Confederate Flag on Truck at La Crosse Campus Stirs Debate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Him. His truck is his personal property so he can display anything he wants to display on it.

I agree to a certain degree. He should be able to display whatever he chooses on his truck, as long as it is appropriate. Now, what is appropriate? That is exactly the problem we are facing.

In smaller communities the communal norms are agreed upon by the residents, and generally adhered to. If someone displays something that another resident is at odds with, the community usually has ways of deciding and correcting the problem.

As our communities grew and became more diverse, so did those norms. Now that we are, by extension, through our internet connections, a more global community, what is considered acceptable and appropriate becomes impossible to amicably regulate.

I have no fight in this business about the flag. I have lived in areas where members of the KKK held sway over ever political office, and owned every business in town, and I never saw a Confederate flag displayed. I have lived in areas where there was a Confederate flag on almost every vehicle, and even hung as curtains. To me it is a piece of cloth that holds no more meaning to most than the American flag, and we know how some people feel about that.

As far as what one can display, or what is appropriate, it is going to come with with those for and those against. People have no lack of excuses for why they are right and someone else is wrong. There seems to be no more common ground left.

Take the bull balls ornaments that was discussed earlier. Some people think they are funny, there are others that think them obscene, that goes for the Peeing Calvin, the nude silhouettes, the rainbow flag, etc.. Is there always going to be a bone of contention, attached to everything, that someone considers as a right?

Before we became so self centered, with our first thought being about what we what want and what we like, we didn't have these kind of problems, to this degree. That is because our first thought was always about how our actions may impact others, and we acted accordingly. If I knew my neighbor was a prude, I didn't antagonize him by hanging my lady's undies in a place in my yard where he could see them. If I knew that my neighbor worked nights, I wouldn't get up at sunrise and mow my grass.

Our global community is not creating cohesiveness. We are not embracing differences, they have become another source of competition. Our sensibilities are being over stimulated to the point of being raw, so the slightest breeze brings with it a cause for irritation.

I am not about to tell anyone what they should do or how they should feel. I am just suggesting that maybe you should stop and take a close look at the landscape for a little bit, before you go for a stroll through the meadow. If you don't, you just might find yourself, like I did yesterday, covered in bees.

Did the irony escape anyone, that all of these precious hothouse orchids and delicate little snowflakes are being academically cultivated to shepherd in the future of the climate change agenda?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Him. His truck is his personal property so he can display anything he wants to display on it.

I think that is the most hilarious part about this. Even those of us that say it was his right to display the flag as he chose are still being bombarded with accusations that we want to ban it.

Is it just me, or is the lack of logic here gone to idiotic levels?

And I believe that one day, you will not be able to display the rebel flag for fear of offending others.

"One day"? That day is already HERE, my friend.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

As our communities grew and became more diverse, so did those norms. Now that we are, by extension through our internet connections, a more global community, what is considered acceptable and appropriate becomes impossible to
Our global community is not creating cohesiveness. We are not embracing differences, they have become another source of competition. Our sensibilities are being over stimulated to the point of being raw, so the slightest breeze bring with it the case of irritation.

I think you hit the nail on the head why multiculturalism and globalism are being pushed on everybody.
Instead of people thinking about what their rights are and defending them we are being endlessly prodded to consider WHO might be OFFENDED by something we say or display and then crucified for our INSENSITIVITY towards others.
Eventually these develop in to laws relating to "hate speech" or other such nonsense as England did almost 20 years ago.
When anything can be construed as offensive to some group they will have effectively silenced us all and that is precisely the point of multiculturalism.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Yep. It happened and I agree with you.

To get the tags you had to be vetted. In other words you had to prove that you were an actual son (lineage son of a son of a son) of a confederate veteran just the same as you have to prove you are a veteran now to receive a regular veteran tag.

Virginia was proud of these tags when they first came out. I mean, they were hanging them loud and proud in the VADMV offices and nobody cared... until now. If they are suddenly so disgusting and repulsive then surely the government should refund all of that dirty, bigot money that they made off the sale of these tags right? I mean... to keep the money as profit in the government coffers that seems to me like they are ok with bigotry if the money has been made. /sarc

People went through the trouble and the vetting process. They paid the extra decorative tag fee for them yearly and all of the sudden the DMV is sending out letters for folks to return them.

I could *almost* see the huge hullabaloo over the flag if it had always been this way... But it hasn't. It simply hasn't. When we went to high school folks wore confederate flag shirts and nobody cared. Nobody broke down and couldn't continue in class. Nobody needed counseling. There were no bias reports to be found.

Now people have been told that they should care. They are being held and rocked back and forth when they show fear and angst... It's being rewarded with much attention so here we are.

I simply have no sympathy for anyone who can not formulate their own opinions. None of us are responsible for anyone else's offendedness. One chooses to feel that way IMO. I can't remember the last time I felt offended by something for the love of all that is holy.

Give 'em all binkys as far as I'm concerned.

Book burnings initially began in German universities during the rise of Nazism.
Why? Because alternative thinking and personal opinion outside of government-established dictates were deemed offensive....causing 'fear and angst' among Hitler's youth.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Him. His truck is his personal property so he can display anything he wants to display on it.

I think that is the most hilarious part about this. Even those of us that say it was his right to display the flag as he chose are still being bombarded with accusations that we want to ban it.

Is it just me, or is the lack of logic here gone to idiotic levels?

And I believe that one day, you will not be able to display the rebel flag for fear of offending others.

"One day"? That day is already HERE, my friend.

I mean there will be a "law" against it. I realize the public has already made it politically incorrect. But maybe it won't happen, everyone will realize history does need to be taught and learned so we as a race (human) can evolve instead of devolve. (commonly known as a "pipe dream")

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

What's incorrect is to say that the Confederacy didn't secede from the union to protect slavery. Saying such is history revisionism. It's actually spelled out in the very speeches used for secession that they seceded for reasons involving protecting slavery. The idea of "State's Rights" is just a politically correct way of saying "defending the right to own slaves".

If slavery was the only consideration, the North would have offered to buy out the slaves.

The South seceded because no one in the South voted for the President, who said

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. "
en.wikipedia.org...

The War Between the States was about the power of the Federal Government.

Slavery would have died a natural death in the 1800's most likely, for diplomatic, political, social, and economic reasons, the same as slavery died naturally everywhere else in the 1800's.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The college official is Borg, or an idiot.

Probably not an idiot being collegiate and all .....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

It should also be noted that it is history revisionism that Lincoln fought the Civil War to end slavery. So you are painting a strawman about my argument here. I never claimed that Lincoln fought to end slavery, just that the south fought to maintain it. Lincoln actually only wanted to end the expansion of slavery into new territories, he had no intention of actually challenging slavery, but the South didn't believe him and starting with SC they seceded one by one upon him being elected (he didn't even have any chance to adopt any Presidential policies before the South grabbed its ball and went home).

Lincoln was a front man for the plutocracy. The plutocracy wanted a strong central power to use, and the Union was that power.

Slavery is a red herring.

ETA If there was no slavery, the South still would have seceded.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Socialists in this country are not trying to do that. This is a case of a bunch of whiners knee-jerking over the flag because some kid used it as a symbol to portray his personal hate, and then they saw it on a semi truck.

a reply to: network dude

There is an effort, or movement pushing forward to erase the flag and other uncomfortable history from our memory.

What movement? Can you prove that there is a concerted effort to do as you described? If so, who is leading this movement.

And I believe that one day, you will not be able to display the rebel flag for fear of offending others.

Fear and being offended are emotions. I don't care about that. If the tried to ban the flag, then we have problems.

We also have to recognize that some people are getting offended that other people are offended. I think both sides need to man-up and move on. Both sides lack testicular fortitude.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Socialists in this country are not trying to do that. This is a case of a bunch of whiners knee-jerking over the flag because some kid used it as a symbol to portray his personal hate, and then they saw it on a semi truck.

I wish this were a "one off" kind of thing but I fear it isn't.
Did you not notice the full court press after the Charleston shootings and suddenly everything connected to the Confederacy was given the taint equivalent to Nazism by the media?
Amazon wouldn't sell anything with a flag on it then everybody jumped on that bandwagon.
Next thing they were demanding statues be torn down and graves moved to suit the feelings of a few.
One day the flag hardly mattered - one shooting later and suddenly it's a priority for everyone.
There is a social reconstruction plan going on right now enforced by media, education and the government.
Deny it if you like but it is happening.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

There is a social reconstruction plan going on right now enforced by media, education and the government.
Deny it if you like but it is happening.

Its very much like Mao and his Red Guard. Try to destroy everything of the past so nobody will remember... as a way to take over the future.

Red Guards marched across China in a campaign to eradicate the 'Four Olds'. Old books and art were destroyed, museums were ransacked, and streets were renamed with new revolutionary names and adorned with pictures and the sayings of Mao. Many famous temples, shrines, and other heritage sites in Beijing were attacked.

Reference

The fact that people are more easily brainwashed and politically-manipulated after they're conditioned into a state of 'fear and angst'....should not be ignored.

These sheep-like students are not just being indoctrinated at university...they're being conditioned to follow orders after they graduate and become community organizers.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Next thing they were demanding statues be torn down and graves moved to suit the feelings of a few. One day the flag hardly mattered - one shooting later and suddenly it's a priority for everyone. There is a social reconstruction plan going on right now enforced by media, education and the government.

This seems to be the new modus operandi for the the new world government.

No history, fable, religion, or ideal is to remain intact. They are not interested in us. It is the minds, bodies and souls of our children they are really after. They will convert them into good little minions, spies, tools and slaves.

That is why they have spent so much time, money and programming, into their grand plan of separating parents from their children, and developing a whole new family dynamic. The children have to teach the parents, as the parents are too unconnected to know what is really best.

Parents are following along with the plan as expected. They are too busy trying to be the cool Mom and Dad. They spend their time and money catering to the whims of their children, seeking that validation, and have relinquished their duties and responsibilities as parents.

I hear all the time the question, "Where were the parents?" That is a darn good question. Unfortunately, the answer is, the mothers and fathers are present; they just are no longer parents.

originally posted by: introvert
What movement? Can you prove that there is a concerted effort to do as you described? If so, who is leading this movement.

nope. Sure can't. I just think it's going to happen. Hence the way I worded all my posts. You know, the whole "hope I'm wrong" and all that.

Fear and being offended are emotions. I don't care about that. If the tried to ban the flag, then we have problems.

We also have to recognize that some people are getting offended that other people are offended. I think both sides need to man-up and move on. Both sides lack testicular fortitude.

I think you may not understand "being offended" much at all. Most of us talking about this aren't offended at all, just sad for the idiots of today, and the world when those same idiots are in positions of power. I've got gigantic balls, so I am rarely offended.

Looks like the Coheist crowd stickers don't mean anything... unless they agree with.
That makes them offensive. Remove at once.

a reply to: network dude

That day is already here. People against it got their wish.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

It should also be noted that it is history revisionism that Lincoln fought the Civil War to end slavery. So you are painting a strawman about my argument here. I never claimed that Lincoln fought to end slavery, just that the south fought to maintain it. Lincoln actually only wanted to end the expansion of slavery into new territories, he had no intention of actually challenging slavery, but the South didn't believe him and starting with SC they seceded one by one upon him being elected (he didn't even have any chance to adopt any Presidential policies before the South grabbed its ball and went home).

Lincoln was a front man for the plutocracy. The plutocracy wanted a strong central power to use, and the Union was that power.

Slavery is a red herring.

ETA If there was no slavery, the South still would have seceded.

If there was no slavery, there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place. The whole reason for the rift between the North and the South was because of slavery.

The Civil War was the culmination of a festering boil called "Slavery" that politicians had been kicking the can down the road since the beginning of the country. The south wouldn't have joined the union in the first place if the north hadn't made concessions for slavery in the Constitution.

To pretend that the south would have seceded if slavery wasn't a thing is just straight up history revisionism. Hell we really have no way of knowing WHAT the country would have been like if it weren't for slavery.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

It should also be noted that it is history revisionism that Lincoln fought the Civil War to end slavery. So you are painting a strawman about my argument here. I never claimed that Lincoln fought to end slavery, just that the south fought to maintain it. Lincoln actually only wanted to end the expansion of slavery into new territories, he had no intention of actually challenging slavery, but the South didn't believe him and starting with SC they seceded one by one upon him being elected (he didn't even have any chance to adopt any Presidential policies before the South grabbed its ball and went home).

Lincoln was a front man for the plutocracy. The plutocracy wanted a strong central power to use, and the Union was that power.

Slavery is a red herring.

ETA If there was no slavery, the South still would have seceded.

If there was no slavery, there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place. The whole reason for the rift between the North and the South was because of slavery.

The Civil War was the culmination of a festering boil called "Slavery" that politicians had been kicking the can down the road since the beginning of the country. The south wouldn't have joined the union in the first place if the north hadn't made concessions for slavery in the Constitution.

To pretend that the south would have seceded if slavery wasn't a thing is just straight up history revisionism. Hell we really have no way of knowing WHAT the country would have been like if it weren't for slavery.

The North used slavery until slavery was no longer profitable. In the Rhode Island ship yards for example. Slavery was dying everywhere. The most that was needed to end slavery in the South was agricultural machinery, which happened before 1900.

If the North wanted to end slavery, the most that was needed was to buy out the slave owners, or invent better agricultural technology or both. Neither of these options were considered because the PTB wanted war.

The South was an agricultural economy. 75% of the South's income ( and the Western Farmers income also ) came from international trade. All of this trade was subject to the Tariff, which was designed to help Northern Industry at the expense of everything else in the United States. The Morrill Tariff was in the works in the winter of 1860-61 and was adopted before the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

The Morrill Tariff immediately raised these averages to about 26% overall or 36% on dutiable items, and further increases by 1865 left the comparable rates at 38% and 48%. Although higher than in the immediate antebellum period, these rates were still significantly lower than between 1825 and 1830, when rates had sometimes been over 50%.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Tariff was a tax paid by farmers and planters to the North, and the North could set it as high as any tyrant ever did.

The presidential election of 1860, in which a president was elected with ZERO Southern votes cast for him, showed that the South could be completely ignored in national politics. The Tariff could go as high as any number the Yankees wrote. And the North was growing faster, i.e. getting more representatives and senators, than the South.

Basically the South seceded because it would forever more be overridden in the national government.