What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

trixR4kids said:
Well Zimmerman self identifies as white as far as I know. As far as black on black or black on white violence, for some reason those actually get prosecuted and the one the media focuses on (according to you) in a lot of cases doesn't. And there's been a lot of evidence of that over the past year or so (and well beyond that).
Click to expand...
This is off the discussion a bit, but your post caused me to think of it again. What about people who self-identify with a race or sex not their own? Can it still be considered a "hate" crime, a racially motivated crime, if they become a victim? Does it go to the identity (whatever that now means) of the victim, the intent of the aggressor, or some strange combination of both?
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

I think a lot of the issues with how the flag is portrayed in different lights can start all the way back to how it's taught in schools. The point I always remember being brought up was "brother vs brother" "father vs son" "uncle vs uncle". It rarely seems the point gets across that these were two separate countries fighting each other. It was British fighting British in the Revolutionary War, but no one is clinging onto their Union Jacks to celebrate that.

Whenever the Koreas unite, I sure hope that there won't be any in the North holding onto their flat due to "heritage." Brothers fought brothers in the 50s and if a war ends up being the reason they come together they will be fighting again too, albeit with some more distant relatives due to the passage of time. But what will that flag represent? Not heritage, it will represent one of the most tyrannical dictatorships in the history of the planet.

"Heritage, not hate." What heritage? There's only four years worth of births where people could be Confederate citizens rather than Union. Unless you're celebrating your great great great granpappy being born in a republic that lasted four years, all you're doing with that flag is celebrating relatives who were traitorous and racist, or supporting a nation that was traitorous, racist, and wanted to use black people as property.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

Kepler said:
Being there is the best way to build evidence, though of course when the there is big sometimes you can grab only one part of the elephant.

Evaluating live blogging is always pure guesswork. So, for instance, I read some really legit-sounding blogging in the thick of Fukushima, and the revolt against Mubarak, and again during Euromaidan. Were they telling the truth? Did they have enough of a grasp on the big picture to be telling truths that mattered to the whole truth? That comes down to trust earned over time, and with one-off events like Ferguson or Baltimore there's just not much time for a source to demonstrate their level of honesty or access.

"Alternate" media outlets have the same problems as the mainstream -- they may be co-opted (or wholly owned by one of the parties), they may be incompetent, or they may only be "independent" in the sense that they are pushing their own agenda which, while not allied with either party to the fracas, has nothing to do with the truth either. Sites like Prison Planet for example seem to glory in just saying the opposite of whatever the mainstream is reporting, since their rice bowl is Conspiracy, and if there's a Conspiracy then obviously the media has to be lying.
Click to expand...

There's always going to be skepticism when it comes to commentary, which is pretty much what "news" has reverted to, including producers deciding what is or isn't "news" (although that last point has been happening forever). If you're following a marching group or filming a rally live, meaning no chance at edit, unless there is a cut to another camera or an "equipment malfunction" like what recently was claimed to have happened with 9/11 coverage, it's pretty tough to lie about that one.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

Spartanforlife4 said:
I think a lot of the issues with how the flag is portrayed in different lights can start all the way back to how it's taught in schools. The point I always remember being brought up was "brother vs brother" "father vs son" "uncle vs uncle". It rarely seems the point gets across that these were two separate countries fighting each other. It was British fighting British in the Revolutionary War, but no one is clinging onto their Union Jacks to celebrate that.

Whenever the Koreas unite, I sure hope that there won't be any in the North holding onto their flat due to "heritage." Brothers fought brothers in the 50s and if a war ends up being the reason they come together they will be fighting again too, albeit with some more distant relatives due to the passage of time. But what will that flag represent? Not heritage, it will represent one of the most tyrannical dictatorships in the history of the planet.

"Heritage, not hate." What heritage? There's only four years worth of births where people could be Confederate citizens rather than Union. Unless you're celebrating your great great great granpappy being born in a republic that lasted four years, all you're doing with that flag is celebrating relatives who were traitorous and racist, or supporting a nation that was traitorous, racist, and wanted to use black people as property.
Click to expand...

And yet, some people just see the flag as a few diagonal lines with a bunch of stars. Going on and on about racism, when what I just described is all some people see, makes the person making said racial argument a racist.

On the other side of the coin, evolution is perfectly natural. There are times when states see different things as ideal, and want to change their banner to reflect that.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

SJHovey said:
This is off the discussion a bit, but your post caused me to think of it again. What about people who self-identify with a race or sex not their own? Can it still be considered a "hate" crime, a racially motivated crime, if they become a victim? Does it go to the identity (whatever that now means) of the victim, the intent of the aggressor, or some strange combination of both?
Click to expand...

I think it's about the aggressor. If 3 x kids jump a guy in a dark alley and beat him because he's y, and in the light of day it turns out he's x, that's still a hate crime. They're just racist and stupid.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

FlagDUDE08 said:
And yet, some people just see the flag as a few diagonal lines with a bunch of stars. Going on and on about racism, when what I just described is all some people see, makes the person making said racial argument a racist.
Click to expand...
You have to be trolling.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

ShirtlessBob said:
Warner Bros. to halt production on Dukes of Hazzard merch featuring Confederate flag
Click to expand...

It's going to be really interesting to see where this ends up. The obvious parallel is that a swastika display in Germany can get you 3 years in prison, and it's easy to understand why. There's no logical defense for displaying either flag.
Now, I'm sympathetic to arguments that Huckleberry Finn should be allowed in Middle School libraries because it does have value as a unique piece of literature and even as a lesson in how society and language change over time. And in general I'm sympathetic to individual freedoms being upheld. But is there any actual reason a person could give that displaying a certain flag is a personal freedom with any value or positive consequences? Why not just ban them completely? Well...
The massacre at Wounded Knee was a horribly unjust military action. But should the 7th Cavalry be disbanded and it's paraphernalia banned under penalty of law? There's an argument to be honest about our history.
And if the confederate flag is outright banned, can it still be printed in textbooks? I think it should be, I'm hesitant to eradicate the disagreeable bits of our history. So where do you draw the line between hateful provocation and history lesson?
edit: I think so far, so good. The market is making demands and suppliers are responding in their own best interests (Target, WalMart, Amazon, Ebay, Warner Bros.) Perhaps there's no need for a new federal law. Maybe it'll go the way of the n-word, just go ahead and wear that old Confederate t-shirt Bubba, if you want to get the s*** kicked out of you.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

trixR4kids said:
You have to be trolling.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It's the moral of the South Park episode "Chef Goes Nanners", where they debate changing the flag of the town of South Park, which depicts four person-like bubble figures hanging a fifth person-like bubble figure. It just so happens that the one with the noose is coloured all black, and the other four are coloured all white.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

geezer said:
It's going to be really interesting to see where this ends up. The obvious parallel is that a swastika display in Germany can get you 3 years in prison, and it's easy to understand why. There's no logical defense for displaying either flag.
Now, I'm sympathetic to arguments that Huckleberry Finn should be allowed in Middle School libraries because it does have value as a unique piece of literature and even as a lesson in how society and language change over time. And in general I'm sympathetic to individual freedoms being upheld. But is there any actual reason a person could give that displaying a certain flag is a personal freedom with any value or positive consequences? Why not just ban them completely? Well...
The massacre at Wounded Knee was a horribly unjust military action. But should the 7th Cavalry be disbanded and it's paraphernalia banned under penalty of law? There's an argument to be honest about our history.
And if the confederate flag is outright banned, can it still be printed in textbooks? I think it should be, I'm hesitant to eradicate the disagreeable bits of our history. So where do you draw the line between hateful provocation and history lesson?
edit: I think so far, so good. The market is making demands and suppliers are responding in their own best interests (Target, WalMart, Amazon, Ebay, Warner Bros.) Perhaps there's no need for a new federal law. Maybe it'll go the way of the n-word, just go ahead and wear that old Confederate t-shirt Bubba, if you want to get the s*** kicked out of you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the hell with that awkward, antiquated First Amendment stuff.:rolleyes:
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

FlagDUDE08 said:
Not at all. It's the moral of the South Park episode "Chef Goes Nanners", where they debate changing the flag of the town of South Park, which depicts four person-like bubble figures hanging a fifth person-like bubble figure. It just so happens that the one with the noose is coloured all black, and the other four are coloured all white.
Click to expand...

Yeah I've seen it, that doesn't make your argument any less silly. The nazi symbol by itself doesn't really mean anything but we all know what it represents.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

Criminalizing private political speech is not the way to go, and a person displaying the confederate flag is an act of private political speech. Paradoxically, as it is withdrawn from the public space its private display becomes that much more protected.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

trixR4kids said:
Yeah I've seen it, that doesn't make your argument any less silly.
Click to expand...

It does shine a different light onto the discussion. How do you explain this to someone that's unfamiliar with the history of the United States prior to 1865?
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

trixR4kids said:
Yeah I've seen it, that doesn't make your argument any less silly. The nazi symbol by itself doesn't really mean anything but we all know what it represents.
Click to expand...

The swatzika is also dependent upon context. It was once a widely used symbol for unity, purity, or something like that, very popular in the Middle East and into India. There are churches built prior to the 1930s that have them embedded into the stone work that have absolutely no Nazi reference to them at all. The Catholic church built in St. Cloud has them, it was built around 1900. Tough break for them, and a spectacle for all incoming freshmen to check out.
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

St. Clown said:
The swatzika is also dependent upon context. It was once a widely used symbol for unity, purity, or something like that, very popular in the Middle East and into India. There are churches built prior to the 1930s that have them embedded into the stone work that have absolutely no Nazi reference to them at all. The Catholic church built in St. Cloud has them, it was built around 1900. Tough break for them, and a spectacle for all incoming freshmen to check out.
Click to expand...

It's not limited to symbols, either. Listening to talk radio one day, a caller had asked about whether or not we can still use the classic definitions of the words "patriot" and "freedom" because of the context of their use in acts of Congress that promote the exact opposite. You could also consider the term "liberal", which comes from the word "liberty", yet the actions of people presently associated with said party are doing quite a bit that does NOT promote true liberty. Some in the GOP and Libertarians consider themselves "classic liberals", because they believe in liberty for all.
 
St. Clown said:
The swatzika is also dependent upon context. It was once a widely used symbol for unity, purity, or something like that, very popular in the Middle East and into India. There are churches built prior to the 1930s that have them embedded into the stone work that have absolutely no Nazi reference to them at all. The Catholic church built in St. Cloud has them, it was built around 1900. Tough break for them, and a spectacle for all incoming freshmen to check out.
Click to expand...

There was a comedian with a bit about that. Went something like:

"My friend and I were out on the town one night when he said we should both go get tattoos. He was so excited, but I've always been freaked out tattoos, like that sh1t is permanent! Like, what if sometime down the road, some gang starts using the San Antonio Spurs logo and starts going on killing sprees. So, here we are, 12 years later, and my friend still has the tattoo of his favorite band, ISIS."
 
Re: Nice Planet IX: Oh that's just GREAT...

FlagDUDE08 said:
IYou could also consider the term "liberal", which comes from the word "liberty", yet the actions of people presently associated with said party are doing quite a bit that does NOT promote true liberty.
Click to expand...

You could also consider the term "conservative," which comes from the word "conserve," yet the action of people presently associated with said party are doing quite a bit that is radically utopian.

The ancients who used the swastika are SOL for a bit, but they'll have their day again. Napolean had a thing for bees, so for a while bees were bad. Now, to the extent that bees have any political association at all, it's with Utah. In 300 years swastikas will have lost their Nazi association for everybody but historians, and this won't freak people out anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top