bbauska wrote:The biggest problem I have with the Confederate Battle Flag is that it is a flag of another nation that was in conflict with the United States. That is similar to flying the Nazi flag over the capital buildings in a state. It would be unheard of! I cannot support ANY Confederate flag being flown over a government building. If someone wants to fly it over his/her private property, so be it. They would have that right.

Pretty amazing how easily this can be solved since many southern states are removing this symbol. I wonder what the media will latch onto in order to not talk about the Democratic party nominees.

I think slavery was a repugnant institution.

Here's what I think is lost in all of this: do we really believe the average Confederate soldier was fighting to maintain slavery? Many did not own slaves and they were willing to give their lives so that others could own slaves?

DF, your point does not matter. There are individuals, and those have the right to do as they wish. However, a nation in direct conflict with the United States should not have their flag at any government building other than as a historical display. The state governments can honor the Confederate soldiers in that display.

You can have Archduke confirm my position concerning the US Civil War games we play. Historically, I take the Rebel side. Politically and in actuality they were not US citizens until they rejoined the US following hostilities (IMHO).

Doctor Fate wrote:Here's what I think is lost in all of this: do we really believe the average Confederate soldier was fighting to maintain slavery? Many did not own slaves and they were willing to give their lives so that others could own slaves?

I started watching Ken Burns' Civil War series on Netflix (you should watch it, it's great!) Historian Shelby Foote talks about this very issue: Most southern soldiers were in there because "the Yankees are here."

bbauska

Pretty amazing how easily this can be solved since many southern states are removing this symbol

The confederate battle flag went up in SC in 1964...
Its been 40 years .... and there have been many failed attempts to get the flag down. It hasn't been easy.
The resistance to get the flag out may have collapsed recently but the 40 years it was sustained indicates either genuine sympathy for racial inequality, or a genuine misconception about what the flag actually symbolizes.
The collapse is probably indicative of generational evolution away from the southerners who maintained segregation into the 60's. Each successive generation changing their attitudes ...

fate

Here's what I think is lost in all of this: do we really believe the average Confederate soldier was fighting to maintain slavery?

No.
But the comparison to make is with German soldiers fighting in WWII. Most were not fighting to maintain the racist policeis of the Third Reich. They were fighting for each other, and for their families and for Germany.
Germany doesn't fly the flags of the Third Reich to honor the commitment by ordinary German soldiers or civilians. It is consigned to museums.
The problem with Bbauska's attitude if one agrees with the Germans attitude to symbols from the war, is that individuals don't fly Swastikas in Germany because it indicates they sympathize with the Third Reich. And I don't think a swastika would be tolerated on a US porch would it? Yet the two symbols are equivalent in every way. Both nations beleived fervently in racial supremacy and worked to enslave and kill those they considered inferior.It only lasted a much shorter time in Germany. And there were fewer victims over the period slavery existed in the US and the Nazis period Nazis were enslaving people.

I suspect many in the US haven't really connected the flag with slavery, and racial supremacy. The issue's relevance today now makes it clear. And probably puts a nail in the coffin of revisionism over the Civil War and the romance of the "Lost Cause".

Bbauska

I wonder what the media will latch onto in order to not talk about the Democratic party nominees

.
Well they got all that crazy shit coming out of Donald Trumps mouth for starters.... And here comes Jindal and Christie!!!

To answer the question that is the title of this thread, yes, Jon Stewart is right. It was a wonderful segment.

Another myth: Confederate soldiers did not fight for slavery. About one-quarter to one-third of Confederate households owned slaves. Over half of officers who volunteered in 1861 owned slaves, only one in twelve enlisted slaves owned slaves but one in three either owned slaves or lived with a family slave owner--these numbers were higher than for the Confederacy as a whole.
http://deadconfederates.com/2011/04/28/ ... d-a-slave/

It should also be noted that in mountainous regions of the South--where slavery was uncommon-- opposition to secession was high. West Virginia seceded from seceding Virginian and East ernTennesee was a thorn in the side of the South. If they were fighting over states' rights then how come in areas where slavery was not prevalent people did not want to secede.? Slavery permeated life in areas that seceded

Here is a discussion regarding the ideology of southerners with regard to the Civil War.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... er/396482/

Doctor Fate wrote:It's a State issue. They appear to be moving--led by their non-white GOP governor and their non-white GOP Senator.

Shame it took this tragedy to do it though. And they are not really leading when it's a response to massive criticism.

What gun law would have prevented this?

One single gun law would not prevent anything. A more well-regulated and connected system would. And hey, perhaps if your idea of flagging people as mad took off, we could restrict the sale of guns to them and heavily prosecute anyone who supplies them. That may not have prevented this, but that doesn't mean it would not help prevent others.

And there it comes - if in doubt avoid the question. If that doesn't work, time for the personal digs.

No, I try to respond reasonably to unreasonable questions and you act like a jerk.

I asked a fairly simple set of questions, and you only really answered the one you wanted it, in the way you wanted.

I'll take the blame. I should know better than to get into the cesspool with you.

How classy of you.

There is no way for me to know how many racist websites there are. There could be 100. There could be 10,000. Either find the info yourself or ask a racist.

That is the honest answer you could have given ages ago (perhaps without the last sentence).

There is no way to estimate how many officers/agents would be needed. It would not be a full-time job in most of the country. I'd venture to say in most situations a local car could be sent out to assess whether further investigation is warranted. It's the kind of thing cops do ALL THE TIME.

Assess potential terrorists?

Someone in our government is going through jihadist stuff now, yes? If not, they would not catch any of them.

They don't catch all of them, though. And they are also monitoring the far right in the USA - have had to for decades.

Oh brother. "The far right" is so far right that it's left.

I don't understand, or really want to.

There are not hundreds of thousands of racist/KKK-like websites in the US. Even if there were, if spambots can be designed to hack into websites and post spam, then surely a bot can be programmed to find said websites and flag violent content.

I will take your word for it you have a clue on how much is out there.

Oh, yes, because you never resort to name-calling. That was "subtle," but name-calling nonetheless.

*cue the semi-clever denial.*[/quote]No need - you already admitted what i suggested, that you don't actually know how many sites are out there.

But as much as a webcrawler could flag content, what would it be flagging it for? What intervention (apart from the "chat"/3-day psych hold)?

Stop.

I am not designing a law enforcement program. If you want to, feel free. Otherwise, cut with your stupid questions.

Sorry. we should just let you assert whatever throwaway snark you like and not challenge it. Got it.

I will take your word for it you have a clue on what sort of IP-making tools are out there.

I work in IT. I have a bit of an idea. I can link you to about a dozen different software solutions if you want. You may have heard of TOR. Most rely on going through a VPN, which is not necessarily the best way to avoid the likes of the FBI or NSA, but then again they would be tracing online activity, and so combine with an anonymising blog platform when the author is not actually making updates and they will have a much harder time.

Your questions are idiotic and you know it.

Seriously, when you get over here next (WDC17 in Oxford?), you need to meet me as a person and we can have a pint or two. This bile is getting silly.

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:The biggest problem I have with the Confederate Battle Flag is that it is a flag of another nation that was in conflict with the United States. That is similar to flying the Nazi flag over the capital buildings in a state. It would be unheard of! I cannot support ANY Confederate flag being flown over a government building. If someone wants to fly it over his/her private property, so be it. They would have that right.

Pretty amazing how easily this can be solved since many southern states are removing this symbol. I wonder what the media will latch onto in order to not talk about the Democratic party nominees.

I think slavery was a repugnant institution.

Here's what I think is lost in all of this: do we really believe the average Confederate soldier was fighting to maintain slavery? Many did not own slaves and they were willing to give their lives so that others could own slaves?

I don't believe that the average German soldier was a Nazi supporter (the members of the Waffen SS units pretty much had to be, but your ordinary conscript, nope).

We should definitely differentiate between the sacrifice (willing or not) of soldiers in a war, and the reasons for that war. However, the problem is that the symbol of the flag - which was not simply the battle flag of the North Virginia Army, but was also used as part of the CSA's national flags from 1863, was a Naval jack, and was since used to denote opposition to civil rights - detracts from honouring the dead.

If the flag has been flying over the war memorial since the Civil War, perhaps it would be a problem to remove it. But that is not the case. the flag was moved there about 15 years ago, after having been on the Statehouse itself since 1961.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:The biggest problem I have with the Confederate Battle Flag is that it is a flag of another nation that was in conflict with the United States. That is similar to flying the Nazi flag over the capital buildings in a state. It would be unheard of! I cannot support ANY Confederate flag being flown over a government building. If someone wants to fly it over his/her private property, so be it. They would have that right.

Pretty amazing how easily this can be solved since many southern states are removing this symbol. I wonder what the media will latch onto in order to not talk about the Democratic party nominees.

I think slavery was a repugnant institution.

Here's what I think is lost in all of this: do we really believe the average Confederate soldier was fighting to maintain slavery? Many did not own slaves and they were willing to give their lives so that others could own slaves?

I don't believe that the average German soldier was a Nazi supporter (the members of the Waffen SS units pretty much had to be, but your ordinary conscript, nope).

Uh-oh! Godwin!!!

I don't believe the situations were analogous.

We should definitely differentiate between the sacrifice (willing or not) of soldiers in a war, and the reasons for that war. However, the problem is that the symbol of the flag - which was not simply the battle flag of the North Virginia Army, but was also used as part of the CSA's national flags from 1863, was a Naval jack, and was since used to denote opposition to civil rights - detracts from honouring the dead.

And, I have no problem with that.

However, it's used for a lot of other things. It was featured in the Dukes of Hazard TV show. I don't think it held much value re civil rights or slavery in that arena. It's used in wargames to depict the Confederate forces, but I don't think the intent is to oppress or denigrate.

If the flag has been flying over the war memorial since the Civil War, perhaps it would be a problem to remove it. But that is not the case. the flag was moved there about 15 years ago, after having been on the Statehouse itself since 1961.

And, I don't really give a fig. Good for the States who have taken it down.

However, any number of southern blacks are saying they don't see it as a symbol of oppression. I don't believe it belongs on government buildings, but I don't think it is on par with the Swastika.

danivon wrote:One single gun law would not prevent anything. A more well-regulated and connected system would. And hey, perhaps if your idea of flagging people as mad took off, we could restrict the sale of guns to them and heavily prosecute anyone who supplies them. That may not have prevented this, but that doesn't mean it would not help prevent others.

Interesting. Now, if I were you I would demand you design the system. That's what you do.

And, "we" do restrict the sales of guns. But, like in Newtown, when a non-mad person buys it, there's nothing that can be done.

I asked a fairly simple set of questions, and you only really answered the one you wanted it, in the way you wanted.

Maybe that's because I'm not accountable to you. If I think you're asking a jerk question, I'm free to ignore it.

I'll take the blame. I should know better than to get into the cesspool with you.

How classy of you.

Thanks!

There is no way for me to know how many racist websites there are. There could be 100. There could be 10,000. Either find the info yourself or ask a racist.

That is the honest answer you could have given ages ago (perhaps without the last sentence).

Don't ask jerk questions and not expect jerk answers.

There is no way to estimate how many officers/agents would be needed. It would not be a full-time job in most of the country. I'd venture to say in most situations a local car could be sent out to assess whether further investigation is warranted. It's the kind of thing cops do ALL THE TIME.

Assess potential terrorists?

Again, a JERK question.

No, assess the mental condition of people. You'd be surprised how often this happens.

No need - you already admitted what i suggested, that you don't actually know how many sites are out there.

Exactly, thus proving my point: you're asking jerk questions.

Sorry. we should just let you assert whatever throwaway snark you like and not challenge it. Got it.

Nothing snarky about it. You're reading 'tude that doesn't exist.

I will take your word for it you have a clue on what sort of IP-making tools are out there.

I work in IT. I have a bit of an idea. I can link you to about a dozen different software solutions if you want. You may have heard of TOR. Most rely on going through a VPN, which is not necessarily the best way to avoid the likes of the FBI or NSA, but then again they would be tracing online activity, and so combine with an anonymising blog platform when the author is not actually making updates and they will have a much harder time.

Yes, I'm sure neither the FBI or NSA have any means around these.

However, the point was more simple. Look at Dylann--he's a 10th grade drop out with no discernible skills. You think he's evading the NSA via any of the methods you describe? Let me know when you read something about that.

freeman3 wrote:Another myth: Confederate soldiers did not fight for slavery. About one-quarter to one-third of Confederate households owned slaves. Over half of officers who volunteered in 1861 owned slaves, only one in twelve enlisted slaves owned slaves but one in three either owned slaves or lived with a family slave owner--these numbers were higher than for the Confederacy as a whole.
http://deadconfederates.com/2011/04/28/ ... d-a-slave/

It should also be noted that in mountainous regions of the South--where slavery was uncommon-- opposition to secession was high. West Virginia seceded from seceding Virginian and East ernTennesee was a thorn in the side of the South. If they were fighting over states' rights then how come in areas where slavery was not prevalent people did not want to secede.? Slavery permeated life in areas that seceded

Here is a discussion regarding the ideology of southerners with regard to the Civil War.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... er/396482/

Those are official statements from the States. That does not tell us what individuals thought. Were they really ready to die for slavery? Was that the reason they charged the line at Gettysburg in the foolhardy run with Pickett? "For Slavery!"

Again, I'm dubious. From your first link:

Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

So, a bit more than 1/3 either owned slaves or lived in a slaveholding family.

Again, I don't think that buttresses your case much.

The "Dukes of Hazzard" and US Civil War games are NOT government buildings. I would expect to see them there. Apologies for using the Nazi flag. Here are some other options:

Vietnam
North Korea
Barbary Coast
Mexico
Spain
Japan
Italy

Let me simplify:
Should a government fly the flag of an enemy on it's government buildings?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:The biggest problem I have with the Confederate Battle Flag is that it is a flag of another nation that was in conflict with the United States. That is similar to flying the Nazi flag over the capital buildings in a state. It would be unheard of! I cannot support ANY Confederate flag being flown over a government building. If someone wants to fly it over his/her private property, so be it. They would have that right.

Pretty amazing how easily this can be solved since many southern states are removing this symbol. I wonder what the media will latch onto in order to not talk about the Democratic party nominees.

I think slavery was a repugnant institution.

Here's what I think is lost in all of this: do we really believe the average Confederate soldier was fighting to maintain slavery? Many did not own slaves and they were willing to give their lives so that others could own slaves?

I don't believe that the average German soldier was a Nazi supporter (the members of the Waffen SS units pretty much had to be, but your ordinary conscript, nope).

Uh-oh! Godwin!!!

I was responding to both your point and the one it was countering, and if you read very carefully, you will note that the Nazis were already mentioned by bbauska. Maybe you missed that and that's why you did not scream "Godwin" at him. Anyways, in neither case were we saying that the CSA were the Nazis.

I don't believe the situations were analogous.

Well, unfortunately for you, we don't have to take your "belief" as fact. We have our own opinions. On the question of whether the soldiers agreed with the leaders' purpose in a war, it is analogous. Especially when those soldiers are conscripts (and the South did use a draft from 1862).

As bbauska points out, there are several other conflicts where we may well want to mark the enemy dead, but not by our government flying their flag.

We should definitely differentiate between the sacrifice (willing or not) of soldiers in a war, and the reasons for that war. However, the problem is that the symbol of the flag - which was not simply the battle flag of the North Virginia Army, but was also used as part of the CSA's national flags from 1863, was a Naval jack, and was since used to denote opposition to civil rights - detracts from honouring the dead.

And, I have no problem with that.[/quote]Good, because it is the central point.

However, it's used for a lot of other things. It was featured in the Dukes of Hazard TV show. I don't think it held much value re civil rights or slavery in that arena. It's used in wargames to depict the Confederate forces, but I don't think the intent is to oppress or denigrate.

Intent is one thing, impact is another. I am fairly ambivalent about Dukes of Hazzard. When it comes to boardgames markers I have no issue whatsoever. Recently the use of The Nazi Swastika has stopped on boardgames and wargames, a major issue there being that Germany is a major market for gaming and does have a ban. And the solution is to use the Iron Cross which is actually the German military symbol that the national flag was not (so is analogous to the Battle Flag being used in rather than the Stars & Bars or the Stainless Banner).

But as I am not calling for those bans, I am not going to argue on them further.

If the flag has been flying over the war memorial since the Civil War, perhaps it would be a problem to remove it. But that is not the case. the flag was moved there about 15 years ago, after having been on the Statehouse itself since 1961.

And, I don't really give a fig. Good for the States who have taken it down.

And let us hope the rest do.

However, any number of southern blacks are saying they don't see it as a symbol of oppression. I don't believe it belongs on government buildings, but I don't think it is on par with the Swastika.

Is this "any number" likely to be anything close to the number of southern black people who do see it as a symbol of oppression?

Is it on a par with the Nazi Swastika? No. But it is on a continuum. And in the US even the Swastika is not banned.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, a bit more than 1/3 either owned slaves or lived in a slaveholding family.

Again, I don't think that buttresses your case much.

The Confederacy had a draft. Which means the reason they fought was that the government made them.

Also, for lower class whites, there would have been a natural concern for their economic security if slavery was abolished, releasing large numbers of black workers into the wage market.

Doctor Fate wrote:However, the point was more simple. Look at Dylann--he's a 10th grade drop out with no discernible skills. You think he's evading the NSA via any of the methods you describe? Let me know when you read something about that.

Most work simply by downloading software. Which most kids who play PC games have the necessary "skills" for, even dropouts.

Indeed I expect a fair number of kids who fail at school are much more tech savvy than the average adult.