SC Governor calls for removal of Confederate flag

[Metahive]

O how much I love the predictable bait and switch.

OK, dudes, tell me, where does that idea of banning Duke of Hazzard come from? TheHammer's article simply mentions a TV station deciding to not air episodes of that series anymore and, believe it or not, them deciding to do so is fully within their rights, what they will and won't show is their decision alone.

Also, don't give me that stupid talk about "backlash", neo-confederates and their sympathizers would swing their shit around no matter what happens, that's all they've been doing since Jubal Early told the tall tale of the Lost Cause.

[Patroklos]

Where is this Neo-confederate thing coming from? Are you actually suggesting that it is the will and intent of the majority of users of this flag (as I assume you use to define who and who isn't a confederate) is to recreate the Confederacy in any meaningful sense? How do you define this term?

[Flagg]

I mean I honestly don't care about a shitty late 70's TV show in syndication that glorified rednecks breaking laws and driving recklessly in a car named after one of the top 10 (no order) American traitors who led rebellious mobs in the form of an army and is partially responsible for the deaths of more real (I don't count Southern Traitor deaths, as IMO they should be celebrated, since vermin damage things of use, while being useless themselves) American soldiers than every other conflict American forces have taken part in, as well as civilian and military deaths caused by Islamic Terrorists, since 1900 (excluding WWII) COMBINED.

I'd love to see a realistic modern version of the show, where the General Lee is up on concrete blocks outside a dilapidated single-wide mobile home with no hood (those are reserved for the Duke Boys' Klan meetings, ba dum bum! ), half the paint peeled off with the body rusting away and grass growing up through the engine compartment. Where are the Duke Boys you ask? Well they are in jail again caught holding Mexican meth and pimping out Daisy, whose skin looks like badly cured leather, weighs a good 280lbs, and with her dentures out gives the best throatfuck in Hazard County.

Well, looks like them Duke boys are going back to Maximum Security to serve out their sentences, and short of while getting their shit packed in for 'em, they won't be hootin' and hollerin' no more!

[Grumman]

Stop being a disgusting piece of shit, Flagg.

[Zinegata]

Hence, if you're looking at the origins of the popularity of the "Confederate Flag", look at the period of 1950-70.

As observed previously, it became a strong symbol of segregation and anti-civil rights in the South in that era. Immediately post-war, it would have been viewed (properly) as a treasonous banner and the people flying it likely arrested and tried for treason; it took about a century for those feelings to die down, although it certainly didn't stop the Southern states from quietly re-instating it where they could, like in the state flags. But the Klan tended to just represent themselves as 'American', especially in their meteoric rise in the 20s.

Interestingly however, I can also find very few instances of the Union flag in pictures and photos from that era; whereas if you look at the 50-70s art pieces (many commissioned to celebrate the anniversary) you tend to see flags everywhere.

Just pointing this out as it seems important to note that flag-waving in of itself was not really a big thing in the Civil War period; and thus those saying modern flag-waving is merely a heritage thing of the past is in of itself inaccurate.

[Simon_Jester]

In some ways, flags were a big deal, but in the sense that specific army units had specific flags and soldiers would risk death (or even do actively borderline-suicidal things) to keep those regimental flags up, to capture them and prevent their capture, and to move them forward during an advance to make sure the unit knew which way to go and felt like it was still on the move.

Likewise flags were significant in naval warfare, again because having your flag flying was a symbol of your ship's allegiance and willingness to continue fighting.

However, that does not translate into big armies carrying piles of Stars and Bars or Stars and Stripes in close proximity in the middle of dramatic paintings.

[Metahive]

Where is this Neo-confederate thing coming from? Are you actually suggesting that it is the will and intent of the majority of users of this flag (as I assume you use to define who and who isn't a confederate) is to recreate the Confederacy in any meaningful sense? How do you define this term?

Can you define word "obtuse troll JAQing off" for me? I define it as "Patroklos".

[Metahive]

Let me bury this fucking tangent, here's what I actually said:

Also, don't give me that stupid talk about "backlash", neo-confederates and their sympathizers would swing their shit around no matter what happens, that's all they've been doing since Jubal Early told the tall tale of the Lost Cause.

Here Patroklos "retort"

Are you actually suggesting that it is the will and intent of the majority of users of this flag (as I assume you use to define who and who isn't a confederate) is to recreate the Confederacy in any meaningful sense? How do you define this term?

So I say that neo-confederates and their sympathizers would make use of the flag no matter how reviled it is and Patroklos somehow distorts it into me saying "the majority of people who make use of the confederate flag want to recreate the CSA". You can cleary see that Patroklos either has not read what I said with any sort attention or is constructing deliberate lies. Since he's clearly not arguing in good faith one way or another I feel justified in ignoring any further requests he's making on this issue.

[Flagg]

Stop being a disgusting piece of shit, Flagg.

Oh boo fucking hoo. Take your ad hominems and stick them up Donald Trump's tribble-wig's ass, city slicker.

[Zinegata]

In some ways, flags were a big deal, but in the sense that specific army units had specific flags and soldiers would risk death (or even do actively borderline-suicidal things) to keep those regimental flags up, to capture them and prevent their capture, and to move them forward during an advance to make sure the unit knew which way to go and felt like it was still on the move.

Likewise flags were significant in naval warfare, again because having your flag flying was a symbol of your ship's allegiance and willingness to continue fighting.

However, that does not translate into big armies carrying piles of Stars and Bars or Stars and Stripes in close proximity in the middle of dramatic paintings.

Sure, it's well known that flags were used as rallying points and for signalling in Civil War battles. But flags used for this purpose were usually regimental banners - otherwise how can you tell where your regiment went if everyone just used the same national flag?

Moreover, notice the stark difference between this search result for "Civil War Paintings" (most of which were painted in the 20th century):

https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=civi ... CAYQ_AUoAQ

Where you can find a flag of some sort in every picture.

Compared to this search for Civil War photographs:

https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=civi ... hotographs

Where almost no flags can be seen, even when the soldiers are posing.

Indeed, when you look at a collection of soldier's photos:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... attle.html

Only one has a real flag, and a second has a flag painted as part of the backdrop. And these are Union soldiers, for whom there would be no ban on displaying their flags.

Hence again, it seems rather clear that displaying the flag with the soldiers was not really the norm back in the 1860s. It is not a "heritage" thing. It was only really popularized in the latter half of the 20th Century, particularly after the glorification of the flag-raising at Iwo Jima (hence the subsequent prominent display of so many flags in 20th Century Civil War paintings - very many depicting opposing flags in close proximity to one another when doing that will only expose the standards to greater risk of capture followed by unit disorganization.)

[Channel72]

I recognize that it is a commonplace to call "slippery slope" arguments a fallacy, and that there are reasons for doing that. I am mindful of those reasons. But I think we have good cause to care and think ahead about this issue, about what kind of power we're giving private companies to shape not just what we think about day to day things, but what we can and cannot know about things.

I'd rather not end up with a variation on this happening to public awareness of historical events (or politics, or culture in general):

https://xkcd.com/743/

Or, in the extreme cartoonish limiting case:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3060

The latter case being an obviously-bad (and, again, cartoonish) example of the problem of placing control of the set of things we 'know' in the hands of private corporation(s).

Sure, I understand that concern. It's a valid concern certainly - my point is simply that I'm unable to form a viable legal argument or framework to really address it, and that any such framework would necessarily be pretty ad hoc. I mean, we could say something like: "if a Corporation provides information services to more than 30% of a certain market, they cannot place restrictions on media of types X, Y and Z" or whatever. But then what about pornography or hate-speech, etc, etc., Apple certainly wouldn't allow some Neo-Nazi moron to upload a game to the Apple Store where you shoot black people or something. It's a really difficult problem that cuts into the heart of the free market and freedom of speech, and there really isn't any easy solution. The best I can say is that the government should attempt to eliminate as many barriers to entry as possible, so that it's easy for smaller competitors to gain a foothold in these markets.

Also, regarding that last comic - not to derail the conversation or anything, but I recall having an earlier debate with you about identity and persistence of consciousness, and I seem to remember you argued that any two identical copies of a consciousness where in fact, ontologically interchangeable (as any outside observer would find them identical), so I'm not sure why you'd have a problem with the entire human race being rebooted by Cloud Inc.

[Patroklos]

Where is this Neo-confederate thing coming from? Are you actually suggesting that it is the will and intent of the majority of users of this flag (as I assume you use to define who and who isn't a confederate) is to recreate the Confederacy in any meaningful sense? How do you define this term?

Can you define word "obtuse troll JAQing off" for me? I define it as "Patroklos".

I asked you a question in general, and then a more specific one factoring in the logic that would make your invented label make some sort of sense even if it makes you look like a conspiratorial asshat. If you feel as strongly about this topic as your wanking showboating suggests this should be an easy thing to tell us about. The fact that you are scared to answer the question tells us I was spot on but you are welcome to define the term in anyway you see fit seeing as you invented it and are the only one using it here.

So Metahive, again, what exactly is a neo-confederate? Or it it really something as mundane as "flies a confederate flag" and you are just trying to sound tough on the internet?

Also on the popularity of flags thing it should be remembered that for a lot of history cloth was expensive, and often times flags used the most expensive colors to produce. This gets more true the further back in history you go. Your average citizen didn't have Walmart to but 1000 plastic flags to decorate their lawn with on holidays.

[Rogue 9]

Where is this Neo-confederate thing coming from? Are you actually suggesting that it is the will and intent of the majority of users of this flag (as I assume you use to define who and who isn't a confederate) is to recreate the Confederacy in any meaningful sense? How do you define this term?

Can you define word "obtuse troll JAQing off" for me? I define it as "Patroklos".

I asked you a question in general, and then a more specific one factoring in the logic that would make your invented label make some sort of sense even if it makes you look like a conspiratorial asshat. If you feel as strongly about this topic as your wanking showboating suggests this should be an easy thing to tell us about. The fact that you are scared to answer the question tells us I was spot on but you are welcome to define the term in anyway you see fit seeing as you invented it and are the only one using it here.

So Metahive, again, what exactly is a neo-confederate? Or it it really something as mundane as "flies a confederate flag" and you are just trying to sound tough on the internet?

Metahive did not invent the term, first of all. It means espousers of the "Lost Cause" doctrine, especially those who actually think the South will/should rise again. And make no mistake, such people do exist.

[K. A. Pital]

Neo-Nazis do not seek to restore the Third Reich, just as neo-confederates do not want to restore the CSA. More often than not, neo-nazis are casual violent racists. So are the confederate flag-fliers.

[Metahive]

Fucking Hell, Patroklos knows so little of the issue that he thinks I came up with "neo-confederate" myself? Hey, you fucking obtusely trolling asshole, maybe you should inform yourself on this shit before spouting off? Even more justification to ignore your blather.

[Flagg]

All Patroklos has shown is that he's too ignorant of the subject to be participating, a sin most of us have committed. He just picked a really, really, really bad topic to shoot his mouth off about shit of which he doesn't seem to know anything.

Or he's a racist asshole. But I've never gotten that impression.

[TheHammer]

Neo-Nazis do not seek to restore the Third Reich, just as neo-confederates do not want to restore the CSA. More often than not, neo-nazis are casual violent racists. So are the confederate flag-fliers.

I'd argue that "more often than not" confederate flag fliers are NOT casual violent racists. Unless the term "casual violent racist" means something different to you than it does to me.

[K. A. Pital]

I'd argue that "more often than not" confederate flag fliers are NOT casual violent racists. Unless the term "casual violent racist" means something different to you than it does to me.

http://freakoutnation.com/2015/06/store ... es-to-kkk/

[Flagg]

I'd argue that "more often than not" confederate flag fliers are NOT casual violent racists. Unless the term "casual violent racist" means something different to you than it does to me.

http://freakoutnation.com/2015/06/store ... es-to-kkk/

Ummm, yeah, so? Listen, I was born and raised in the south, I know all the ins and outs of many of the more peculiar and hard to understand weird ass shit that goes on there, and on top of that I fucking hate the place and got the fuck out of there. But to say that confederate flag fliers (and I include bumper stickers and such) are "casual violent racists" is incorrect. Yes, some are in fact violent racists, and I'd argue that the vast majority (in the 95+% region) are casual (or not so casual) racists, but if everyone who displayed that flag were a casual violent racist, there would be a full on fucking race war in a huge region of the country.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't mean the ordinary fliers - these, I agree, are just casual racists, not violent racists. The discussion was about neo-confederates, why them being "neo-confederate" doesn't mean they want to recreate the CSA, and I thought about these people, not the random Southerner who as I see is likely to blindly stick whatever shit everyone sticks on their cars...

Aren't the neo-confederate groups like League of the South just a mild rebranding of the Klan? I heard they're in league with European neo-fascists, that's why I described them as such.

[Simon_Jester]

I recognize that it is a commonplace to call "slippery slope" arguments a fallacy, and that there are reasons for doing that. I am mindful of those reasons. But I think we have good cause to care and think ahead about this issue, about what kind of power we're giving private companies to shape not just what we think about day to day things, but what we can and cannot know about things...[snip]

Sure, I understand that concern. It's a valid concern certainly - my point is simply that I'm unable to form a viable legal argument or framework to really address it, and that any such framework would necessarily be pretty ad hoc. I mean, we could say something like: "if a Corporation provides information services to more than 30% of a certain market, they cannot place restrictions on media of types X, Y and Z" or whatever. But then what about pornography or hate-speech, etc, etc., Apple certainly wouldn't allow some Neo-Nazi moron to upload a game to the Apple Store where you shoot black people or something. It's a really difficult problem that cuts into the heart of the free market and freedom of speech, and there really isn't any easy solution. The best I can say is that the government should attempt to eliminate as many barriers to entry as possible, so that it's easy for smaller competitors to gain a foothold in these markets.

We already have a number of areas where there exists some watchdog board or organization that can say "yes, this merger will make your two corporations into a large, vicious monopoly, so you can't do that." Or "yes, this is unacceptable business practices."

It's not really any harder to say "this is an unacceptable use of your company's great power over the public information-sphere" than to say "this is unfair business practices."

Also, regarding that last comic - not to derail the conversation or anything, but I recall having an earlier debate with you about identity and persistence of consciousness, and I seem to remember you argued that any two identical copies of a consciousness where in fact, ontologically interchangeable (as any outside observer would find them identical), so I'm not sure why you'd have a problem with the entire human race being rebooted by Cloud Inc.

I thiiiink you missed the subtext in the last panel of the comic- which is that Cloud, Inc. selectively rewrote the memories and identity of everyone who'd been uploaded to the cloud, in order to make them love Cloud, Inc.

That's the sinister (if comical) point in the comic. And that's the part I have a problem with.

I mean, if I had been uploaded to a computer and a glitch caused the computer to crash, I would want to be rebooted from backups. I want that in the same way, and for the same reasons, that if I were about to be crushed by an out of control truck, I'd want to be pulled out of the way.

But I do NOT want someone subtly altering my memories and undermining my ability to form rational judgments without my knowledge or consent.

[Flagg]

I don't mean the ordinary fliers - these, I agree, are just casual racists, not violent racists. The discussion was about neo-confederates, why them being "neo-confederate" doesn't mean they want to recreate the CSA, and I thought about these people, not the random Southerner who as I see is likely to blindly stick whatever shit everyone sticks on their cars...

Aren't the neo-confederate groups like League of the South just a mild rebranding of the Klan? I heard they're in league with European neo-fascists, that's why I described them as such.

It depends on the group, there are a ton. Unless it's really deep underground, there's no real one singular group, they got hammered hard by the ATF and a woman who won a wrongful death suit and ended up owning this huge Nazi compound in the mid to late '90s. But no, the skinhead neo-Nazi assholes will always have a fucking confederate flag with them or on them or one of their vehicles. And the same with neo-confederates, but I think most of them are just skinheads as well, but just like with all hate groups, there will be some assholes trying to look and sound respectable wearing a suit and tie. As far as connections with European hate groups, I'm sure there are plenty.

But yeah, I get what you were saying now, it's just the way you worded it made it sound like you were saying everyone who has a confederate flag was violent. At least that's the way I read it.

[K. A. Pital]

I am pretty sure that there are people who just do it because the others do it. Not because they actually want to violently attack others. It's kinda like the situation with Japan. If you seriously talk to a Japanese person, he will be proud that his country has a constitutional protection against going to war and stuff, but he might have the Imperial Japanese flags around. And if asked why, he'd just say that a lot of people do it and they taught him it's the way to honor soldiers or something.

But I don't think people who casually fly this shit, stupid as it is, can be described as neo-confederates. The connection is not as strong as with the swastika.

[Elheru Aran]

I am pretty sure that there are people who just do it because the others do it. Not because they actually want to violently attack others. It's kinda like the situation with Japan. If you seriously talk to a Japanese person, he will be proud that his country has a constitutional protection against going to war and stuff, but he might have the Imperial Japanese flags around. And if asked why, he'd just say that a lot of people do it and they taught him it's the way to honor soldiers or something.

But I don't think people who casually fly this shit, stupid as it is, can be described as neo-confederates. The connection is not as strong as with the swastika.

As far as this goes, this is pretty much my understanding of the situation. Hell, *I* used to have some Confederate-flag paraphernalia when I was younger and stupider and thought redneck jokes were funny as hell. Now that I'm older (no comment on 'wiser'), I'd rather not. Even back then, I was conscious that perhaps my stars-and-bars do-rag or my Dixie Outfitters shirts weren't in the best of taste, I didn't actually care about the Confederate States all that much, and wasn't likely to stand my ground upon the flag all that much.

[Gandalf]

The cause of the United States is not genocide; no one sat down at the founding of this nation and said "Our primary objective in this revolution is to go murder a whole bunch of Indians!" That is indisputably true of the Confederacy and slavery, however.

Has the United States failed to live up to its founding precepts a lot of the time? Yes. Does it still do so? Yes. But we can work within the system to improve it; that is happening even now, as demonstrated by the subject of this very thread. The Confederacy couldn't - it's reason to exist was the perpetuation of chattel slavery, and it could not both improve on this issue and continue to justify its existence. And in fact it represented regression from the status quo of the founding of the Union; while most of the founding generation saw slavery as pernicious and planned to phase it out (George Washington manumitted his slaves and provided for their support and education in his will that they might find gainful employment), the leading politicians and planters of the antebellum South in the 1850s saw it as a positive good and even the manifest will of God. This does not excuse slaveholders of the 1780s, but starting a war in order to further regress from that position is absolutely inexcusable. There are lots of reasons to dislike the United States, but say what you will, it's a damned sight better than a lot of the alternatives.

You've missed my point completely in some weird attempt to play America's Champion. I'm not actually concerned about the Confederacy, they're terrible and we all know that. I'm happy to see their flags being removed from government buildings. But let's move on.

My concern is one of hypocrisy for the dialogue surrounding their flag but not the US one. Whether or not God King George Washington wanted slavery to be ongoing is irrelevant. The US presided over slavery until the Civil War forced the issue. It presided over genocidal westward expansion until land ran out. Can it not represent these things as well as the better parts?

Incidentally, my brother spent several months living on the Many Farms Navajo reservation in Arizona doing his student teaching a few years ago, and while he was there I asked him about this line of argument, because I was starting to see it crop up. He asked his faculty adviser at the school, who told him they see the Civil War as a white man's war and no concern of theirs, so all this high-and-mightiness for the Confederacy supposedly on behalf of the Natives is starting to sound a little stale, not to use the phrase "cultural appropriation."