Confederate Flag Waving Racist Gets Put To Sleep

[halik]

First amendment > butthurt, regardless of the merit that the speech might have. Same goes for drawings of Muhammad, KKK rallies or anarchist demonstrations.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Pretty hilarious that his GF grabbed the flag and ran off.

It was his girlfriend? I thought she was with all those other dudes.

 

[Phoenix86]

umm - who gives a shit if the flag stands for racism or something else? In the context of the video (a white hick waving the flag in front of a bunch of black people), I think it's safe to assume he had racist purposes.

Shitty motives, however, do not give you the right to punch someone in the face. Guy had a right to his shitty speech and they had a right to express their own speech, though not with their fists.

There's two issues at hand, this guy and the greater discussion about it's use, specifically on government property (most people gloss over this important part).

You're right on both counts here, it's almost certainly a racist, but that's his right. He's also protected under law from assault, and him expressing racist opinions isn't an excuse to take that protection away.

Just sayin' he had it coming.

The larger argument is equally silly. Government has no place in dealing with this flag unless perhaps it's the state of Virginia. Just because it's popular doesn't make it historically accurate.

People act like the government is banning the "confederate flag", when it's only on government property. They have to protect the "stars and bars" out of pride.

 

[Phoenix86]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBCuHIpNgU

Says it better than my post.

 

[1prophet]

:thumbsup: You can throw neo-Nazis, KKK, or westboro Baptists in that scenario too. I don't give a fuck either way. The government didn't beat you up or shoot you. If you're promoting hate and get shot or beat the fuck up don't come crying to me about it complaining about your right to free speech.

But the government automatically is involved when violence ensues and has to defend your right to your constitutionally protected free speech.

relevant part in bold

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/remembering-the-nazis-in_b_188739.html

The Skokie controversy triggered one of those rare but remarkable moments in American history when citizens throughout the nation vigorously debated the meaning of the United States Constitution. The arguments were often fierce, heartfelt and painful. The American Civil Liberties Union, despite severe criticism and withdrawal of support by many its strongest supporters, represented the First Amendment rights of the Nazi. As a young law professor at the University of Chicago, I had the played a minor role in assisting the ACLU. In the end, the Illinois Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court contributed to the conclusion that Skokie could not enjoin the Nazis from marching.

It is useful to consider the three primary arguments set forth by Skokie in support of its effort to forbid the march. First, the village argued that the display of the swastika promoted "hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry" and that speech that promotes racial or religious hatred is unprotected by the First Amendment. The courts rightly rejected this argument, not on the ground that the swastika doesn't promote religious hatred, but on the ground that that is not a reason for suppressing speech. After all, it the Nazis could be prohibited from marching in Skokie because the swastika incites religious hatred, then presumably they couldn't march anywhere for the same reason, and movies could not show the swastika, and even documentaries could not show the swastika. And if the swastika can be banned on this basis, then what other symbols or ideas can be suppressed for similar reasons. What about movies showing members of the Ku Klux Klan? News accounts showing Palestinians committing suicide bombings in Israel or showing Israelis attacking civilians?



Second, the village argued that the purpose of the marches was to inflict emotional harm on the Jewish residents of Skokie and, especially, on the survivors. Certainly, some residents would be deeply offended, shocked and terrified to see Nazis marching through the streets of Skokie. But they might also be offended, shocked and terrified to know that Schindler's List was playing at a movie theatre in Skokie, or in Chicago, or in Illinois, and African-Americans might be offended, shocked and terrified to know that the movie Birth of a Nation was playing in a theatre in their town or nation. And so on. Moreover, it is doubtful that the actual intent of the Nazis was to inflict emotional harm on the residents of Skokie. Initially, the Nazis sought to march in a totally different community in Chicago, one with almost no Jewish population. But they were denied a permit. They then decided to march in Skokie in order to get publicity for their grievance. Indeed, the signs they planned to carry in Skokie did not say "Bring Back the Holocaust," but "White Free Speech" and "Free Speech for the White Man." Making First Amendment rights turn on judgments about a speaker's subjective intent is a dangerous business, because intent is very elusive and police, prosecutors and jurors are very prone to attribute evil intentions to those whose views they despise.


Third, the village argued that if the Nazis were permitted to march there would be uncontrollable violence. But is this a reason to suppress speech? Isn't the obligation of the government to protect the speaker and to control and punish the lawbreakers, rather than to invite those who would silence the speech to use threats of violence to achieve their ends? If the village of Skokie had won on this point, then southern communities who wanted to prosecute civil rights marchers in Selma, Montgomery and Birmingham could equally do so, on the plea that such demonstrations would trigger "uncontrollable violence." Moreover, once government gives in to such threats of violence it effectively invites a "heckler's veto," empowering any group of people who want to silence others to do so simply by threatening to violate the law.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Maybe for you it does, and others. Not everyone. Ever wonder why you think that? It's likely because media spread it around to be true.

The media? Did you even read what I wrote? It's likely because I live in Tennessee and know from personal experience. Even within my own family. Where do you live and what personal experience do you have with people who fly the Confederate flag? I'm sure experience varies, and I can only speak to my own, but would be interested in hearing yours as well.

 

[KeithP]

The Confederate Battle Flag was the symbol of a group of people fighting to maintain their right to keep slaves.

That statement is as accurate as saying the war for independence was fought because we didn't want a tax on tea.

-KeithP

 

[zinfamous]

That statement is as accurate as saying the war for independence was fought because we didn't want a tax on tea.

-KeithP

It was fought over "State's rights!" (um, yeah--the state's right to own slaves). More than that, though, was that no new states entering the union would be part of the slave economy. The south was far more angry that slavery could not spread.

Obviously it was instrumental to the economy of the south, but the central fact is that slavery was the foremost issue that generated animosity between the states over the years. It always comes back to slavery.

"state's rights" is a transparent euphemism that was coined in those days expressly to dilute the fact that it was every anything more than slavery; and yet that stupid expression persists to this day.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Oh man, this changing of history is annoying.

Things people have forgotten it seems are the following. The Civil War was not fought first most over slaves, although it was a large part of the reason, but of the encroachment of federal powers over the States and the right to succeed if a State chooses to do so.

Many who fought in the war for the Confederacy were not slave owners and didn't care for the practice. Robert Lee, a Virginian and Confederate General, never bought or really owned slaves on his own. The exception was a time when he inherited a plantation from his father in law that came with slaves he eventually freed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

Abe Lincoln during the civil war actually told his military commanders not to free slaves after battles they won for fear of losing some of the union states over the issues of the civil war of which slavery wasn't quite paramount. Along with some other slave related info from Abe Lincoln that most people don't know.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

There are also a lot of Confederate flags of which the stars and bars flag is the Virginia Battle Flag. Made mostly famous by Dukes of Hazard to commemorate General Lee's origin of Virginia. The "Southern Pride" it originally signified was the bravery of the south to stand up against the powers of the federal government and the willingness to die for such a cause.

Now have a bunch of idiots tried to conflate racism with that? Especially some racist red-necked yokels? Sure they have. The flag was made recognizable because of a TV show, and thus it now has taken on different symbolism meanings to different people.

Is the Virginia Battle Flag a symbol of racism? Guess it depends today upon who you ask. The problem is those that don't know the history of the flag will shout yes though.

Talk about changing history. Southern historians actually did try to do that by the way.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2063869,00.html

Read that entire article. You act like people don't know that the North didn't go to war to end slavery, but I know a shitload of people that don't know that the South started all the hostility. Not only are they lying to themselves about slavery being the entire actual issue, but they also don't seem to realize that they're the ones that pushed the country to war in the first place. The South were the aggressors so them claiming they were defending themselves is also bullshit. This also precedes Fort Sumter too as that article points out (the South pulled a bunch of shit including sending troops to try and make Kansas a slave state).

Slavery was the entire crux of the South's issue. You can claim it's about States' rights all you want, but when the entire focal point is their right to enslave people (and later on to be bigoted and discriminate against a certain race) then your argument is completely null and void.

Every single one of you people that keeps trying to say that it was not entirely about slavery need to actually learn something. Don't just take my word for it, the seceding states came right out and explicitly said it was about slavery.

For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

Hmm, now why would "idiots try to conflate that with racism"? Seriously people like you need to shut the fuck up calling anyone idiots with how blatantly you try to distort history. I know wallowing in and even celebrating your ignorance seems to be a favorite past time of people that make a habit out of defending the Confederacy, but if anyone is an idiot it is you.

I don't know why you act like people aren't very well aware that the North went to war to uphold the Union and not explicitly to abolish slavery. Hell even the Emancipation Proclamation still let Western states that didn't secede (it's secede by the way, not succeed, really wish people defending the Confederacy would stop living up to the idiot Southerner stereotypes...) have slavery. The North's (nay all of America's) hands were absolutely not clean in all of this, but the South's were far and away worse.

That's because the entire history of that flag has always been about racism. It was used as a battle flag by military that was defending slavery (which to them was a racial issue). You cannot disassociate the flag from racism as it has always been an integral aspect to those that used it as their symbol (that is not to be mistaken with saying that everyone that fought under it were racists, but the cause they fought for was entirely built around racism).

At best your argument is "well not everyone that fought for the Confederacy thought slavery was good, but they still put their lives on the line for people that did." That is the absolute best argument you can make for the Confederacy, and it only applies to some of the people, and makes them enablers of other horrific actions.

Oh, and this is more than just the Civil War as it was used as a "rebel" symbol when the South once again wanted to protect their right to be racists and do heinous acts against blacks. Frankly the South is lucky that history doesn't paint the entire period from about 1850 to 1970 in the fire, blood, and black bodies that the South claimed during that time. It takes a special kind of evil to undertake the unbridled campaigns of hatred towards blacks that the South waged. It's evil that has only been rivaled in the worst parts of human history.

The real legacy of the Civil War is that after the South lost a war they started (again it needs to be made plain, all in the name of defending their enslavement of blacks), was summarily forgiven and welcomed back in, and then people in the South continued (and in some ways elevated) their open terrorism of blacks for another hundred years. Simply put you not only are trying to defend straight up traitors whose cause was slavery, but you are also trying to pretend that it ended there when it continued for another century.

Oh and because I know it also needs to be explicitly pointed out since your understanding of what people say often rivals that of your understanding of history (which is to say, not very good), don't think I'm under any delusions that it was just the South either (or just America for that matter). History is full of dark actions, it is a disservice to the past and to ourselves to not own up to those actions and strive to both admit to them and work to prevent them from happening again.

 

[CZroe]

Lack of link(s) for those leads me to believe you made this shit up.

Example form you own quote


So I went to the FBI website to verify and found from 2013 hate crime stats...

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/december/latest-hate-crime-statistics-report-released

While I, too, don't trust his statistics, you do realize that a RATE doesn't compare to a percentage, right? A minority's percentage will usually be lower even when they are over-represented (the rate is disproportionately higher).

It was his girlfriend? I thought she was with all those other dudes.

...just because she is white too? Racist.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/06/28/confederate-flag-history/

"Bars" and "cross" have distinct meanings in flag nomenclature, so their retort about both being called that doesn't mean that it is correct to call both that.

 

[Red Squirrel]

What's with the confederate flag lately anyway? Hasn't that been around for a long time, why is it suddenly this huge issue that people are getting offended over?

 

[BudAshes]

When capture the flag goes wrong.

 

[K7SN]

Oh man, this changing of history is annoying.
...
Many who fought in the war for the Confederacy were not slave owners and didn't care for the practice. Robert Lee, a Virginian and Confederate General, never bought or really owned slaves on his own. The exception was a time when he inherited a plantation from his father in law that came with slaves he eventually freed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

...
QUOTE]

Reread Late 1850s: Arlington plantation and the Custis slaves

Your statement does not completely agree with the Wikipedia citation. He may not have bought them or really owned them but he hunted them down (three men and three women), had them jailed for a few months and then
sold them as slaves (For the remainder of the five year period that Custis's Will provided that they be emancipated in an expedient time not exceeding five years).

RereadThe Norris case (Again in the Wikipedia citation)

He also hunted down two men and a women who also would get their freedom (in an expedient time not exceeding five years), and had them flogged. Again, that is how slaves were treated and I suspect that Lee subscribed to the belief that slavery existed because God willed it and slavery would end when God wanted it to end (which apparently occurred at Appomattox - sorry for editorializing)

Wikipedia presents all sides but some facts is facts as best as 100 years of revisionist and anti-revisionist scrutiny .

 

[BudAshes]

Here I fixed the problem. Just replace them all with these:

 

[QueBert]

It was his girlfriend? I thought she was with all those other dudes.

Probably was his GF when the video started. But after he got KTFO'ed she probably left with the brothas. Which probably led to him being even more racist once he awoke from the uppercut and realized what just transpired.

 

[pcgeek11]

After all this I wonder which symbol will be the next racist causing object. The Easter bunny maybe?

 

[bononos]

I live I the south and to be honest from what I see the flag has taken on new meaning, it is not representative (by those who fly it now) of the Confederacy or the civil war, but rather a flag of southern pride. Sounds stupid, and I can see where people would be offended due to its history, but that is what I see that it currently stands for.

I don't fly it btw because I think it's stupid, and those that do fly it tend to be hicks.

Is it possible for the south to use another symbol or redesign a new flag to demonstrate southern pride?

 

[Newell Steamer]

He has every right to wave/carry that flag - he also has every right to enjoy the reaction and attention it draws; you can't control people's outrage and anger, other than not outraging and angering them.

Nonetheless, he was assaulted and that is far worse than waving a flag around.

 

[SP33Demon]

While I, too, don't trust his statistics, you do realize that a RATE doesn't compare to a percentage, right? A minority's percentage will usually be lower even when they are over-represented (the rate is disproportionately higher).

So you don't trust the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics, both which confirm that the rate of hate crimes/violence are higher per person for blacks than whites? I know it doesn't fit your equalist liberal agenda but the truth is the truth. These are the things that nobody wants to publicly admit, hell look at what happened to Giuliani last Fall when he correctly stated that 93% of blacks are murdered by other blacks.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...i/giuliani-93-black-murders-committed-blacks/
That got spun as oh, well "it's only 7-9% higher than whites killing whites". Who cares? It's still significantly higher which is a problem that blacks are killing more within their own race and committing more hate crimes per person in this country, according to federal statistics. Liberals can make excuses all they want, it's not going to change the facts.

 

[feralkid]

What's with the confederate flag lately anyway? Hasn't that been around for a long time, why is it suddenly this huge issue that people are getting offended over?

I'll assume you're making a sick joke, or perhaps just returned from Mars.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/17/charleston-south-carolina-shooting/28902017/

 

[KeithTalent]

I'll assume you're making a sick joke, or perhaps just returned from Mars.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/17/charleston-south-carolina-shooting/28902017/

He's Canadian. Canadians are fucking dumb.

KT

 

[Ackmed]

The media? Did you even read what I wrote? It's likely because I live in Tennessee and know from personal experience. Even within my own family. Where do you live and what personal experience do you have with people who fly the Confederate flag? I'm sure experience varies, and I can only speak to my own, but would be interested in hearing yours as well.

Yes I did read what you wrote, here is what you said;

Because like it or not we all know what people actually think of people who display that flag. We can kid ourselves about Southern Pride and all of that BS. But in the end we know that deep down when we see someone sporting that flag the first thing that pops into mind is 'likely a racist'.

So again, I believe the media has a huge play in this. Why do "We" think like that if someone doesn't know anyone who has the flag displayed? You also said that people should put a bumper sticker on their car if they support it, or fly the flag. People can support something and not advertise it. I support several things, carrying a gun, don't support others such as Hillary. I don't have a sticker and that doesn't mean any less.

My point was that the media stirs the pot about this. This all came about because some deranged idiot killed nine black people in a church. Then he was seen with a confederate flag in a picture afterwards. It wasn't an issue a month ago, now it is. I have no doubts that a lot of people who fly the flag are racist, not all are however. Now Dukes of Hazard is removed? Because of the flag on the car? The show wasn't even racist from the few episodes I saw. Knee jerk reaction. And it will be something else soon.

Since you are interested in my experience, I grew up in an extremely small and very remote town in Alaska. Ocean on the front, huge mountains and glaciers on the back. We didn't have TV, just VCR's. We had three digit phones. We had all gravel roads, all 5 of them. To travel for sports we had to fly in a seaplane. We were taught about the civil war in high school obviously, the flag was included. At no point did I think that the flag was racist or people who had it were. No other students said as much either. Granted there was 43 of us K-12. I never saw a black person in my life until my upper teens. Lots of Eskimos though, outnumbered white people where I grew up. Like you, I now live in Tennessee. Saw the flag every so often, never thought about racism with it. If it wasn't for other people telling me that it has to be racist, I wouldn't think it is. I am not ignorant, I know that people do use it to show that they support the South in the war, use it as a tool of racism. What I am saying is that is it also ignorant to think that everyone does. Media hypes it up, people like Jackson say it is, that it has to come down, etc. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't even have thought it was racist to some people. I don't know anyone who flies it personally but I have seen it. Claiming that they are racist by having a license plate tag of it is just silly.

I guess I was saying that "We" (as you said) think someone who has the flag is "probably a racist" because we are told that by outside sources. News, other people, etc. Not that we actually witness someone being racist with it. Again, I am sure people have witnessed such events, but not all. And claiming as much is silly. This can be said for several things. Something gets spammed all over the internet and news, word spreads and all the sudden we think one way when we didn't before.

 

[olds]

He's Canadian. Canadians are fucking dumb.

KT

Spoken like a true Canadian. Wait, what? ^_^

 

[NoStateofMind]

Confederate Flag Waving Racist Gets Put To Sleep

How do we know he was racist?

 

[Baasha]

Here I fixed the problem. Just replace them all with these:

ROFL...