to represent. But then, this entire debate is about what they represent.

[Channel72]

The problem is that if we say "corporations have an unlimited right not to pass on to their customers any material they deem bad, harmful, objectionable, or bad for their corporate image..." Well, as I've said, somewhere between this thing Apple's doing and the extreme limiting case, we need to draw a line.

This is just one of the awkward side effects of the free market that nobody really has a good answer for. Obviously, you wouldn't even give a shit about what Apple does if they weren't such a ubiquitous and successful company. I personally don't care about what Apple is doing in this case, but I can imagine that I might care if say, Google, decided to censor search results that contained images of the Confederate flag. Even in that case, there are other search engines out there, not to mention many other free sources of information where I can learn about the Confederacy (the library, Wikipedia, etc.). It's just that in practice, a company like Google has such enormous control over the information available to us that any censoring of their search results would have a de facto effect that is eerily close to state-sponsored censorship. Of course - again - Google is technically just another private company, and if some smaller search engine with less market share censored their results, nobody would give a shit. Clearly, it becomes very hard to fix this "problem" with legislation, as it is not as clear-cut as the sort of problems that anti-trust laws were designed to ameliorate.

[Grumman]

My concern is that it's not that big a step from what Apple's doing to things that fall into this range. They're barring all Confederate flags; does this include barring them from historical photos and footage? Educational tools? Media that says "this is what a Confederate flag looks like?"

Is that really in the same vein though? Apple is a retailer. No one is forcing you to buy an Apple product and use their service.

Apple is forcing you to use their service. If you use their hardware, they want it to be impossible for you to use any software that comes from anywhere except their own store. A person should not be expected to discard a multi-hundred dollar smartphone (plus whatever software they have already installed) to avoid Apple's arbitrary limitations on what media they are permitted to consume.

Why does the Confederacy's short lived nature matter?

There are individuals in any substantial group who have done evil things, but you should not judge the entire group by their actions unless there is good reason to feel that those individuals are representative of the entire group. Somebody choosing to identify as Japanese does not deserve to be tarred with the actions of Imperial Japan during World War 2 because "Japan" covers much more than that short span of their country's history. Somebody who identifies with the Confederacy does not have that excuse, because there is no other part of the Confederacy's history apart from the bit where they were waging a civil war against the United States for the cause of expanding slavery and the persecution of racial minorities.