The Confederate Flag

[Cid Highwind]

What racism did you experience that made you move? I'm not trying to argue, I'm genuinely just trying to see this from your point of view.

Read my previous posts for an excellent example. Thank you for not insulting me in public like you did in our private conversation.

 

[Space_Dandy]

"Not everyone" is not the same thing as "a significant portion". The Civil war was about slavery, plain and simple. There's more to it, because obviously anything involving millions of people won't have a simple explanation. But still, you're nitpicking.

That's actually a really good reason to censor yourself, actually. Assuming you don't want people to think you're racist, you'll generally refrain from saying racist things.

I'll give you the first one. You make a good point. Personally I interpreted it as being more about state's rights, but I'm no expert and could be wrong. The Confederate leadership did say a lot of racist things too (To be fair, Abe Lincoln did too).

I am not racist, and generally refrain from saying racist things. Also I don't have any desire to fly a Confederate flag, or any flag for that matter. Its not because I am afraid of what people will say though. However, I admire people for having the courage to do something non-PC and expose themselves to the harsh judgment that our society is prone to. I know some people who fly it out of southern pride and criticism of the government, and are exposing themselves to accusations of racism.

 

[*Asterisk*]

People want to buy Pat Buchanan's books. They don't, at least at this point in time, want to buy stuff depicting the Confederate flag. Or at least, that's Apple's calculation. Their calculation may well be wrong, but the only people they're hurting are themselves.

Then they should let the people decide for themselves rather than pulling off products like these en masse. And its ridiculous to say that the decisions a major corporation makes on what to sell and not to sell only makes a difference for them. What planet are you living on?

There are lots of things I'd like to be able to buy that Apple won't sell me. I'd love to be able to buy a video game about a timetraveling bisexual anthromorphic cat who's best friends with Napoleon. I don't think Apple's refusal to sell it to me is at all injurious to free inquiry, though.

This is an absurd argument. We're talking about things that are real and exist and that people, for whatever reason, want to buy. There's a lot of socially poisonous garbage being sold through these companies at the moment that's not getting pulled. Nor should it be pulled.

"Its not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear, and every time you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something."
- Christopher Hitchens

Books are harder to evaluate than symbols.

What did my link send you to? Finnegans Wake? How is this even remotely true?

Its not like I support anything by Michelle Malkin. I think she's utterly evil for writing In Defense of Internment, but that doesn't mean it should be pulled from store shelves. Hell, if tomorrow's Dylan Roof kills a bunch of Asians and there's a copy of In Defense of Internment found in his house, it's doubly important that the book not be pulled.

 

[Marvin]

What did my link send you to? Finnegans Wake? How is this even remotely true?

All books are harder to evaluate than flags with significant cultural meaning.

Its not like I support anything by Michelle Malkin. I think she's utterly evil for writing In Defense of Internment, but that doesn't mean it should be pulled from store shelves. Hell, if tomorrow's Dylan Roof kills a bunch of Asians and there's a copy of In Defense of Internment found in his house, it's doubly important that the book not be pulled.

Meh. Unpopularity takes a lot of forms. If something goes out of print because of unpopularity, I don't really mind. You have access to the internet. If you really want to preserve something badly enough, you have the tools to do it. You're not entitled to the economies of scale that the big retailers have. That's just a convenience for suitably popular things.

 

[*Asterisk*]

Meh. Unpopularity takes a lot of forms. If something goes out of print because of unpopularity, I don't really mind. You have access to the internet. If you really want to preserve something badly enough, you have the tools to do it. You're not entitled to the economies of scale that the big retailers have. That's just a convenience for suitably popular things.

But that's not what's happening here. Confederate Flag sales are soaring, largely because people are afraid of a legal or de facto ban, but they're soaring none the less.

Besides, we all know good and well why big companies like Amazon and Apple are pulling the Confederate Flag. Let's not beat around the bush.

 

[Marvin]

But that's not what's happening here. Confederate Flag sales are soaring, largely because people are afraid of a legal or de facto ban, but they're soaring none the less.

Besides, we all know good and well why big companies like Amazon and Apple are pulling the Confederate Flag. Let's not beat around the bush.

I'm not concerned with why. I just don't see it as something to get outraged about.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

If you feel private companies have an obligation - not necessarily a concrete, enforcable legal obligation, but nonetheless, an obligation - to provide products in order to encourage free exchange of ideas, where does this obligation stop? I presume you'd argue it includes other controversial flags like the Swastika or Hammer and Sickle, but I know you don't think we just need easy access to flags to facilitate free exchange of ideas. What other products do we need a steady supply of to ensure that the exchange of ideas isn't fatally attenuated?

 

[Space_Dandy]

If you feel private companies have an obligation - not necessarily a concrete, enforcable legal obligation, but nonetheless, an obligation - to provide products in order to encourage free exchange of ideas, where does this obligation stop? I presume you'd argue it includes other controversial flags like the Swastika or Hammer and Sickle, but I know you don't think we just need easy access to flags to facilitate free exchange of ideas. What other products do we need a steady supply of to ensure that the exchange of ideas isn't fatally attenuated?

You are right. Corporations make decisions based on profit margin above all else, as they should be expected to do. Any time they do something purely for artistic or cultural merit is a bonus, not the expected norm.

 

[*Asterisk*]

If you feel private companies have an obligation - not necessarily a concrete, enforcable legal obligation, but nonetheless, an obligation - to provide products in order to encourage free exchange of ideas, where does this obligation stop? I presume you'd argue it includes other controversial flags like the Swastika or Hammer and Sickle, but I know you don't think we just need easy access to flags to facilitate free exchange of ideas. What other products do we need a steady supply of to ensure that the exchange of ideas isn't fatally attenuated?

Anything people demand. And yes, I do include other controversial symbols in that group. Symbols are every bit the part of speech words are.

Besides, Amazon already has plenty of Hammer and Sickle products available on the store anyone can buy right now. I find dictatorial communism utterly reprehensible, but people should still be able to sell and buy those products. You can also buy a copy of Mein Kampf if you like.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Anything people demand. And yes, I do include other controversial symbols in that group. Symbols are every bit the part of speech words are.

But not including the bisexual history cat game that I'm demanding, right?

And yes, I'm aware you can buy Nazi and Soviet stuff on Amazon. I wasn't trying to do some kind of gotcha, I was just pointing out that I understand that your point isn't narrowly about the Confederate flag, but more generally about symbols that some people find offensive.

 

[*Asterisk*]

I'm not concerned with why. I just don't see it as something to get outraged about.

Because this road always leads to hell. We've done it again and again in society, and now is not the time to continue.

Martyrs to free speech are often unsympathetic. Remember 2 Live Crew? Those guys fucking sucked. It was still reprehensible of the Jack Thompsons of the world to try to send those men to prison for the crime of releasing a record while black.

There are indeed unprotected categories that don't fall under free speech, but that's not what we're talking about here. This is very clearly within the lines of freedom of speech and expression, and these companies are trying to stamp it out. It's not about weather or not they have the right to stamp it out: they're still wrong for doing so.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

This is very clearly within the lines of freedom of speech and expression, and these companies are trying to stamp it out. It's not about weather or not they have the right to stamp it out: they're still wrong for doing so.

I assure you Amazon does not give a crap about freedom of speech, either in a positive or negative sense. They are not trying to exterminate freedom of speech, they are trying to preserve their bottom line. Any damage they might do to the principle of freedom of speech is incidental.

 

[Cid Highwind]

Anything people demand. And yes, I do include other controversial symbols in that group. Symbols are every bit the part of speech words are.

Besides, Amazon already has plenty of Hammer and Sickle products available on the store anyone can buy right now. I find dictatorial communism utterly reprehensible, but people should still be able to sell and buy those products. You can also buy a copy of Mein Kampf if you like.

As Marvin mentioned, the economies of scale can prevent things from people made or sold that people demand, even if it existed previously. Nobody is going to make something that there is no profit in. You can price anything to make a profit, but eventually if your manufacturing runs are so small that the price of the item is more than anyone would pay for it, you will not find the item. As you said, confederate flag sales are currently high, but nobody has ever mentioned the notion of banning it outright. This is an irrational fear. Amazon may stop selling it, but there will always be someone who will, and cheaply, since it would be unconstitutional to ban it. This is 'Merica. We don't ban anything here but Muslims.

The problem with banning something is that the evil it may or may not represent is hidden. Mein Kampf is an excellent example. But if sales for the book drop to levels that no longer merit keeping it in print, is that an issue? I'd like to think it would not be, as there are already so many copies in circulation and libraries exist specifically to preserve writings like this.

 

[*Asterisk*]

But not including the bisexual history cat game that I'm demanding, right?

And yes, I'm aware you can buy Nazi and Soviet stuff on Amazon. I wasn't trying to do some kind of gotcha, I was just pointing out that I understand that your point isn't narrowly about the Confederate flag, but more generally about symbols that some people find offensive.

If you make that game and put it on the iTunes store, I'll buy it with a pair of Azealia Banks' panties if you want. Tim Cook absolutely should sell your stupid fucking game. Until then, shut the fuck up about it. It's a retarded non-example, and a waste of everybody's Goddamn time.

And if you understand my point, why are you still defending Amazon and Apple for pulling these products? How are you justifying this? Do you just not value the principle of the First Amendment at all? Is a momentary assuaging of your white guilt really worth the long term damage to freedom of expression in your eyes? If so, who do you think would be a good judge to determine where the line lies? How do you plan to deal with this in the long term? Are you positive this system won't be abused? If no, how do you justify the toll anyway?

 

[Dudeofteenage]

As Marvin mentioned, the economies of scale can prevent things from people made or sold that people demand, even if it existed previously. Nobody is going to make something that there is no profit in. You can price anything to make a profit, but eventually if your manufacturing runs are so small that the price of the item is more than anyone would pay for it, you will not find the item.

I was thinking this too. Unless I've misunderstood his point, the only way for retailers like Amazon to meet their obligations as @*Asterisk* is describing them would be to become a non-profit organisation.

If you make that game and put it on the iTunes store, I'll buy it with a pair of Azealia Banks' panties if you want. Tim Cook absolutely should sell your stupid fucking game. Until then, shut the fuck up about it. It's a retarded non-example, and a waste of everybody's Goddamn time.

Whoah there, Captain. Would you like some crackers with that salt?

And if you understand my point, why are you still defending Amazon and Apple for pulling these products? How are you justifying this? Do you just not value the principle of the First Amendment at all? Is a momentary assuaging of your white guilt really worth the long term damage to freedom of expression in your eyes? If so, who do you think would be a good judge to determine where the line lies? How do you plan to deal with this in the long term? Are you positive this system won't be abused? If no, how do you justify the toll anyway?

OK, let's back up a bit. I agree that my theoretical video game is a somewhat frivolous example, but I used it to illustrate that, if we feel that Amazon must provide literally anything that there is some demand for, their obligations are massive. There are many products that one or two people would want that Amazon doesn't provide. If you feel every product that Amazon isn't offering for sale is a loss to the marketplace of ideas, you should care about things just as ridiculous and frivolous as my made up videogame. I don't like to show my power level, but I am going to use an actual example, not a made up one.

I would like to be able to buy an English translation of Francois Bluche's biography of Louis XV on Amazon, but I can't. They don't sell it. I presume that's because the Anglophone market for Bluche's books is quite small. I think reading this would really genuinely improve my understanding of history, society, culture and politics. Is this a problem, in your view?

 

[melty]

I fucking hate that this has become an argument over a flag and not a discussion about how a crazy person instigated domestic terrorism. The flag sucks and should go but this really isn't the issue. It's just like Sandy Hook becoming a pointless argument about gun control and not mental health like it should have been.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

I fucking hate that this has become an argument over a flag and not a discussion about how a crazy person instigated domestic terrorism. The flag sucks and should go but this really isn't the issue. It's just like Sandy Hook becoming a pointless argument about gun control and not mental health like it should have been.

Well, what is there to say about the guy? We could all sit around competing to see who can use the most over-the-top terms to denounce him, but it would just be a moral circlejerk. He's clearly fucked up and deserves harsh sanctions. It's not a very interesting conversation when everybody agrees.

 

[*Asterisk*]

What I'm saying, @Dudeofteenage and @Captain Cid, is that you're using the market demand defense as a misdirection. You both know good and well this particular situation isn't about the current market demand for the Confederate Flag. It's about big companies like Apple and Amazon deciding customers speech for them. And it's not about weather or not they have the legal right to do so. They do have the right to decide what they will and won't sell, but it's still morally wrong. Something being legally right has never given it a pass for being morally wrong.

Apple, Amazon, Ebay, Etsy, Google, and every other company currently performing these actions are hurting the principles of freedom of expression. Those principles are greater than any law. They make the world a better place to be in when we work towards achieving them.

So here's my last questions before I have to go: Do you support freedom of expression? And if so, how is a corporate mandate that these particular products be pulled not a violation of that principle?

 

[Cid Highwind]

If you make that game and put it on the iTunes store, I'll buy it with a pair of Azealia Banks' panties if you want. Tim Cook absolutely should sell your stupid fucking game. Until then, shut the fuck up about it. It's a retarded non-example, and a waste of everybody's Goddamn time.

And if you understand my point, why are you still defending Amazon and Apple for pulling these products? How are you justifying this? Do you just not value the principle of the First Amendment at all? Is a momentary assuaging of your white guilt really worth the long term damage to freedom of expression in your eyes? If so, who do you think would be a good judge to determine where the line lies? How do you plan to deal with this in the long term? Are you positive this system won't be abused? If no, how do you justify the toll anyway?

Please don't be rude and calling names. I understand how Dudeofteenage (sorry, don't know how to tag) can be frustrating, but he's been very civil and polite with you. It doesn't help you "win". He doesn't "value" the First Amendment because he isn't an American citizen, therefore he is under no obligation to do so.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Do you support freedom of expression

No!

Oh shit, you caught me. Damnit. *Goes back to Soviet Canada*