The Confederate Flag

Discussion in 'World Events' started by dumbest man on earth, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    According to the chart it's all priced in 2018 dollars, which presumably accounts for inflation (although there are many different metrics for inflation). Nonetheless it shows black wages flatlining from 2017-2018 at a level barely above where it was 10 years earlier, and I'm not seeing any relevant statistics from the last 2 years to show that any sustained improvements have occurred beyond temporary trends. Meanwhile the data I've looked at seems to indicate a larger general rise in wealth and wages for white people by comparison even though they experienced recession just like blacks.
     
    Sarkus likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    https://phys.org/news/2020-08-em-economic-threats-potent-tool.html

    Hit 'em where it hurts – how economic threats are a potent tool for changing people's minds about the Confederate flag:

    Activists nationwide have resumed demanding the removal of statues and symbols that are considered racially offensive—such as of slave owners, Confederate leaders and the Confederate flag.

    The requests—and related boycotts and threats of other economic protests – have been part of the national controversy about racism in American life and have sparked questions about how to recognize traumatic elements of U.S. history.

    Typically, the debate about the role of Confederate imagery in public life is seen as a political, social or racial issue. But in recent research, we discovered that economic concerns could be effective in shifting Southerners' attitudes about Confederate symbols.

    Public officials and individual citizens alike are more likely to oppose the presence of Confederate symbols when they learn it may be bad for local business.

    Longstanding support

    Decisions to build Confederate monuments or display the Confederate battle flag were not, of course, controversial among white Southerners. Even recently, it wasn't common for many white Americans—either in public service or as private citizens—to actively support removing Confederate imagery.

    Yet some organizations have long opposed Confederate symbols. For instance, the NAACP called an economic boycott of South Carolina from 2000 to 2015 because the Confederate battle flag flew over the State House in Columbia, alongside the state and U.S. flags.
    more at link............................
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    I don't know. Maybe you can find out for us.
    Edit: I see Bork answered you.


    Which are belied by the simple fact that plenty of black people succeed from the exact same circumstances as ones who don't.

    No, contorting facts to confirm your biased belief in boogeymen is not evidence. If it were, you could tell us all exactly how to fix it, permanently. You can't because it's unfalsifiable, and designed so expressly so the umbrage/victimhood can be endlessly perpetuated.

    Well, please do try to answer those question when you do get around to it.

    Not really. The left always finds excuses (read lies) to justify their authoritarianism.

    Really? Group therapy and yoga classes are comparable to church communities? I mean, even just in size, they obviously don't compare. Simply being around people isn't really a sense of community, is it? And considering conservatives are also likely to participate in many of the same special interest group activities, it still seems the secular are lacking in comparison. Seems you're trying to compare a group of friends with a community. I'm not sure those are the same thing.

    Oh, I presume there's some, which is why I said "don't see many", even though I'm not aware of any off hand.

    You mean by misinterpreting the data by making unjustified correlations and presumptions.

    No, I never said anything like that. I actually specified the "affect ...on present day".
    But way to show how far you will go to misrepresent others. No doubt, that extends to your handling of the "appropriate data".

    No, that's the scientific result of the very moral theory you posted, where conservatives value each moral category equally, instead of, like leftists, focusing on two to the exclusion of all others. Of course you think that's out of whack, compared to your leftist neglect of most the moral categories.

    Unlike you, I understand that sanctity/purity includes things like not exposing children to pornography, which could lead to suffering later in life.

    How that has any bearing on the differences between humans and animals is anyone's guess. I have a dog that I love very much. It licks it's own ass and I let it lick my face. All the better to workout my immune system, I figure. So you trying to take the general conservative valuing of all moral foundations as motive for why I think humans differ from animals kind of speaks to your "rational sense", aside from likely being a way to deflect from your own unsupported claim about animal personhood.

    I don't believe in any "God's chosen". God doesn't chose sides.

    Yep, definitely kidding yourself. I mean, really? Wheelchair accessibility is discrimination? Do you even hear how that sounds?

    Conflating discrimination with your lame caricature of conservative thinking only illustrates your ignorance of both. I assure you, wheelchair ramps don't discriminate against me. You do know that I can walk up a ramp too, right?

    You're little straw man is just sad. I have no problem with wheelchair access.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Something painfully obvious in near all your 600 odd posts.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I seriously doubt that the general conservative "fuck you, I'm alright Jack" attitude to life, would have cared about wheel chair accesses etc, when they were first established. I can here them, Why go to so much trouble for a minority? what about the costs?
    Which means that as usual, in your vane efforts to make excuses for Trump the Chump, you have totally and completely missed the point.....or just dishonestly avoided it.
    Again, a question that you seem afraid to answer...if the USA public actually wake up to their collective stupidity and vote this chump out, [which seems likely] what are you and your righteous friends going to do?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    As you don't know what a leftist or conservative is, you are probably safe in your own mind when posting counterfactual nonsense like that.

    But although safe from your own evaluation capability, it's still wrong: You have it backwards, if your intention was to describe actual events in the real world.

    Most of the censorship and coercion of speech that has actually occurred in the US has been by rightwing authoritarians (which is the category of the ideology of most self-described "conservatives" in the US), most of the defense of free speech in the US has been by the usual suspects - liberals, the ACLU, the people who want to deliver technical information in clear language.

    The current Republican administration, in concert with the major media feeds, has put a lot of effort and attention into regulating people's speech, especially their names for things (clauses and stuff are kind of esoteric for those guys; nouns, they can deal with) - if we ever get rid of them we're going to be facing a significant Confucian interval of rehab: https://actipedia.org/project/rectification-names
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The "above", referred to below:
    That simple fact "belies" (not the word you wanted - circumstances are not the kind of thing that is "belied") nothing. Why would you think it does?
    Nonsense. Describing a problem often does not tell one how to fix it.
    As always, they post gibberish when cornered. They lose the ability to write grammatical English. This is true even of the temporarily bewildered - the folks who normally post from a position in the real world. The permanent agitprop dwellers have no other truth.
    Anybody want to speculate on which of those words have the meanings or roles he doesn't know? I'm betting on "perpetuated", "expressly", and "unfalsifiable".
    I heard how it sounded at high volume and great length, from the Republican Party's politicians and media feeds especially, back when the Disabilities Act was being debated. The immorality of such tyrannical government impositions on small business owners and such was a very big deal to the American right wing, the "discrimination" they suffered from was a cause for the "conservatives" of the day. Guys like you were all over it.
    There is no such thing as the "scientific result" of a moral theory. (There is no such thing as "the scientific result" of a scientific theory either, but that's a bit subtle for this thread).
    There is no such thing as the "affect on" you "specified". You might have wanted "effect", but that would have meant conceding the argument - not a safe presumption.
    One does not "make" correlations. There's an odd sense in which one can "make" a presumption, although the question of timing arises - an assumption is a "made" thing partly in the sense that it is brought into existence in reaction or in address, not "pre" anything. But setting such issues aside: You seem to have no idea what presumptions were "made", or what data they led anyone to misinterpret.
    - - - -
    The point of the above? These guys aren't thinking, or arguing, or discussing. They are typing, using language not for communication of meaning but as a tool for getting an effect. They borrowed all that language from stretches of prose they know had an effect of the kind they seek. They don't care about what those words mean - only about the effect of employing them. Everything they post is, therefore, in a technical sense, bullshit. (https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on-bullshit) The appropriate response is therefore not counterargument but derision or the like - what needs countering is not argument or claim (there is none) but the evocation of an image or attitude or implied framing.

    One of their central framing members, imho, is an implication that they have an argument and know what it is - that they are in fact arguing or discussing or something like that. The emptiness of that implication is illustrated by their inability to post meaningful, grammatical, English sentences.

    That's why the above was posted.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2020
  10. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    No one has said anyone shouldn't complain. Freedom of expression works both ways, even people contradictorily lumping blacks who flag rebel flags in with racists. So yes, they would have to suck it up, but no, that does not entail keeping it to themselves. That's a false dilemma.
     
  11. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    The final version of the bill was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush. It was later amended in 2008 and signed by President George W. Bush with changes effective as of January 1, 2009.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990#Support_and_opposition
     
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Only if you put it in a context of discussing something else...

    Hmmmm you certainly have maintained a position in this thread and perhaps even in other thread where it seems you were saying that folks who were offended by the evil unpatriotic war mongering flag used by the KKK should not complain that such a flag caused them upset whereas what you really meant was although the confederate flag is evil, racist, unpatriotic, war mongering, and used by the KKK should not be banned that nevertheless folk could complain about it...so complain yes do something to address the complaints..no.....if there are so many valid complaints in specific would it not be a good idea to ban that evil racious flag used to reminisce about days when white supremacists exploited other humans in the belief that god made them specifically to be exploited by working them in hot climates where said supremacists felt for them to do such work was not in gods plan, rather than support some vague notion that to act responsibly is to claim freedom of expression is paramount and not to remove this symbol of racism, hatred and all evil they call the confederate flag, the same one that many sensible progressive decent companies have dropped in recognition of the sheer evil such flag represents, but giving decent recognition to those clearly offended and perhaps to compensate them for the countless wrongs they and the families have/ had experienced and set aside the notion that such a decent action somehow errodes freedom of expression and to act responsibly showing that compassionate consideration is extended to those who's very freedoms were indeed crushed in real terms rather than act in only a manner that professes to treat freedom of expression as sacred but all the while failing to present a reconcilatory solution when actual freedom has been utterly abused?
    Alex
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    That each President Bush could sign their names.
    Alex
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  15. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    You're just lying. Because we all know you can't quote me as saying anything of the sort. But go ahead, waste your time trying.
    The fun thing about always being honest is that I never have to worry about what I may have said in the past.
     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Well that is just ducky.

    I take the time to give you various fallacies for you to identify and thereby to feel better about yourself and you lazily dismiss them casually grouping them as lies.
    However I think my observation that I have been under the impression that your position was different somewhat to how I imagined can not be called out at all..you could try but we both know you can not and in your failure you have lost considerable ground which admittedly you had very little to start with.

    So to be clear ..folk have the right to complain if offended but rather than risk any infringement on the rights of citizens to freedom of expression you prefer to avoid action.

    A god given right I expect.

    I am surprised that you consider it somewhat of a relief that you never have to worry about what you have said in the past ..has that been a problem for you at some point?

    In any event notwithstanding your slip admission I feel you are relying upon me not going back to find where you may have been less than honest simply because you think I am too lazy to do so.
    But the point is I was not suggesting you had been dishonest so there is no need to be defensive.

    You just think freedom of expression is important and that for that reason we must ignore the complaints that I think should be addressed.

    How do you feel about the laws on defamation?
    It must be difficult to find a comfortable spot on the fence to sit out dealing with similar issues of folk getting offended, sucking it up, complaining and perhaps exercising their god given rights if defamed.
    Alex
     
  17. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Yep. You'd think that would be pretty easy for you to comprehend.

    You mean, respecting existing laws?
    Not to imply that you have any respect for laws, mine you.

    Not "relief", "fun". As in it's fun to see jackasses try to play gotcha knowing full well their ploys are useless.

    You mean your projection.

    No, I literally said:
    "Because we all know you can't quote me as saying anything of the sort. But go ahead, waste your time trying."​
    If you're too lazy to accept an open invitation to support your lie, so be it.

    I guess you missed where I was the one calling you the liar. And me giving reason why I'm so confident you are.

    You mean violate the law that protects the rights of others because they make you feel bad?
    Damn, I forgot all about the "but mah feelin's" exemption to the First Amendment.

    Defamation has to do with damage to one's reputation.
    Do you think some redneck being racist hurts the reputation of a black person? Wouldn't that be you willingly granting privilege to the views of the racist redneck?

    Seriously, you have a lot of self-examination to do.
     
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I just do not understand where they get that right. Is it one that you made up?
    Well it was more a question an expected answer I presumed would confirm that you are not interested in a mild reform to get rid of that evil flag.
    No we certainly would not want to do that given the evidence of my disrespect for laws which was what exactly?
    Hmmmm bad enough such that you do not wish to talk about it..fair enough.
    Point them out so I can join in the fun.
    Yes let's pretend it is me that has the problem...anything to help build your confidence.
    I did feel my colourful description of the flag was perhaps not something you would say and it is nice to know you would not describe that flag as I did. You wouldn't call it racist, for a start would you? But you would agree that it is used by the KKK I expect...I think you thought of it as a symbol of Southern pride or do I have that wrong as well? No matter you have presented a good case for why we can tolerate the flag even though it is a very divisive matter.
    Next time ok..and thanks for your kind invitation.
    No but I thought I would wait until you backed up your claim before I would comment.
    Finish your sentence..don't leave us hanging...or are we to drop our preferred word at the end of your sentence...I will go for "nice person".
    No I mean address the issues like racism via a flag mainly...there is other stuff but I don't think you are following the bouncing ball...it's a very bad flag that upsets folk and you think that is not as important as preserving general liberties that perhaps could be amended sensibly to provide an outcome that gave a clear message to those who hide behind some rights to walk over and abuse the rights of others...God given rights of course.
    What are you talking about?
    Are you sure about that?
    Two issues please try and separate them and make sense.
    And I thought I had the best straw persons in the business...I bet you can dig holes with your bare hands.
    Yes ..yes indeed, maybe I should review some things..any suggestions.?
    You know I respect everything you say so help me make a self improvement list. I made one but ran out of ink before getting to the important stuff.
    Alex
     
  19. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Look, I understand that you Aussies don't have any constitutionally protected freedom of speech. So maybe the idea is just completely foreign to you.

    Mild reform? You mean some people arbitrarily deciding what others can or cannot do or say? There's nothing mild about that kind of self-serving authoritarianism.

    You got a mirror handy?

    Considering how much you bring up confidence, I'm starting to suspect that your projection is more of the "therapy puppet" variety.
    You might consider substituting a sock for such self-gratification.

    Depends. I'd certainly accept whatever someone tells me it means to them. It doesn't mean much of anything to me. I'm not racist nor southern.

    Seems like you've said that before. But then...lazy.

    Your refusal to back up your own lies is more than sufficient. I can't show what ain't there, but you could show what is, if it actually were.

    Trying reading those to sentences together and see if you can't figure it out.

    What rights of others? To not be offended?
    I just do not understand where they get that right. Is it one that you made up?

    Just being sarcastic about your made up exemptions to freedom of expression.

    Not my problem if you can't use a dictionary.

    Again, a dictionary might help you.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    There's no contradiction - anyone who flies the Confederate flag of racism has lumped themselves in with racists. (The designer of the flag stated that it represented white racism and was to be flown by white supremacists so they could rally to their cause, and so it has been ever since).
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2020
    river likes this.
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    So are are saying that the only way you guys in the USA can have freedom of speech is to provide it by a constitution that isn't worth a damn if you have to rely upon it to grant said freedoms?
    Maybe this is a bit too deep for you but:
    To rely on a rule to make people behave good is no more than an oppression of a different kind.

    Australia doesn't need a constitutional clause that specifies freedom of speech. ( even though somewhere there may be some mention ) It has been an axiom of common law for a thousand years or so...
    Why do you think that is the case?
    Why do you feel citizens in the USA need to be told what they can and can not do?
    Perhaps the confederate flag waving citizens need to grow up and become the adult that you referred to else where in a thread?
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The Constitution of the US does not tell people what they can and cannot do.
    It tells them what the government can and cannot do, legitimately.
    The Constitution does not grant freedoms. It restricts the government's behavior.
    That is painfully obvious: the Republican voter - the American white "conservative" - is on average extraordinarily immature, and has been for a full generation now; the US Constitution is not to blame for that.
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Thanks... good points...now all you need to do is make sure every one knows it...
     

Share This Page