4 ms·

The scariest thing is how fast sweeping and unanimous these acts of compliance are. It's like these companies just woke up suddenly, had a conference call and

The scariest thing is how fast sweeping and unanimous these acts of compliance are. It's like these companies just woke up suddenly, had a conference call and without a hint of discussion, analysis or feedback started enforcing moral revisionism. It reeks of dishonest, cheap PR. What's next on the agenda? The saddest part is that this has totally taken over the discussion of shootings in North Carolina. US is unique in that 9 people gunned down in cold blood somehow turns into a discussion about a flag?

onewaystreet 11y ago
Because gun control is pretty much dead in the US. If 20 children being killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting wasn't enough to pass new legislation, 9 adults certainly wouldn't be. The flag has become an issue so politicians can be seen "doing something."
- brobinson 11y ago
  Sounds like an instance of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
- MBCook 11y ago
  Yeah. No need to discus gun control, the issue with SC is clearly racism. And how do we get rid of racism? Remove the symbol. We'll get rid of the symbol and the racism will be fixed. We took action! We did something! It's solved! Time to move on. What's the point in discussing complicated issues of housing development or law enforcement and making changes that might not have a positive and noticeable effect for a generation or two? It's good we did something now. Now it's solved.
  - mladenkovacevic 11y ago
    This one's a little different still. What you're describing is small-scale political misdirection and shortsightedness. Politicians always react in this nonsensical way whether motivated by powerful lobby groups or personal advancement. Here we also have large corporations that seemingly have no horse in this race other than some cheap, blatantly dishonest PR participating in this moral misdirection on a grand scale. For what reason? I doubt Apple's comical over-reaching in banning of these games is worth the liberal brownie points. Does this maybe have something to with using the confederate flag controversy to distract people from the Trans Pacific Partnership bill which is being rammed through without any significant challenges as we speak?
    - MBCook 11y ago
      Yeah, that comment isn't meant to apply to Apple, it was just a response/agreement with onewaystreet. I know this kind of thing always happens, but I was surprised how fast 'everyone' latched onto the flag as the core issue this time that will solve everything.
      - justizin 11y ago
        It won't solve everything, but it's about damned time it stopped being socially acceptable. The flag was re-raised in response to the civil rights movement. It's not the core issue, but I think it would be silly to say, in post-WWII Germany, that simply taking down nazi symbols won't stop people from thinking like nazis.
        MBCook 11y ago
        I agree completely, I'm glad it's happening. I was surprised they were doing it in the first place. It's just too bad that's probably the only change that will come of this.
        Nadya 11y ago
        A self-described anarchist that supports censorship from a governing body (not necessarily government body). Seems contradictory to an anarchists' ideals.
- justizin 11y ago
  > The flag has become an issue so politicians can be seen "doing something." I think that's a little more cynical than need be. Most of the politicians who are doing anything about the flag are Republicans and they are doing it despite the fact that it is upsetting some of their base, in a rare show of basic decency. The retailers who stopped selling merchandise are saying that they don't want to make money selling racist memorabilia. Apple is more or less saying that as well - though they could potentially reverse their opinion on this singular case. These decisions are made by relatively low-level employees following unwritten guidelines. I see nothing wrong with a bunch of Apple employees waking up one day, coming into work, and receiving an announcement that, "We're getting rid of the confederate flag."
  - shaftoe 11y ago
    Can one ever be cynical enough when politicians are involved?
WorldWideWayne 11y ago
Like you, I tend to think that they simply want to glom their name onto another piece of highly visible controversy so that they can get more free advertising. That's because I am convinced that huge corporations actually don't give a shit about slavery at home, especially when they fully support it in their Chinese slave factories. Who thinks Apple would stick their neck out to do something that they "care" about if the public wasn't 100% on-board already?
justizin 11y ago
>It's like these companies just woke up suddenly What companies? > had a conference call You mean, watched/read the same news in the same country? > US is unique in that 9 people gunned down in cold blood somehow turns into a discussion about a flag? The guy who shot them had pretty strong feelings about the flag, and a racist manifesto. US is unique in that actual state and city governments (SF flew a confederate flag at civic center plaza in the 60s), in response to the civil rights movement, revived the symbol of a civil war in which the substantive disagreement was whether or not human beings are property.

onewaystreet 11y ago

Because gun control is pretty much dead in the US. If 20 children being killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting wasn't enough to pass new legislation, 9 adults certainly wouldn't be. The flag has become an issue so politicians can be seen "doing something."

brobinson 11y ago
Sounds like an instance of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
MBCook 11y ago
Yeah. No need to discus gun control, the issue with SC is clearly racism. And how do we get rid of racism? Remove the symbol. We'll get rid of the symbol and the racism will be fixed. We took action! We did something! It's solved! Time to move on. What's the point in discussing complicated issues of housing development or law enforcement and making changes that might not have a positive and noticeable effect for a generation or two? It's good we did something now. Now it's solved.
- mladenkovacevic 11y ago
  This one's a little different still. What you're describing is small-scale political misdirection and shortsightedness. Politicians always react in this nonsensical way whether motivated by powerful lobby groups or personal advancement. Here we also have large corporations that seemingly have no horse in this race other than some cheap, blatantly dishonest PR participating in this moral misdirection on a grand scale. For what reason? I doubt Apple's comical over-reaching in banning of these games is worth the liberal brownie points. Does this maybe have something to with using the confederate flag controversy to distract people from the Trans Pacific Partnership bill which is being rammed through without any significant challenges as we speak?
  - MBCook 11y ago
    Yeah, that comment isn't meant to apply to Apple, it was just a response/agreement with onewaystreet. I know this kind of thing always happens, but I was surprised how fast 'everyone' latched onto the flag as the core issue this time that will solve everything.
    - justizin 11y ago
      It won't solve everything, but it's about damned time it stopped being socially acceptable. The flag was re-raised in response to the civil rights movement. It's not the core issue, but I think it would be silly to say, in post-WWII Germany, that simply taking down nazi symbols won't stop people from thinking like nazis.
      - MBCook 11y ago
        I agree completely, I'm glad it's happening. I was surprised they were doing it in the first place. It's just too bad that's probably the only change that will come of this.
      - Nadya 11y ago
        A self-described anarchist that supports censorship from a governing body (not necessarily government body). Seems contradictory to an anarchists' ideals.
justizin 11y ago
> The flag has become an issue so politicians can be seen "doing something." I think that's a little more cynical than need be. Most of the politicians who are doing anything about the flag are Republicans and they are doing it despite the fact that it is upsetting some of their base, in a rare show of basic decency. The retailers who stopped selling merchandise are saying that they don't want to make money selling racist memorabilia. Apple is more or less saying that as well - though they could potentially reverse their opinion on this singular case. These decisions are made by relatively low-level employees following unwritten guidelines. I see nothing wrong with a bunch of Apple employees waking up one day, coming into work, and receiving an announcement that, "We're getting rid of the confederate flag."
- shaftoe 11y ago
  Can one ever be cynical enough when politicians are involved?

WorldWideWayne 11y ago

Like you, I tend to think that they simply want to glom their name onto another piece of highly visible controversy so that they can get more free advertising. That's because I am convinced that huge corporations actually don't give a shit about slavery at home, especially when they fully support it in their Chinese slave factories. Who thinks Apple would stick their neck out to do something that they "care" about if the public wasn't 100% on-board already?

justizin 11y ago

>It's like these companies just woke up suddenly What companies? > had a conference call You mean, watched/read the same news in the same country? > US is unique in that 9 people gunned down in cold blood somehow turns into a discussion about a flag? The guy who shot them had pretty strong feelings about the flag, and a racist manifesto. US is unique in that actual state and city governments (SF flew a confederate flag at civic center plaza in the 60s), in response to the civil rights movement, revived the symbol of a civil war in which the substantive disagreement was whether or not human beings are property.