• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

South Carolina, tear down that flag!

Ladewig said:
What freedom have I given up?

As for unpopular speech, I fully support the rights of groups like Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and the Illinois Nazis. I even support their receiving police protection for their unpopular speech.

Please explain what freedom I have given up in supporting the removal of the Confederate flag from state buildings?
Click to expand...

But you don't even know what you're supporting. That's the magic of media spin. Before you go any further consider this:

Meadmaker said:
It is fascinating how these things get spun.

The flag isn't really part of the statehouse as such. That's why there are no other flags near it. It isn't part of a display of flags or set of flagpoles or anything. For the gawker article, I was trying to picture where it was, because the camera angle was not straight on.

Apparently, there is a confederate soldier's memorial in front of the SC stItatehouse. Part of that memorial is a confederate battle flag.

It would make no sense to lower that flag as a sign of mourning.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
But you don't even know what you're supporting. That's the magic of media spin. Before you go any further consider this:
Click to expand...

I read the entire thread.
I understood why they didn't lower the flag that was part of the soldiers' memorial.

As was pointed out up thread, German citizens are able to build memorials to the soldiers and sailors who died in WW II without flying Swastikas over those memorials.

I am giving up no freedom in rejoicing that the Confederate flag will no longer fly over the Confederate soldiers' memorial on the state capital [ETA and rejoicing that the decision was done at the state level, not the federal level] The flag, at its best, is a symbol of treason, and at its worst, is a symbol of racism. Again, as stated up thread, Southerners who want to celebrate their heritage would do much better to use their state flags than their Confederate flags. But in any case, they can still fly their Confederate flags wherever and whenever they want.

So we are still left with the questions:
Why do you think I am giving up a freedom?
Why do you think I don't know what I am supporting?
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Camera angles are interesting things. Compare the picture of the flag's setting in the article linked above with the article linked at the beginning of this thread.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why they did that, and a very good catch on your part. Very sharp tactic. They knew it would inflame the uninformed over to their particular agenda to destroy free speech.

The problem here is not the confederate battle flag, this type of argument can be given in support of suppressing anything a select group finds offensive or against their own particular view. By doing this, speech is no longer free, it is limited to popular speech only, that's not what freedom of speech is about.

Some just don't seem to get it. We can't just limit it in this "one case" because if we allow this to happen then any unpopular speech can also be limited. It's not about whether we agree or disagree with the display of the confederate flag it's about whether we agree with free speech being limited to include only popular speech.
Chris B.
 
According to wiki:


Quote:
Kershaw sculpted an equestrian monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Confederate Army general and Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, which was unveiled to the public in July 1998.[3] The 25-foot-high[2] statue was constructed on private land facing Interstate 65. It was accompanied by an array of 13 Confederate battle flags and was lit up at night.[4] Kershaw justified the memorial by saying, "Somebody needs to say a good word for slavery".[5] Kershaw also created a similarly large statue of Joan of Arc


Clearly, one of those is not like the other!! One is a murdered girls who fought for her country and the other is a kluxer ************!!!
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
That's exactly why they did that, and a very good catch on your part. Very sharp tactic. They knew it would inflame the uninformed over to their particular agenda to destroy free speech.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but we know exactly where it is, and why it's there. And we'll take it down.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Wow, I've never seen so many willing to throw up their hands and give up their freedoms so willingly. Disgusting. It looks as if many here have decided to let the press do their thinking for them. Is being politically correct really worth your freedoms? Don't you realize if you limit unpopular speech in this Country then freedom of speech is no longer a right?
Click to expand...

Nobody's limiting speech. People are changing their minds based on what they see. Sticking to your guns, so to speak, isn't the only freedom of speech.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Wow, I've never seen so many willing to throw up their hands and give up their freedoms so willingly. Disgusting. It looks as if many here have decided to let the press do their thinking for them. Is being politically correct really worth your freedoms? Don't you realize if you limit unpopular speech in this Country then freedom of speech is no longer a right?
Click to expand...

I don't want to give up my right to free speech. What should I do in this situation?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
That's exactly why they did that, and a very good catch on your part. Very sharp tactic. They knew it would inflame the uninformed over to their particular agenda to destroy free speech.

The problem here is not the confederate battle flag, this type of argument can be given in support of suppressing anything a select group finds offensive or against their own particular view. By doing this, speech is no longer free, it is limited to popular speech only, that's not what freedom of speech is about.

Some just don't seem to get it. We can't just limit it in this "one case" because if we allow this to happen then any unpopular speech can also be limited. It's not about whether we agree or disagree with the display of the confederate flag it's about whether we agree with free speech being limited to include only popular speech.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

Free speech isn't being limited. You are more than welcome to fly the Confederate flag in front of your house, to hold Confederate flag rallies in public, to paint it on your car, to talk about it on the radio or television. No free speech is being limited.

But you already knew that, didn't you?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
That's exactly why they did that, and a very good catch on your part. Very sharp tactic. They knew it would inflame the uninformed over to their particular agenda to destroy free speech.
Click to expand...
That flag was placed atop the capital in 1961 as a response to segregation battles of the time. It was moved to the memorial a few years ago.

Regardless of precisely where it files, it still flies on government property at the behest of the state government. The picture highlights this fact clearly enough, that claiming it is designed to inflame the passions of the uninformed is, frankly, uninformed.

ChrisBFRPKY said:
The problem here is not the confederate battle flag, this type of argument can be given in support of suppressing anything a select group finds offensive or against their own particular view. By doing this, speech is no longer free, it is limited to popular speech only, that's not what freedom of speech is about.
Click to expand...
The GOVERNMENT doesn't have free speech. The government should not (and 'should not' should be 'can not') partake in speech that alienates a significant part of it's citizenry.

ChrisBFRPKY said:
Some just don't seem to get it. We can't just limit it in this "one case" because if we allow this to happen then any unpopular speech can also be limited. It's not about whether we agree or disagree with the display of the confederate flag it's about whether we agree with free speech being limited to include only popular speech.
Chris B.
Click to expand...
Some just don't seem to get that it is the people that want to keep this flag in place are using the "just in this one case" argument. In this one case it is a symbol of culture, not hatred. In this one case, the treasonous flag of a treasonous group of secessionists must legally fly on state property. In this one case, it's not about what is right. In this one case, government should proudly fly this symbol of hatred.

Let's face facts:
- In 1861, the flag was flown by secessionists that wanted to own black people.
- In 1961, the flag was again flown by segregationists that wanted to keep black people separate and subservient.
- A few years ago, unable to so openly display such blatant hatred in the face of protests from oversensitive minorities, the location of the flag was changed from atop the capital to a confederate soldiers memorial. Less blatant government mandated hatred, but still state government mandated racism caused the flag to continue to fly on state property, at the front of the state capital.
- 18 June 2015, a white racist killed 9 black folks, one of which was a state senator. The white racist left a manifesto and several pictures with guns and this symbol of southern culture.
- Racists that had the power in 1961 to raise this symbol of racism no longer had the power to keep it aloft in 2015.

People have raised their voices in protest at the removal of this atrocious racist symbol. The vast majority protest that it took so long, and such tragedy, to get this racist symbol of government racism removed. A minority protest that somehow this is the beginning of the end of free speech.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Some just don't seem to get it. We can't just limit it in this "one case" because if we allow this to happen then any unpopular speech can also be limited. It's not about whether we agree or disagree with the display of the confederate flag it's about whether we agree with free speech being limited to include only popular speech.
Chris B.
Click to expand...


You're the only one who doesn't seem to get it. Your free speech has not been infringed. You are completely free to erect a flagpole on your front yard and fly the battle flag. You won't be hauled off to jail.

Steve S
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
That's exactly why they did that, and a very good catch on your part. Very sharp tactic. They knew it would inflame the uninformed over to their particular agenda to destroy free speech.

The problem here is not the confederate battle flag, this type of argument can be given in support of suppressing anything a select group finds offensive or against their own particular view. By doing this, speech is no longer free, it is limited to popular speech only, that's not what freedom of speech is about.

Some just don't seem to get it. We can't just limit it in this "one case" because if we allow this to happen then any unpopular speech can also be limited. It's not about whether we agree or disagree with the display of the confederate flag it's about whether we agree with free speech being limited to include only popular speech.
Chris B.
Click to expand...
To all your words I will respond with one: No.
 
steve s said:
You're the only one who doesn't seem to get it. Your free speech has not been infringed. You are completely free to erect a flagpole on your front yard and fly the battle flag. You won't be hauled off to jail.

Steve S
Click to expand...

Most of the neighbors (percentage wise nowadays) might not want to visit though! Might even decide you have the perfect yard to walk their pets on.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom