What does the confederate flag mean to you? (1 Viewer)

[General Tso]

As far as them being traitors, one only has to consider that, had George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry lived during the Civil War they would have all have fought for the South. That should put the question of treason to bed IMO.

Nice "logic". But I'll play your game...they would have been traitors too.

Had George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry lived during the Civil War, they wouldn't have been George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Patrick Henry. But let's play the game anyway. Suppose they had been born in Germany during the early 20th century...

Could be worse, Superman could have landed in Germany.

He did. Nietzsche's Übermensch.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

 

[Todd Andrews]

Slavery was a great evil that had been around for generations. But the Confederates did not believe it to be evil. They argued that it was a positive good, both for themselves and the slaves they owned. These were men who believed in American ideals: the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights. They were far removed from Nazis.

The Holocaust was a great crime and the men who did it knew that which is why it was a secret. The Confederates did not try to hide slavery because they believed it to be a positive, part of a way of life and tradition. They were not evil, though they supported a way of life that was evil. Evil demands realization of the immorality of one's actions. American slave owners lacked this.

As far as them being traitors, one only has to consider that, had George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry lived during the Civil War they would have all have fought for the South. That should put the question of treason to bed IMO.

Stupidest post ever . . . or most idiotic post ever?

 

[Jack White]

Are you guys still arguing about rectangular pieces of fabric?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Are you guys still arguing about rectangular pieces of fabric?

if you mean discussing the symbolism of a racist rag ? yes

 

[Jayrod]

Are you guys still arguing about rectangular pieces of fabric?

Nope, nothing to see here. Move along, bub.

 

[Jack White]

Are you guys still arguing about rectangular pieces of fabric?

if you mean discussing the symbolism of a racist rag ? yes

Flags are for squares.

The one you're discussing, and all the other ones, too.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

I kind of agree with Tim.

 

[renesauz]

Who are these people calling for the removal of Confederate memorials? Are any African-American leaders asking for this? I've never heard this demand.

I was all for removing the flag from government buildings. But Confederate memorials are a part of our history. As someone who is fascinated by the Civil War, even the idea of removing them really offends me.

There's been some debates and public push here in Hampton roads.....not sure it's going to get far though.

 

[timschochet]

Who are these people calling for the removal of Confederate memorials? Are any African-American leaders asking for this? I've never heard this demand.

I was all for removing the flag from government buildings. But Confederate memorials are a part of our history. As someone who is fascinated by the Civil War, even the idea of removing them really offends me.

There's been some debates and public push here in Hampton roads.....not sure it's going to get far though.

Thats the scene of my favorite Civil War battle- the Monitor- Merrimack. What do they have there to commemorate that?

 

[jonessed]

Slavery clearly isn't as bad as genocide. Seems obvious. Is that the argument?

 

[Poncho]

I have seen a lot of confederate flags flying in the back of trucks lately. Drove by one yesterday and gave him a thumbs up. I like their moxey.....

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Slavery clearly isn't as bad as genocide. Seems obvious. Is that the argument?

No, just that they're broadly comparable. Both were monstrous violations of human rights, perpetuated by a malevolent government, and were ended only because of a large-scale war. There's no need to think that they're exactly the same in every dimension to see that they're comparable on many dimensions. As usual, people on this board don't understand how analogies work.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Saw some jerk flying a British flag down the shore this past week. Don't they realize that that flag is a symbol of hatred and oppression? #TakeItDown

 

[Slapdash]

Slavery clearly isn't as bad as genocide. Seems obvious. Is that the argument?

The confederacy stood for something that was every bit as evil as Nazism.

 

[cr8f]

Here it's used by rednecks so that's what it means locally.

But look at South Carolina's 1860 secession document, it mentions slavery over and over a reason for the Civil War. And we didn't see the battle flag much until civil rights.

Personally Andrew Johnson was such a racist, if Lincoln had lived we probably would have had civil rights far earlier.

I do not like living in a divided country.

 

[timschochet]

Slavery clearly isn't as bad as genocide. Seems obvious. Is that the argument?

No, just that they're broadly comparable. Both were monstrous violations of human rights, perpetuated by a malevolent government, and were ended only because of a large-scale war. There's no need to think that they're exactly the same in every dimension to see that they're comparable on many dimensions. As usual, people on this board don't understand how analogies work.

What do you mean by "malevolent government?" I suspect this is the key to my disagreement with your analogy.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Slavery clearly isn't as bad as genocide. Seems obvious. Is that the argument?

No, just that they're broadly comparable. Both were monstrous violations of human rights, perpetuated by a malevolent government, and were ended only because of a large-scale war. There's no need to think that they're exactly the same in every dimension to see that they're comparable on many dimensions. As usual, people on this board don't understand how analogies work.

What do you mean by "malevolent government?" I suspect this is the key to my disagreement with your analogy.

A government that does evil stuff. Like enslave or kill groups of people.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Slavery clearly isn't as bad as genocide. Seems obvious. Is that the argument?

The confederacy stood for something that was every bit as evil as Nazism.

What's not to get? I think enslaving people and killing people are both extremely evil. If I had a choice, I would rather be enslaved than killed. It doesn't follow that they aren't both similarly awful.

 

[timschochet]

Slavery clearly isn't as bad as genocide. Seems obvious. Is that the argument?

No, just that they're broadly comparable. Both were monstrous violations of human rights, perpetuated by a malevolent government, and were ended only because of a large-scale war. There's no need to think that they're exactly the same in every dimension to see that they're comparable on many dimensions. As usual, people on this board don't understand how analogies work.

What do you mean by "malevolent government?" I suspect this is the key to my disagreement with your analogy.

A government that does evil stuff. Like enslave or kill groups of people.

The Confederate government didn't impose slavery or even sanction it. The U.S. govt did, specifically with the Dred Scott decision. The Confederacy merely reaffirmed what was already an existing legal institution within the USA, and which was practiced by non Confederate states (Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, etc) during almost all of the Civil War. Applying your analogy, it would be as if we (the U.S.) had legalized Auschwitz and were killing our own Jews at the same time as we were fighting the Nazis.

 

[jonessed]

Slavery clearly isn't as bad as genocide. Seems obvious. Is that the argument?

No, just that they're broadly comparable. Both were monstrous violations of human rights, perpetuated by a malevolent government, and were ended only because of a large-scale war. There's no need to think that they're exactly the same in every dimension to see that they're comparable on many dimensions. As usual, people on this board don't understand how analogies work.

What do you mean by "malevolent government?" I suspect this is the key to my disagreement with your analogy.

A government that does evil stuff. Like enslave or kill groups of people.

Much of 18th century Europe supported the slave trade (and some into the 19th century). I think putting those governments on par with the Nazis is rather silly, but to each their own.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Slavery clearly isn't as bad as genocide. Seems obvious. Is that the argument?

No, just that they're broadly comparable. Both were monstrous violations of human rights, perpetuated by a malevolent government, and were ended only because of a large-scale war. There's no need to think that they're exactly the same in every dimension to see that they're comparable on many dimensions. As usual, people on this board don't understand how analogies work.

What do you mean by "malevolent government?" I suspect this is the key to my disagreement with your analogy.

A government that does evil stuff. Like enslave or kill groups of people.

The Confederate government didn't impose slavery or even sanction it. The U.S. govt did, specifically with the Dred Scott decision. The Confederacy merely reaffirmed what was already an existing legal institution within the USA, and which was practiced by non Confederate states (Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, etc) during almost all of the Civil War. Applying your analogy, it would be as if we (the U.S.) had legalized Auschwitz and were killing our own Jews at the same time as we were fighting the Nazis.

The confederate government existed for the primary purpose of maintaining slavery. The US government put up with it because the practice pre-dated the formation of the government and they couldn't get rid of it at the time of founding. It was the confederacy's reason for existence.

 

[Kal El]

Slavery clearly isn't as bad as genocide. Seems obvious. Is that the argument?

No, just that they're broadly comparable. Both were monstrous violations of human rights, perpetuated by a malevolent government, and were ended only because of a large-scale war. There's no need to think that they're exactly the same in every dimension to see that they're comparable on many dimensions. As usual, people on this board don't understand how analogies work.

What do you mean by "malevolent government?" I suspect this is the key to my disagreement with your analogy.

A government that does evil stuff. Like enslave or kill groups of people.

The Confederate government didn't impose slavery or even sanction it. The U.S. govt did, specifically with the Dred Scott decision. The Confederacy merely reaffirmed what was already an existing legal institution within the USA, and which was practiced by non Confederate states (Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, etc) during almost all of the Civil War. Applying your analogy, it would be as if we (the U.S.) had legalized Auschwitz and were killing our own Jews at the same time as we were fighting the Nazis.

It should also be noted that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to those states which were in rebellion.

 

[timschochet]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

 

[GoFishTN]

Slavery clearly isn't as bad as genocide. Seems obvious. Is that the argument?

No, just that they're broadly comparable. Both were monstrous violations of human rights, perpetuated by a malevolent government, and were ended only because of a large-scale war. There's no need to think that they're exactly the same in every dimension to see that they're comparable on many dimensions. As usual, people on this board don't understand how analogies work.

What do you mean by "malevolent government?" I suspect this is the key to my disagreement with your analogy.

A government that does evil stuff. Like enslave or kill groups of people.

The Confederate government didn't impose slavery or even sanction it. The U.S. govt did, specifically with the Dred Scott decision. The Confederacy merely reaffirmed what was already an existing legal institution within the USA, and which was practiced by non Confederate states (Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, etc) during almost all of the Civil War. Applying your analogy, it would be as if we (the U.S.) had legalized Auschwitz and were killing our own Jews at the same time as we were fighting the Nazis.

The confederate government existed for the primary purpose of maintaining slavery. The US government put up with it because the practice pre-dated the formation of the government and they couldn't get rid of it at the time of founding. It was the confederacy's reason for existence.

You're trying awfully hard to paint the US as a saint in this matter.

 

[urbanhack]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

How would you explain the continuation of oppression of blacks through the Jim Crowe years and the imprisonment of innocent blacks for free prison labor?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

How would you explain the continuation of oppression of blacks through the Jim Crowe years and the imprisonment of innocent blacks for free prison labor?

 

[timschochet]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

How would you explain the continuation of oppression of blacks through the Jim Crowe years and the imprisonment of innocent blacks for free prison labor?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me to justify those actions?

Jim Crow was evil, just as slavery was evil. It was imposed and tolerated by people who had been raised by long tradition and history into believing that blacks were inherently inferior to whites and that any attempt to bring about equality or integration would be destructive to civilized living, as they understood it. A lot of very good people believed all of this or at least some of it. Like their Confederate ancestors, they were misguided, but not malevolent, at least not IMO. (As in the case of the Confederacy, there WERE malevolent elements that took advantage of the institutional racism that existed, and did some very evil things, like lynching, etc., but these were not representative of the majority.)

We live in a more enlightened age today, and we can look back with regret at the mistakes of our forefathers. But we shouldn't look at them with contempt, because it's only through evolution of ideas that we are any better than they were.

 

[cr8f]

I'd pick a different flag than the battle flag. The war is over.

I like the Bonnie Blue Flag myself, a favorite of Robert E Lee's.

 

[urbanhack]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

How would you explain the continuation of oppression of blacks through the Jim Crowe years and the imprisonment of innocent blacks for free prison labor?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me to justify those actions?

Jim Crow was evil, just as slavery was evil. It was imposed and tolerated by people who had been raised by long tradition and history into believing that blacks were inherently inferior to whites and that any attempt to bring about equality or integration would be destructive to civilized living, as they understood it. A lot of very good people believed all of this or at least some of it. Like their Confederate ancestors, they were misguided, but not malevolent, at least not IMO. (As in the case of the Confederacy, there WERE malevolent elements that took advantage of the institutional racism that existed, and did some very evil things, like lynching, etc., but these were not representative of the majority.)

We live in a more enlightened age today, and we can look back with regret at the mistakes of our forefathers. But we shouldn't look at them with contempt, because it's only through evolution of ideas that we are any better than they were.

You've implied that everyone was trending towards ending slavery and that it was just a matter of time before all the good folks realized the errors of their ways. But, history says otherwise. If these evil actions were not representative of the majority, we'd be in a much different situation today and more progress would have been made.

 

[msommer]

Wow Ivan. Auschwitz? Really?

I have a great uncle who died at Auschwitz, but if I ever go to Germany and there's a statue somewhere of Erwin Rommel, I'd like to see it. Because I admire Rommel and he had nothing to do with Auschwitz.

But even beyond that it's a terrible thing to compare the Confederacy to the Third Reich. Shameful really.

There isn't. The German government nixed the idea last in 2011. Google it if you care enough to read the story.

 

[matttyl]

A few pages back Tim and Bob threw in the ol' hand grenade about how the confederacy = x, y & z, and so inevitably the next question is well if it was so horrid how we could allow any signs of it to stand. Those statements were made without examples. Given examples of what would stay and what would go that was called 'slippery slope' even as one of the proponents, Tim, shouted 'this is just about the flag and nothing else!' Well that's where we are as this has gone past the flag to monuments, street names, bridges, games, toys, ebay, etc. This is where the argument is. I'd like to know if the commenters here are dealing with this directly in their area and if so if they are seeing discord on just that subject.

so you think once you give on the removing the flag form public capitol buildings the next logical step is blowing up Stone Mountain?

Well, yeah (with maybe a few steps in between). It's a monument to the Confederacy, is it not?

Have to say, I called this one.

 

[msommer]

As far as them being traitors, one only has to consider that, had George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry lived during the Civil War they would have all have fought for the South. That should put the question of treason to bed IMO.

Nice "logic". But I'll play your game...they would have been traitors too.

Had George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry lived during the Civil War, they wouldn't have been George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Patrick Henry. But let's play the game anyway. Suppose they had been born in Germany during the early 20th century...

George Washington would NOT have been a Nazi. But he WOULD have fought in the Wehrmacht for Germany.

What would he have done if he had been transfered to Waffen SS and set in charge of a Sonderkommando in Ukraine 1942?

Let's stop with the extrapolation and the outright fiction.

 

[Kal El]

Wow Ivan. Auschwitz? Really?

I have a great uncle who died at Auschwitz, but if I ever go to Germany and there's a statue somewhere of Erwin Rommel, I'd like to see it. Because I admire Rommel and he had nothing to do with Auschwitz.

But even beyond that it's a terrible thing to compare the Confederacy to the Third Reich. Shameful really.

There isn't. The German government nixed the idea last in 2011. Google it if you care enough to read the story.

Rommel, and several other senior German staff, had no use for Hitler, but because if his ties to the nazis, I doubt they're going to commission a statue of him.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A few pages back Tim and Bob threw in the ol' hand grenade about how the confederacy = x, y & z, and so inevitably the next question is well if it was so horrid how we could allow any signs of it to stand. Those statements were made without examples. Given examples of what would stay and what would go that was called 'slippery slope' even as one of the proponents, Tim, shouted 'this is just about the flag and nothing else!' Well that's where we are as this has gone past the flag to monuments, street names, bridges, games, toys, ebay, etc. This is where the argument is. I'd like to know if the commenters here are dealing with this directly in their area and if so if they are seeing discord on just that subject.

so you think once you give on the removing the flag form public capitol buildings the next logical step is blowing up Stone Mountain?

Well, yeah (with maybe a few steps in between). It's a monument to the Confederacy, is it not?

Have to say, I called this one.

There you go. Pretty sure this was laughed at as impossible.

 

[The Commish]

I think this is the sort of stuff tdoss was talking about a few pages back.

 

[matttyl]

A few pages back Tim and Bob threw in the ol' hand grenade about how the confederacy = x, y & z, and so inevitably the next question is well if it was so horrid how we could allow any signs of it to stand. Those statements were made without examples. Given examples of what would stay and what would go that was called 'slippery slope' even as one of the proponents, Tim, shouted 'this is just about the flag and nothing else!' Well that's where we are as this has gone past the flag to monuments, street names, bridges, games, toys, ebay, etc. This is where the argument is. I'd like to know if the commenters here are dealing with this directly in their area and if so if they are seeing discord on just that subject.

so you think once you give on the removing the flag form public capitol buildings the next logical step is blowing up Stone Mountain?

Well, yeah (with maybe a few steps in between). It's a monument to the Confederacy, is it not?

Have to say, I called this one.

There you go. Pretty sure this was laughed at as impossible.

Hey, times have changed in the past 2 weeks. I called July 4th as when this would start, so I guess I was off by a few days (not sure when they originally started this fight, though).

 

[TheIronSheik]

I think this is the sort of stuff tdoss was talking about a few pages back.

I encourage shooting people who steal other's property.

 

[GoFishTN]

I think this is the sort of stuff tdoss was talking about a few pages back.

If you don't agree with our opinion, we'll terrorize you until you do. Good job folks.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

"Good decent men?" The leadership and power base of the confederacy? They were traitors, criminals and rebels that all deserved to be hanged upon capture or shot on the field.

But you are right - they weren't Nazi's. Because they weren't socialists. But other than that the existence of the confederacy was based solely on the same kind of institutional racism and hatred that ended up controlling the Nazi party, mixed with a lot of "we didn't get a our way!" crying not unlike the "we didn't deserve to be punished for WWI" that the germans suffered from.

I don't think it's repugnant at all. We glamorize the south too much during the civil war. They had no glamour. They think they did. Their supporters think they did. But they didn't. There was no glamour, romance, integrity or honor in what the south did. It was based on solely racist deluded self interest and a level of narcissism that is close to being unmatched in American history. Oh, and states rights. Sorry. You always have to throw that in there in these days.

Having said that, taking a show about an orange car that jumps hills in front of a green screen with two guys pretended to drive it was really stupid. It's still a cool car.

 

[TobiasFunke]

A few pages back Tim and Bob threw in the ol' hand grenade about how the confederacy = x, y & z, and so inevitably the next question is well if it was so horrid how we could allow any signs of it to stand. Those statements were made without examples. Given examples of what would stay and what would go that was called 'slippery slope' even as one of the proponents, Tim, shouted 'this is just about the flag and nothing else!' Well that's where we are as this has gone past the flag to monuments, street names, bridges, games, toys, ebay, etc. This is where the argument is. I'd like to know if the commenters here are dealing with this directly in their area and if so if they are seeing discord on just that subject.

so you think once you give on the removing the flag form public capitol buildings the next logical step is blowing up Stone Mountain?

Well, yeah (with maybe a few steps in between). It's a monument to the Confederacy, is it not?

Have to say, I called this one.

There you go. Pretty sure this was laughed at as impossible.

I seriously doubt that. I remember many people here thinking it was reasonable and maybe even appropriate for them to change it when the subject came up. Some people-myself included- were surprised the thing exists in the first place.

If you suggested that they would be forced to take it down by the feds or something, that would be laughed at as impossible. But people voicing opposition to it? I'm guessing this isn't even the first time that's happened.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So Tobes I'm curious, earlier in this thread you took a case by case approach as to confederate memorials and place names. Let's assume public spaces only. Do you have any thoughts on how you would make calls on a local level? Based on what?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So Tobes I'm curious, earlier in this thread you took a case by case approach as to confederate memorials and place names. Let's assume public spaces only. Do you have any thoughts on how you would make calls on a local level? Based on what?

Beer-pong.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So Tobes I'm curious, earlier in this thread you took a case by case approach as to confederate memorials and place names. Let's assume public spaces only. Do you have any thoughts on how you would make calls on a local level? Based on what?

Whoever has jurisdiction over the thing. State highway administration, state public land commission, county/municipal Parks and Rec, whatever. They'd make the call based on their judgment of what best serves the community, just as they do when they name or commission or permit or rename or decommission or revoke a permit for anything else. It's really not that complicated- in fact they've making these kinds of decisions for many decades with very few problems. If they make the wrong decision on something maybe they take some flak from the public and the media, and then sometimes change their decision accordingly, or sometimes those mistakes have ramifications at the ballot box. And life goes on. Same as it's always been. People are making this harder than it need to be.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So Tobes I'm curious, earlier in this thread you took a case by case approach as to confederate memorials and place names. Let's assume public spaces only. Do you have any thoughts on how you would make calls on a local level? Based on what?

Beer-pong.

This would also work.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But that doesn't make them malevolent. I already pointed out that the Confederate leaders believed, wrongly, that slavery was a positive good. These were good decent men who were misguided based on long tradition and history. To compare them to Nazis or others who deliberately choose to commit evil is just wrong IMO. I'll leave it at that, but it's an analogy that I find repugnant.

"Good decent men?" The leadership and power base of the confederacy? They were traitors, criminals and rebels that all deserved to be hanged upon capture or shot on the field.

But you are right - they weren't Nazi's. Because they weren't socialists. But other than that the existence of the confederacy was based solely on the same kind of institutional racism and hatred that ended up controlling the Nazi party, mixed with a lot of "we didn't get a our way!" crying not unlike the "we didn't deserve to be punished for WWI" that the germans suffered from.

I don't think it's repugnant at all. We glamorize the south too much during the civil war. They had no glamour. They think they did. Their supporters think they did. But they didn't. There was no glamour, romance, integrity or honor in what the south did. It was based on solely racist deluded self interest and a level of narcissism that is close to being unmatched in American history. Oh, and states rights. Sorry. You always have to throw that in there in these days.

Having said that, taking a show about an orange car that jumps hills in front of a green screen with two guys pretended to drive it was really stupid. It's still a cool car.

Thank you. I was starting to fear that I was going insane or something.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I like the beer pong idea. In fact I think I'm going to go play beer pong over at the Lee statue right now and see if anyone joins me. Except it's too hot, maybe later. Actually the Circle Bar is right there, so maybe I will just go there.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I like the beer pong idea. In fact I think I'm going to go play beer pong over at the Lee statue right now and see if anyone joins me. Except it's too hot, maybe later. Actually the Circle Bar is right there, so maybe I will just go there.

Hey, I love that joint! See you there next time I'm in town.

 

[matttyl]

A few pages back Tim and Bob threw in the ol' hand grenade about how the confederacy = x, y & z, and so inevitably the next question is well if it was so horrid how we could allow any signs of it to stand. Those statements were made without examples. Given examples of what would stay and what would go that was called 'slippery slope' even as one of the proponents, Tim, shouted 'this is just about the flag and nothing else!' Well that's where we are as this has gone past the flag to monuments, street names, bridges, games, toys, ebay, etc. This is where the argument is. I'd like to know if the commenters here are dealing with this directly in their area and if so if they are seeing discord on just that subject.

so you think once you give on the removing the flag form public capitol buildings the next logical step is blowing up Stone Mountain?

Well, yeah (with maybe a few steps in between). It's a monument to the Confederacy, is it not?

Have to say, I called this one.

There you go. Pretty sure this was laughed at as impossible.

I seriously doubt that. I remember many people here thinking it was reasonable and maybe even appropriate for them to change it when the subject came up. Some people-myself included- were surprised the thing exists in the first place.

If you suggested that they would be forced to take it down by the feds or something, that would be laughed at as impossible. But people voicing opposition to it? I'm guessing this isn't even the first time that's happened.

That's about the quickest rewrite of history ever. I did a quick search of the words "Stone Mountain" in this thread, and there were 22 hits. The first mention of it was a joke by Mjoinirs who said "What about sandblasting Stone Mountain! If they need help, I hear ISIS is pretty good at that type of thing." Ditkaless wonder said "I wouldn't mess with Stone Mountain" a few posts later. Fennis then chimed in with "so you think once you give on the removing the flag from public capitol buildings the next logical step is blowing up Stone Mountain", which is what I bumped this morning with my initial response to it - which turned out to be spot on and only off by a few days. Even Officer Pete Malloy said "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." There wasn't a single person "thinking it was reasonable or maybe even appropriate for them to change it".

 

[TobiasFunke]

A few pages back Tim and Bob threw in the ol' hand grenade about how the confederacy = x, y & z, and so inevitably the next question is well if it was so horrid how we could allow any signs of it to stand. Those statements were made without examples. Given examples of what would stay and what would go that was called 'slippery slope' even as one of the proponents, Tim, shouted 'this is just about the flag and nothing else!' Well that's where we are as this has gone past the flag to monuments, street names, bridges, games, toys, ebay, etc. This is where the argument is. I'd like to know if the commenters here are dealing with this directly in their area and if so if they are seeing discord on just that subject.

so you think once you give on the removing the flag form public capitol buildings the next logical step is blowing up Stone Mountain?

Well, yeah (with maybe a few steps in between). It's a monument to the Confederacy, is it not?

Have to say, I called this one.

There you go. Pretty sure this was laughed at as impossible.

I seriously doubt that. I remember many people here thinking it was reasonable and maybe even appropriate for them to change it when the subject came up. Some people-myself included- were surprised the thing exists in the first place.

If you suggested that they would be forced to take it down by the feds or something, that would be laughed at as impossible. But people voicing opposition to it? I'm guessing this isn't even the first time that's happened.

That's about the quickest rewrite of history ever. I did a quick search of the words "Stone Mountain" in this thread, and there were 22 hits. The first mention of it was a joke by Mjoinirs who said "What about sandblasting Stone Mountain! If they need help, I hear ISIS is pretty good at that type of thing." Ditkaless wonder said "I wouldn't mess with Stone Mountain" a few posts later. Fennis then chimed in with "so you think once you give on the removing the flag from public capitol buildings the next logical step is blowing up Stone Mountain", which is what I bumped this morning with my initial response to it - which turned out to be spot on and only off by a few days. Even Officer Pete Malloy said "I'm not sure there is anything we can/should do about it now." There wasn't a single person "thinking it was reasonable or maybe even appropriate for them to change it".

I would say OPM saying that he thought it never should have gone up in the first place qualifies as thinking it would be reasonable or appropriate to change it, no? Perhaps it wasn't accurate to say that I remembered "many" people thinking that, but at least a couple did, including me. And when someone said they thought maybe the feds would withhold funding to state and local parks/rec who had these sorts of things on display I said great, sounds good to me.

And nobody was laughing at it as impossible. That is a quick rewrite of history. One person maybe laughed at the idea of blowing a mountain up, but nobody's proposing that as far as I can tell