5 ms·

> Confederate flags aren't national flags That's a really poignant statement. I genuinely believe that some people consider the Confederate flag a symbol of t

> Confederate flags aren't national flags That's a really poignant statement. I genuinely believe that some people consider the Confederate flag a symbol of the true United States, which was betrayed by the North. And while they lost the civil war, they were still in the right. For these people, the Confederate flag is a symbol of resistance to an oppressive nation state, and flying it is no more "racist" than it would be for someone to fly the flag of Tibet. And obviously, some other people associate the Confederate flag with institutional slavery. That's why I think we need to discuss the fact that these policies tacitly involve choices about: (a) Which groups can and cannot be offended. (b) Given the large variety of associations that different people can have regarding a particular symbol, which of those many associations are given primacy?

maxerickson 6y ago
Losers gonna loser. Also, you miss my point. While you might expect different rules for national flags, you wouldn't apply those rules to the flags of a defunct uprising. Even if some people have some beliefs about what the defunct uprising was.
watwut 6y ago
I don't think there is any reasonable interpretation of history in which South was betrayed by the North. You might claim that they should have been allowed to leave the union, you might make statements on which way territories should have gone, but it is really hard to see betrayal there. Second, actual breaking point between the states at the time was slavery. The "states right" in question was the one that allowed or disallowed slavery on new territories.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  > I don't think there is any reasonable interpretation of history in which South was betrayed by the North. You may be right. It's likely that you know more of that war's history than I do. For the sake of the larger discussion, however, let me ask: Suppose that a group takes offense at some symbol, but it's based on a dubious understanding of historical fact. I'm curious if Twitch's underlying reasoning would consider that to disqualify the viewpoint of those who feel offended by the display of the symbol.
  - watwut 6y ago
    I have no idea, but I also have no idea why you would expect me to have answer that. I am not even sure what disqualify the viewpoint is. And I also think that trying to frame all these conflicts solely through lens of "offense at some symbol" is reductive. It is popular and easy way to talk about all that.
    - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
      > I have no idea, but I also have no idea why you would expect me to have answer that. I apologize for being confusing. I wasn't trying to imply that you in particular should answer that question. I should have written something like, "In the greater context of trying to see if Twitch's tacit reasoning is logically consistent, I'm also curious how they'd deal with ...". > I am not even sure what disqualify the viewpoint is. Sorry again for being unclear. Some background, if you're interested: I'm working on the assumption that there are myriad things in our world that different people find offensive. There's (almost?) no ethical position on which 100% of humans agree. When companies pick which particular issues on which they'll take public positions, they're implying a few things: (1) That of all the issues that people have gripes with in the world, this issue is more important to the company than any of the issues on which they're not taking a position. (2) The people who agree with their position are right, and those who disagree with their position are wrong. To whit, when Twitch disallows showing the Confederate flag, I would say this disqualifies the viewpoint that it's a symbol primarily regarding states' rights. Sorry if "disqualify the viewpoint" isn't the best term. >And I also think that trying to frame all these conflicts solely through lens of "offense at some symbol" is reductive. I didn't mean to be reductive. My larger goal is to understand the implicit reasoning behind companies taking stances like this, and deciding at least for myself if those stances are internally consistent. When I talk about "taking offense at some symbol", it's one of my straw-man theories regarding the company's justification for proscribing a certain kind of speech on their platform. And TBH, what I truly suspect is that companies just try to accommodate whatever public sentiment / outrage is currently in vogue, and make public statements rationalizing that position rather than being honest about the arbitrariness of their posturing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Ancapistani 6y ago
> For these people, the Confederate flag is a symbol of resistance to an oppressive nation state, and flying it is no more "racist" than it would be for someone to fly the flag of Tibet. > And obviously, some other people associate the Confederate flag with institutional slavery. As someone who considers themselves squarely in the first group, but who is cognizant of others’ views and therefore choose alternate symbols, I feel compelled to point out that there is significant overlap. They are far from a “union set” (a pun!) but there are actual racists who use that flag. I’m just happy that the actual first flag of the Confederacy is largely unmarred in popular culture, along with the Bonnie Blue

maxerickson 6y ago

Losers gonna loser. Also, you miss my point. While you might expect different rules for national flags, you wouldn't apply those rules to the flags of a defunct uprising. Even if some people have some beliefs about what the defunct uprising was.

watwut 6y ago

I don't think there is any reasonable interpretation of history in which South was betrayed by the North. You might claim that they should have been allowed to leave the union, you might make statements on which way territories should have gone, but it is really hard to see betrayal there. Second, actual breaking point between the states at the time was slavery. The "states right" in question was the one that allowed or disallowed slavery on new territories.

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
> I don't think there is any reasonable interpretation of history in which South was betrayed by the North. You may be right. It's likely that you know more of that war's history than I do. For the sake of the larger discussion, however, let me ask: Suppose that a group takes offense at some symbol, but it's based on a dubious understanding of historical fact. I'm curious if Twitch's underlying reasoning would consider that to disqualify the viewpoint of those who feel offended by the display of the symbol.
- watwut 6y ago
  I have no idea, but I also have no idea why you would expect me to have answer that. I am not even sure what disqualify the viewpoint is. And I also think that trying to frame all these conflicts solely through lens of "offense at some symbol" is reductive. It is popular and easy way to talk about all that.
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    > I have no idea, but I also have no idea why you would expect me to have answer that. I apologize for being confusing. I wasn't trying to imply that you in particular should answer that question. I should have written something like, "In the greater context of trying to see if Twitch's tacit reasoning is logically consistent, I'm also curious how they'd deal with ...". > I am not even sure what disqualify the viewpoint is. Sorry again for being unclear. Some background, if you're interested: I'm working on the assumption that there are myriad things in our world that different people find offensive. There's (almost?) no ethical position on which 100% of humans agree. When companies pick which particular issues on which they'll take public positions, they're implying a few things: (1) That of all the issues that people have gripes with in the world, this issue is more important to the company than any of the issues on which they're not taking a position. (2) The people who agree with their position are right, and those who disagree with their position are wrong. To whit, when Twitch disallows showing the Confederate flag, I would say this disqualifies the viewpoint that it's a symbol primarily regarding states' rights. Sorry if "disqualify the viewpoint" isn't the best term. >And I also think that trying to frame all these conflicts solely through lens of "offense at some symbol" is reductive. I didn't mean to be reductive. My larger goal is to understand the implicit reasoning behind companies taking stances like this, and deciding at least for myself if those stances are internally consistent. When I talk about "taking offense at some symbol", it's one of my straw-man theories regarding the company's justification for proscribing a certain kind of speech on their platform. And TBH, what I truly suspect is that companies just try to accommodate whatever public sentiment / outrage is currently in vogue, and make public statements rationalizing that position rather than being honest about the arbitrariness of their posturing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Ancapistani 6y ago

> For these people, the Confederate flag is a symbol of resistance to an oppressive nation state, and flying it is no more "racist" than it would be for someone to fly the flag of Tibet. > And obviously, some other people associate the Confederate flag with institutional slavery. As someone who considers themselves squarely in the first group, but who is cognizant of others’ views and therefore choose alternate symbols, I feel compelled to point out that there is significant overlap. They are far from a “union set” (a pun!) but there are actual racists who use that flag. I’m just happy that the actual first flag of the Confederacy is largely unmarred in popular culture, along with the Bonnie Blue