Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Confederate Heritage

1192022242532

Posts

  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Limp moose wrote: »
    Limp moose wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The Confederate flag flew over a country that was established for the purpose of perpetuating slavery. It existed for four years, all four years of which were spent doing one thing: fighting a war to protect slavery. The fucking flag is synonymous with the enslavement of black people in the U.S. It doesn't mean anything else because there's nothing else there for it to mean. There is no conceivable thing it could represent other than that, much like the Nazi flag, and if you're flying it and you're not aware of that, you're a goddamn gibbering retard, and if you're flying it and you are aware of that, you're a fucking racist asshole.

    To you. And most people educated in the north.

    To them Not so much. I know black southerners who fly that flag. It does mean something else to them.

    That means that they're ignorant to what it means. What's so difficult about this?

    Read my earlier post about education and upbringing and see why calling them ignorant is incorrect.
    Calling them ignorant is correct. Calling them uneducated may not be.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So you still swear allegiance to the Queen? Since, you know, the US broke from England "illegally" and declared its independence from its ruling country.
    America is a land of traitors and invaders. Doesn't make further treason and invasion right.

    "So did you!" is not valid.
    True, but disparaging a country that attempted to found itself on the same principles as the country it was breaking from is also not right, it's hypocrisy.
    I don't think America attempted to found itself on the sole principle of "slavery is the most awesome thing ever, and we want to keep it forever!"
    Neither did the south.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • thisisntwallythisisntwally Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So you still swear allegiance to the Queen? Since, you know, the US broke from England "illegally" and declared its independence from its ruling country.

    America is a land of traitors and invaders. Doesn't make further treason and invasion right.

    "So did you!" is not valid.

    also, as mentioned, we had no representation. and had signed on to no 'constitution' saying we would be part of the british empire and subject to its rule. Whereas the south was in a different situation.

    summary: All your states are belong to US

    #someshit
  • Limp mooseLimp moose Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So you still swear allegiance to the Queen? Since, you know, the US broke from England "illegally" and declared its independence from its ruling country.
    America is a land of traitors and invaders. Doesn't make further treason and invasion right.

    "So did you!" is not valid.
    True, but disparaging a country that attempted to found itself on the same principles as the country it was breaking from is also not right, it's hypocrisy.
    I don't think America attempted to found itself on the sole principle of "slavery is the most awesome thing ever, and we want to keep it forever!"

    Actually many authors of the constitution owned slaves and thought only white land owning males should vote. I am sure they would be quite upset with the state of our voting laws today.

  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Limp moose wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So you still swear allegiance to the Queen? Since, you know, the US broke from England "illegally" and declared its independence from its ruling country.
    America is a land of traitors and invaders. Doesn't make further treason and invasion right.

    "So did you!" is not valid.
    True, but disparaging a country that attempted to found itself on the same principles as the country it was breaking from is also not right, it's hypocrisy.
    I don't think America attempted to found itself on the sole principle of "slavery is the most awesome thing ever, and we want to keep it forever!"

    Actually many authors of the constitution owned slaves and thought only white land owning males should vote. I am sure they would be quite upset with the state of our voting laws today.

    Your statement is not mutually exclusive to Thanatos'.

    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited February 2009
    Uh, actually, yes, exactly. It was seen as the north saying "you will now abide by our rules with no say in the matter, no matter how it will affect you."

    There is this cool thing called the marketplace of ideas which people in democracies are expected to compete in.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    True, but disparaging a country that attempted to found itself on the same principles as the country it was breaking from is also not right, it's hypocrisy.

    I don't know why people who defend the Confederacy are seen as racist assholes at all!

    Also being a failure tends to inform later perspective on a rebellion. Western Massachusetts is not a politically independent unit just because of Shays Rebellion, Pennsylvania doesn't have its own little free Whiskey principality in the middle of it and there isn't a sovereign Aryan Nation city-state at Ruby Ridge.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So you still swear allegiance to the Queen? Since, you know, the US broke from England "illegally" and declared its independence from its ruling country.
    America is a land of traitors and invaders. Doesn't make further treason and invasion right.

    "So did you!" is not valid.
    True, but disparaging a country that attempted to found itself on the same principles as the country it was breaking from is also not right, it's hypocrisy.
    I don't think America attempted to found itself on the sole principle of "slavery is the most awesome thing ever, and we want to keep it forever!"
    Neither did the south.

    Yeah, it pretty much did. Sure, there were other principles, but "we neeeeed to own black people" was the primary one.

  • Limp mooseLimp moose Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Limp moose wrote: »
    Limp moose wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The Confederate flag flew over a country that was established for the purpose of perpetuating slavery. It existed for four years, all four years of which were spent doing one thing: fighting a war to protect slavery. The fucking flag is synonymous with the enslavement of black people in the U.S. It doesn't mean anything else because there's nothing else there for it to mean. There is no conceivable thing it could represent other than that, much like the Nazi flag, and if you're flying it and you're not aware of that, you're a goddamn gibbering retard, and if you're flying it and you are aware of that, you're a fucking racist asshole.

    To you. And most people educated in the north.

    To them Not so much. I know black southerners who fly that flag. It does mean something else to them.

    That means that they're ignorant to what it means. What's so difficult about this?

    Read my earlier post about education and upbringing and see why calling them ignorant is incorrect.

    Bullshit. I've lived in Georgia for most of my life. Ignorance, no matter why, is not a fucking excuse.

    I am not saying it is an excuse I am saying they don't view it as racist or inflammatory. Just because their view differs from yours is a free pass to call them ignorant.

    While I do agree it is racist i am sort of playing devils advocate here.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Limp moose wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    So you still swear allegiance to the Queen? Since, you know, the US broke from England "illegally" and declared its independence from its ruling country.
    America is a land of traitors and invaders. Doesn't make further treason and invasion right.

    "So did you!" is not valid.
    True, but disparaging a country that attempted to found itself on the same principles as the country it was breaking from is also not right, it's hypocrisy.
    I don't think America attempted to found itself on the sole principle of "slavery is the most awesome thing ever, and we want to keep it forever!"
    Actually many authors of the constitution owned slaves and thought only white land owning males should vote. I am sure they would be quite upset with the state of our voting laws today.
    Yes. This is true. Thomas Jefferson was a huge douchebag. You're not going to get any disagreement out of me. It does not, however, invalidate my previous statement.

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Uh, actually, yes, exactly. It was seen as the north saying "you will now abide by our rules with no say in the matter, no matter how it will affect you."

    There is this cool thing called the marketplace of ideas which people in democracies are expected to compete in.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I don't think America attempted to found itself on the sole principle of "slavery is the most awesome thing ever, and we want to keep it forever!"
    Neither did the south.
    What are these other reasons, and who was talking about them at the time?

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Neither did the south.

    Yes. It did.
    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    You keep saying that and its still wrong. They were being represented, they just didn't like the outcome.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Uh, actually, yes, exactly. It was seen as the north saying "you will now abide by our rules with no say in the matter, no matter how it will affect you."

    There is this cool thing called the marketplace of ideas which people in democracies are expected to compete in.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    And how does that make it okay again?

  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I don't think America attempted to found itself on the sole principle of "slavery is the most awesome thing ever, and we want to keep it forever!"
    Neither did the south.

    You keep saying this and have yet to demonstrate it.

  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Guys why you gotta be such oppressive northerners all the time.

    Keepin' the white southerner down.

    Gawsh.

    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Stop trying to equate the American Revolution with southern secession. The American colonists had no representation in parliament but paid taxes, meaning they had all the responsibilities of British citizenship but none of the benefits. The southern states, however, were extremely influential in Congress. The moment their relative power began to shift, however, they flipped the fuck out. The Civil War was not a case of the southerners' rights being violated; it was the South taking their ball and going home. And then attacking federal soldiers.

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Uh, actually, yes, exactly. It was seen as the north saying "you will now abide by our rules with no say in the matter, no matter how it will affect you."

    There is this cool thing called the marketplace of ideas which people in democracies are expected to compete in.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    And how does that make it okay again?
    Because it's a human right to not be oppressed?

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2009
    Limp moose wrote: »
    I am not saying it is an excuse I am saying they don't view it as racist or inflammatory. Just because their view differs from yours is a free pass to call them ignorant.

    While I do agree it is racist i am sort of playing devils advocate here.

    It's so annoying when people do that because nobody can ever do it well. Here's how it works: they're ignorant to what the flag means. Period. It's a fact. It has nothing to do with opinions or beliefs. That flag stands for slavery and treason. If they fly it without realizing that it doesn't mean they're suddenly allowed to get away with it.

    Spoiler:
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Uh, actually, yes, exactly. It was seen as the north saying "you will now abide by our rules with no say in the matter, no matter how it will affect you."

    There is this cool thing called the marketplace of ideas which people in democracies are expected to compete in.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    And how does that make it okay again?
    Because it's a human right to not be oppressed?
    Oh my god there is no way you typed that with a straight face.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • thisisntwallythisisntwally Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    Guys why you gotta be such oppressive northerners all the time.

    Keepin' the white southerner down.

    Gawsh.

    I see the error of my ways.

    the south rules

    #someshit
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Because it's a human right to not be oppressed?
    Oh my god there is no way you typed that with a straight face.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Uh, actually, yes, exactly. It was seen as the north saying "you will now abide by our rules with no say in the matter, no matter how it will affect you."

    There is this cool thing called the marketplace of ideas which people in democracies are expected to compete in.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    And how does that make it okay again?
    Because it's a human right to not be oppressed?
    For instance, if you are ENSLAVED

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Neither did the south.

    Yes. It did.
    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    You keep saying that and its still wrong. They were being represented, they just didn't like the outcome.
    Which would make them... not being represented by their leaders, and viewing themselves as being repressed.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited February 2009
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Uh, actually, yes, exactly. It was seen as the north saying "you will now abide by our rules with no say in the matter, no matter how it will affect you."

    There is this cool thing called the marketplace of ideas which people in democracies are expected to compete in.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    And how does that make it okay again?
    Because it's a human right to not be oppressed?

    If you can't see the distinction between oppression and fulfilling your half of the social contract, then you probably have some high school classes you are overdue to retake.

  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Uh, actually, yes, exactly. It was seen as the north saying "you will now abide by our rules with no say in the matter, no matter how it will affect you."

    There is this cool thing called the marketplace of ideas which people in democracies are expected to compete in.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    And how does that make it okay again?
    Because it's a human right to not be oppressed?

    Oh you have got to be shitting me.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Uh, actually, yes, exactly. It was seen as the north saying "you will now abide by our rules with no say in the matter, no matter how it will affect you."

    There is this cool thing called the marketplace of ideas which people in democracies are expected to compete in.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    If only this were what was going on. You act as if southern Senators and Representatives were booted out of Congress just prior to secession. It wasn't about the people not having representation, it was about the southern states knowing that, despite their representation, they were going to lose the legislative battle over slavery eventually. Rather than adapt and live up to their agreement as members of the United States, they chose instead to abandon legal means and turn traitor to the United States.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Limp mooseLimp moose Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I don't think you can win an argument that the south didn't fight the war over slavery.

    Or that the confederate flag is not a symbol of endorsing slavery.

    Where I think you can win. Is that that symbol has evolved into simply being anti government and anti liberal northern thinking. And in some people's eyes no longer has a racist connotation. EVEN if other people think it does. I know for a fact all the people that fly that flag are not racists.

    Even if some of them are.

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Uh, actually, yes, exactly. It was seen as the north saying "you will now abide by our rules with no say in the matter, no matter how it will affect you."

    There is this cool thing called the marketplace of ideas which people in democracies are expected to compete in.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    And how does that make it okay again?
    Because it's a human right to not be oppressed?
    For instance, if you are ENSLAVED
    Show me where I said slavery was ok? Or that I supported it? Or that I wish the South had won? Or, any support of the south in the war at all?


    Seriously, I'm drowning in bleeding hearts in here.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I believe Matt Has more than one problem, unless racism, ignorance, complete lack of reflection and being a moron fall under a single category of being a "terrible person." Honestly, defending the Confederacy because the white people were being oppressed?

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Neither did the south.

    Yes. It did.
    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    You keep saying that and its still wrong. They were being represented, they just didn't like the outcome.
    Which would make them... not being represented by their leaders, and viewing themselves as being repressed.

    What the fuck.

    They had their representation, they were just out-voted. Christ dude.

    Spoiler:
  • Limp mooseLimp moose Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Limp moose wrote: »
    I am not saying it is an excuse I am saying they don't view it as racist or inflammatory. Just because their view differs from yours is a free pass to call them ignorant.

    While I do agree it is racist i am sort of playing devils advocate here.

    It's so annoying when people do that because nobody can ever do it well. Here's how it works: they're ignorant to what the flag means. Period. It's a fact. It has nothing to do with opinions or beliefs. That flag stands for slavery and treason. If they fly it without realizing that it doesn't mean they're suddenly allowed to get away with it.

    What if they view its meaning differently. The swastika used to mean something else. Does its use in a bad act forever end its use as something else?

    Maybe it does. I don't have a swastika or the stars and bars on my car. And generally think anyone that does is a douche. But I have met so many people that do have the stars and bars that there has got to be a reason they still use it.

  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    Uh, actually, yes, exactly. It was seen as the north saying "you will now abide by our rules with no say in the matter, no matter how it will affect you."

    There is this cool thing called the marketplace of ideas which people in democracies are expected to compete in.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    And how does that make it okay again?
    Because it's a human right to not be oppressed?

    If you can't see the distinction between oppression and fulfilling your half of the social contract, then you probably have some high school classes you are overdue to retake.
    And if you can't see the difference between me debating the southern mentality and reasons for secession and me agreeing with the southern mentality and reasons for secession...

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2009
    Limp moose wrote: »
    I don't think you can win an argument that the south didn't fight the war over slavery.

    Or that the confederate flag is not a symbol of endorsing slavery.

    Where I think you can win. Is that that symbol has evolved into simply being anti government and anti liberal northern thinking. And in some people's eyes no longer has a racist connotation. EVEN if other people think it does. I know for a fact all the people that fly that flag are not racists.

    Even if some of them are.

    Anti-liberal Northern thinking? Now I've got even more reason to go around stabbing these people in the eye with a fire poker.

    Spoiler:
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    And this was the first time in the history of the Union they had been out-voted. Seriously, the South totally dominated American politics right up to the election of Abraham Lincoln.

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Your arguments haven't been too great so far. I think we're all trying to figure out what you're arguing and why.

  • YamiB.YamiB. Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Neither did the south.

    Yes. It did.
    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.
    And for all of history when people saw themselves as not being represented by, or being actively repressed by, their leaders, they revolted. This isn't a new concept.

    You keep saying that and its still wrong. They were being represented, they just didn't like the outcome.
    Which would make them... not being represented by their leaders, and viewing themselves as being repressed.

    What the fuck.

    They had their representation, they were just out-voted. Christ dude.

    The red states totally should have formed their own country after the election. They are being oppressed by the black man after all so they'd be completely justified.

  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    This is so far from an instance where bleeding heart is an applicable adjective that I just don't even know where to begin.

    Also, ad hominem.

    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Limp moose wrote: »
    What if they view its meaning differently. The swastika used to mean something else. Does its use in a bad act forever end its use as something else?

    Maybe it does. I don't have a swastika or the stars and bars on my car. And generally think anyone that does is a douche. But I have met so many people that do have the stars and bars that there has got to be a reason they still use it.
    How many times are people going to have to explain the difference between a flag and an individual symbol? The proper analog to the stars and bars is the nazi flag, not the swastika.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2009
    Limp moose wrote: »
    Limp moose wrote: »
    I am not saying it is an excuse I am saying they don't view it as racist or inflammatory. Just because their view differs from yours is a free pass to call them ignorant.

    While I do agree it is racist i am sort of playing devils advocate here.

    It's so annoying when people do that because nobody can ever do it well. Here's how it works: they're ignorant to what the flag means. Period. It's a fact. It has nothing to do with opinions or beliefs. That flag stands for slavery and treason. If they fly it without realizing that it doesn't mean they're suddenly allowed to get away with it.

    What if they view its meaning differently. The swastika used to mean something else. Does its use in a bad act forever end its use as something else?

    Maybe it does. I don't have a swastika or the stars and bars on my car. And generally think anyone that does is a douche. But I have met so many people that do have the stars and bars that there has got to be a reason they still use it.

    The Confederate flag never meant anything else. This fact has been repeated over and over and over and over and over again throughout this thread.

    The reason they still use it is because they're ignorant to what it represents.

    Spoiler:
Sign In or Register to comment.