4 ms·

I'll give you my personal standard: Did they act or campaign to make things worse for their fellow man (and woman)? In other words, did they simply act in the

by csours 6y ago

I'll give you my personal standard: Did they act or campaign to make things worse for their fellow man (and woman)? In other words, did they simply act in the context of their time period, as other men in their position would, or did they specifically act to curtail the rights of others. This makes it very easy for me to condemn symbols of the Confederacy, because they specifically acted to preserve slavery. If anyone believes the Confederates did not rebel and fight specifically to preserve slavery, they should read the words of the seceding states: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... --- Taking it back to your question about Mexico: War is terrible, and flags are used in war. Flags are used after the war is over to show their solidarity with the principles of one side or the other. The flag of Mexico was primarily just a marker to say "We are Mexico" Some people associate the confederate battle flag with a spirit of rebellion, and that's understandable. But other people associate it with hatred. You don't get to choose how someone else will understand it and be affected by it. It's hard to be a grown up, but part of it is deciding how much you care about offending other people.

50ckpuppet 6y ago
offending other people should never be the standard. By your definition we should ban South Park because it offends nearly everyone, so fsck your sensitivities. The confederate flag should be banned because the kkk and other white supremacists adopted it, rebranded it as their own flag, and most importantly, no one cared to stop them. Try that with the Irish flag and see what the Irish have to say about it.
- csours 6y ago
  > "By your definition we should ban South Park because it offends nearly everyone, so fsck your sensitivities." My standard is: Did they act or campaign to make things worse for their fellow man (and woman)? Someone could make a case that South Park has done this, but it would be hard for me to take it seriously.
zeveb 6y ago
The southern states seceded to preserve slavery; slavery was and is evil and they were wrong to secede in order to preserve it. But secession was and is constitutional, given the Tenth Amendment and no constitutional provisions against secession or mandating a perpetual union; the states had a right to do it, even though it was wrong. The southern armies did not fight for slavery: it was legal in the United States before, during and after the war. They did not even fight for independence: the seceding states were legally independent as soon as their secessions took effect. Rather, they fought to defend their homes from a foreign invader. Two non-contradictory things may be true at once: secession to preserve slavery was utterly contemptible; fighting honourably in self-defense is praiseworthy. Edit: That said, given that the flag in question is so closely associated with white supremacy, it is hard to be too incensed over the ban. Of note, slavery remained legal in the United States until well after the military defeat of the Confederacy: Lee surrendered on the 9th of April; the last Confederate ship surrendered in England on the 6th of November; the 13th Amendment making most slavery unconstitutional was not ratified until the 6th of December.
- csours 6y ago
  > "Two non-contradictory things may be true at once: " Agree > "secession to preserve slavery was utterly contemptible;" Agree > "fighting honourably in self-defense is praiseworthy." Lost me here. Fighting in self defense is understandable and necessary sometimes, but in defense of what principles? Context cannot be ignored.
  - tpsssing655 6y ago
    Protecting your family for a foreign invading army, Sure some rich folks have slave, but what do i have to do with it? Shouldn't i protect my home from invaders?
    - csours 6y ago
      That's completely understandable. I'm talking about how to view the statues and flags and things that people are still defending.
markkanof 6y ago
Are you arguing that being a "grown up" means never offending other people? I'm really not trying to troll you, just not sure how to interpret your last sentence.
- csours 6y ago
  That's not what I said and that's not what I meant. Being a grown up means deciding what you want to offend people about. It means taking responsibility when you offend someone.

by csours 6y ago

50ckpuppet 6y ago

offending other people should never be the standard. By your definition we should ban South Park because it offends nearly everyone, so fsck your sensitivities. The confederate flag should be banned because the kkk and other white supremacists adopted it, rebranded it as their own flag, and most importantly, no one cared to stop them. Try that with the Irish flag and see what the Irish have to say about it.

csours 6y ago
> "By your definition we should ban South Park because it offends nearly everyone, so fsck your sensitivities." My standard is: Did they act or campaign to make things worse for their fellow man (and woman)? Someone could make a case that South Park has done this, but it would be hard for me to take it seriously.

zeveb 6y ago

The southern states seceded to preserve slavery; slavery was and is evil and they were wrong to secede in order to preserve it. But secession was and is constitutional, given the Tenth Amendment and no constitutional provisions against secession or mandating a perpetual union; the states had a right to do it, even though it was wrong. The southern armies did not fight for slavery: it was legal in the United States before, during and after the war. They did not even fight for independence: the seceding states were legally independent as soon as their secessions took effect. Rather, they fought to defend their homes from a foreign invader. Two non-contradictory things may be true at once: secession to preserve slavery was utterly contemptible; fighting honourably in self-defense is praiseworthy. Edit: That said, given that the flag in question is so closely associated with white supremacy, it is hard to be too incensed over the ban. Of note, slavery remained legal in the United States until well after the military defeat of the Confederacy: Lee surrendered on the 9th of April; the last Confederate ship surrendered in England on the 6th of November; the 13th Amendment making most slavery unconstitutional was not ratified until the 6th of December.

csours 6y ago
> "Two non-contradictory things may be true at once: " Agree > "secession to preserve slavery was utterly contemptible;" Agree > "fighting honourably in self-defense is praiseworthy." Lost me here. Fighting in self defense is understandable and necessary sometimes, but in defense of what principles? Context cannot be ignored.
- tpsssing655 6y ago
  Protecting your family for a foreign invading army, Sure some rich folks have slave, but what do i have to do with it? Shouldn't i protect my home from invaders?
  - csours 6y ago
    That's completely understandable. I'm talking about how to view the statues and flags and things that people are still defending.

markkanof 6y ago

Are you arguing that being a "grown up" means never offending other people? I'm really not trying to troll you, just not sure how to interpret your last sentence.

csours 6y ago
That's not what I said and that's not what I meant. Being a grown up means deciding what you want to offend people about. It means taking responsibility when you offend someone.