Offended By Confederate Flag

[Jaime]

cher, the kkk exists all over the country, not just in the south.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk...ubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk

the south is also home to civil rights groups, like the southern poverty law center and john edwards' unc center on poverty, work and opportunity, right down the street from me. and where did the civil rights movement begin? oh, right... the south. mark twain was a huge believer in racial equality. where was he from? oh, right. mississippi.

there's a town not too far from me that had an openly gay mayor, and his partner is currently on the chapel hill town council. that doesn't sound like a bunch of bigoted rednecks to me.

the south is a huge, diverse area with a lot to offer, but you're unable to see that because you're [Text Removed by Moderator] blinded by a 140-some year old flag. if you'd open your fucking eyes for once, you'd see that, while the south does have some problems, it is not the shithole that you'd like to think it is.

this will be the last time i address you.

welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Sammie13]

I long believed that many coward racists fled from the south to escape the stereotype of being a "southern bigot", they landed in Illlinois and regained their pride in racism. The reason I didn't have friends in high-school is I was sick of the blacks talking about "Whitey", and the whites treating me like a petting zoo or minstrel performer, the Mexicans hating blacks (there were LOTS of Mexicans who blindly hated all blacks) and EVERYBODY hating on the middle-eastern kids. When you sit down and just listen to people talk unapologetically, you realize how widespread prejudice is, just as prevalent in the north as the south.

Marley, that really is a horrible, pitiful story. It's amazing that such is going on today. I went to public school in the rural south that was 60/40 white/black ratio and I don't recall ANY race problems I'm happy to say. Even one on one, rarely did a white person speak ill of a black person (but I'm sure there were a few occassions).

Considering you're racist stories are from this decade and in Illinois and my stories are from the Deep South in the 1980's, I'd say that Cher's south-bashing, name-calling thesis has been debunked.

 

[radical matt]

Marley, judging from what you and Cher have said, I'd say that it's the north (or, at least, Illinois) that has the race problems. I was homeschooled, but everyone I know that went to public school here doesn't really have a problem with other races. I thin some blacks think whites have unfair advantages and some whites think that blacks do (for instance, affirmative action making it easier for them to get into colleges and get more scholarships and tuition money), but for the most part they aren't against each other. We live and work together with little incident outside of occasional, and quite rare, instances which tend to make national news. On the flipside, a lot of northerners have this notion of racism being alive and well, the "different parts of town"/"wrong part of town", the ghetto, racist driven gangs, and so on. The assumption is that if it's that bad up North (where racism is presumed to be less), then it must be terrible in the South. The reality seems to be that this isn't true.

However, since someone has to be responsible, it's easier to pin the blame somewhere else. Like your explanation about racists "leaving the south and coming to Illinois" is a scapegoat; blaming the South for the problems in Illinois instead of realizing that, perhaps, Illinois is the place that has a problem with racism. I mean, by the same token, the South could say that people originally came from Europe, so it isn't the South that was racist in the Civil War era, but rather Europe. And you would, rightly, dismiss that statement as stupid and passing the blame instead of the South owning up to its own faults.

Likewise, it's apparent to me that Illinois has a problem with racism. Instead of attacking the Confederate battle flag (which has no true power anymore) or the South (which isn't causing the racism in Illinois), Illinois should start fixing the problem with racism that it has. Attacking racism elsewhere may make you feel better up there, but it won't decrease or eliminate racism in Illinois, it will only serve to increase it as people will go THERE to be racist (since, OBVIOUSLY, if you're not a "redneck" from the South, you can't be called racist!)



Kul...let me make another post for you... ^_^;


Oh yeah, and Marley, you didn't answer my question. How can you tell the ones that are saying FU and the ones showing honor, and should we outlaw them all, honor and FU alike, in order to prevent the FUs? Should we abolish free speech just because someone can say "fuck you", or should we embrace free speech with the hope that, someday, no one will?

 

[radical matt]

Nice image, with the drowning. I do in fact fish bugs out of swimming pools, and carry spiders out of the house.

Uh...I was actually speaking of myself. -blush- I'm the kid that wouldn't swat flies (mosquitoes aside... ^_^), would carry crickets out of the house instead of killing them, and would carry bugs out of swimming pools so they wouldn't drown.

...even as an adult, I'm still far to nice for my own good. I helped a fly out of the swimming pool at my apartment the other day, and I realized I do that a lot. Our society says that guys should be tough and callous. For a long time, I took my niceness as a weakness, a heart far too soft.

...then I realized something, it's not weakness, but strength. It takes far more power to to be weak and survive than it does to be a wall of stone. For a Human to stand against fate and darkness, unflinching, is far more difficult and requires far more strength than a large stone to simply sit there against unforgiving winds. The full extent of this revelation I haven't quite realized, but...it's actually nice, I think. Hiding behind a heart of stone is cowardice, not strength. Daring to show compassion; now that takes true power and not a small measure of courage.

Carrying a firearm brings the same responsibility as being a lifeguard: you've prepared yourself to do the business of protecting, and put yourself out there, and thereby assumed a duty. It isn't just the Old Testament that declares that the guy who is armed, sees an assault on another person, and does nothing is as much a rapist or murderer as the one who committed the actual act -- and those who refuse to be prepared to defend their fellow citizens against crime are only a notch behind.

Not sure about any response to this. I just thought it was quote worthy. ^_^

The police are far too corrupt, far too willing to push their authority on people, far too ready to cross the line and enforce not the law but their personal preferences already. The attitude that they hold the authority, and the rest of us are sheep, is widespread, and dangerous.

You're right and you're wrong. I believe...or maybe it's just hope...that Humans are inherently good. I also think that a lot of people that become police do so out of a desire to serve and protect, the motto that they claimed as their own.

I think there is a lot of corruption, but there is still good. That said, if we want to prevent corruption, then we should all do our part, all be willing to protect each other. That is where the ultimate power of Humanity lies.

To "encourage" purity, you really have to safeguard against corruption (or, at least, prepare contingencies.) This includes always allowing the people to fight, on par with, their government. Not with the intention that they ever will, but rather, with the hope that they never HAVE to.

I think the difference between you and me (and why your view tends to alienate people) is how we go about presenting this. To you, it is a duty and responsibility to be ready at any time to throw off the shackles of tyranny and fight. To some people, this seems too aggressive, too close to warmongering and rebellion. To me, it's a thing of utmost sadness and regret to take a life; all the more to fight against a government or army who are only attempting to follow what they see as their duty. As such, I hold it as a last resort; one that should be prepared for and allowed, but one that would never be used. It's like nukes and mutually assured destruction; a deterrent never to be used, but to always be threatened to be used. If you destroy the Earth, you won't win, you just prevent your opposition from having victory, after all. It isn't what is best for you, it's what is worst for the enemy. And in this way, you discourage the enemy from being your enemy.

While I believe you wouldn't go around indiscriminately killing, your words and personality seem to lend to one who would use force in cases where it may not be necessary.

...what I want people to know, though, is that there are some people like me who also say that it's important for people to be able to carry guns. Maybe I think that hearing from someone who really would never use one, they would realize how important it is that someone like me would feel the need for it (akin to if Ghandi or Mother Theresa called for a war against Hitler, that would be seen as an eye opener, wouldn't it?)

Of course, my view is based in a combination of reason and heart...but there will still be people that don't listen to me, justifying it as not listening to you. ^_^; But oh well, such people defy reason and I can't reach them anyway, so what does it matter? Just as long as they don't cause more harm by having their way and opening people up to extreme danger as a result (another case of evil being done in the guise of good...)

The shield and sword illustration is telling:

...

While that is a nice analogy, you miss MY point. ^_^

Out of these three options:

-Be a sword to slay all evil
-Be a shield to protect all that is good and innocent
-Be a sheep to lay before the slaughter and hope for the mercy of malevolent beings

...I would choose to be a shield. Causing harm is against my nature. However, at the same time, I realize that there can be some evils that will be relentless. You know, like little boys that wanna punch you in the stomach just because you're a badass and can take it. ^_^ It's not like they pose a threat to you at all, it's not like their punches are even hurting (if your stomach's strong enough to take them, like mine is...), but it's that they don't realize that it's annoying and they need to stop. ^_^ The only difference is that evil people are much more dangerous. If I had all the powers of Superman and could stop bullets with my bare hands, that doesn't mean I should just spend all my time following a crook around standing between them and their would-be victims stopping their bullets. Even if I CAN stop them every time, they still have to be stopped. After all, what happens when I'm gone or not around to protect people? They'd come to harm then, right?

So I understand that sometimes, someone must take on the mantle of the warrior in order to defend. However, I much prefer the mantle of the guardian; to protect. If I ever had to cause harm to do this, then I guess I would, but I wouldn't like it...

Today's version of the shield is, of course, kevlar and its successors. Fables about "cop-killer" bullets aside, if a person wanted to wear body-armor underwear all the time, fears of violent assault could well be reduced. Yet the invulnerable man has a weakness: invulnerability is no weapon, and it takes a weapon to defend one's family, friends, neighbors, and other fellow humans against those who would use weapons indiscriminately.

Actually, that "dragonscale" sounds far more interesting to me. I wish I could get involved in some R&D projects working on stuff like that (I wonder if they use physicists for that sort of thing...) But you're wrong...

...if you can be impervious to all damage, then you could always defeat a foe without having to kill them. You only have to cause harm to an enemy that poses a threat to you and those you're defending. If they can neither hurt you nor your charges, then you don't have to do anything to them but shrug off their blows.

Besides, there are far more weapons than swords and bows. The mind is a powerful weapon, as is a well toned and trained body for the martial arts and defense. Guns are powerful, in a way, and it takes a great deal of strength to defeat one. While this is much easier with a gun of your own, it's not impossible without one...you just have to be exceptionally well trained and resourceful. A level currently beyond my own, that's what I would like to be able to do...just in case. I mean, if I cannot have a weapon, then I must become a weapon, that way if others are ever in danger, I can fight for them. Especially if the gun control people have their way...

Though I do agree, if one person has a sword, others, unarmed, can fight them. If one person has a gun, then to fight them, you really have to have one of your own (or just be THAT amazing.)

Where the Confederate battle flag comes in here is that it declares a refusal to turn and run, and I suspect that subconsciously that's what a lot of people who fly it mean by it. It's a declaration akin to, while arguably less appropriate than, the "Don't tread on me" banners of the Revolution. What the South learned, at the end, was that defiance itself didn't bring victory, because those willing to inflame the masses, ignore the Constitution, and bring to bear overwhelming force while totally discounting casualties could carry the day. Since we have an administration at the present time which shares all those attributes with Lincoln's, one may well wonder if we the people are going to willingly roll over and play southerner to Washington's carpetbaggers, all without a fight.

Maybe next time you see that banner with its crossed bars and bright stars, perhaps that's the question you ought to ask: will I stand against the abusers of power, or will I roll over and bare my throat?

Maybe you're right. I wouldn't go that far, though. I think this flag is used by a lot of people to represent independence and individual capability; that the individual has the power to defend and support him/herself and can do so without needing someone else (Big Brother or what have you) to do it for them. People that insist they can provide for and protect themselves.

I'm not sure that it means freedom and defiance against tyranny, although I could see it being used for that as well (since that is just an extension of individual liberty, ability, and responsibility), but a lot of people also use it to mean worse things; another form of oppression and tyranny itself.


In the end, though, it's more pressing onward than catching ourself up on the past that we must do. To shun something from the past or to embrace the past are equally destructive. If you shun the past, then you put it away, you forget it, and in doing so, you doom yourself to repeat it. As such, you cannot grow and move beyond it, move to the future. On the other hand, if you hold the past too tightly, then you lock yourself to it...not to be stuck repeating it, but rather to never move on from it. Only by remembering and cherishing the past, but not binding yourself to it, can you move on to the future as you should do.

This flag can be used as a symbol of the past, it can be shunned and forgotten, or it can be reused, made into a symbol for the future. Out of those three things, the last one is the best. CHOOSE this symbol, and CHOOSE what YOU want it to mean to carry you into the future. The Cross was a symbol of imperial punishment and shame, and yet the Christians turned it into a symbol of hope and forgiveness for generations and generations...it's still used for that purpose today. Likewise, Hitler took a symbol ancient and used for "holy" and ancient practices, and turned it into a symbol for hate.

What's important about a symbol is not just what it was used for in the past, but what you hold it for now, and if you're using it to pave a way to a brighter future, or using it to revive its meaning in the past.


...in any case, to shun it is pointless and destructive, and to try and control the people using it is, at its core, an effort to CONTROL PEOPLE. None of this is good, and it should not be allowed or condoned.


...that...is what I believe.


But...I could always be wrong. ^_^

 

[MystikWizard]

Are you fucking kidding me? Drive down to Georgia where some proms are segregated, a white prom and a black one. Drive through Alabama. If you're black, skip certain parts cuz it's guaranteed you won't make it out alive.

I grew up in Maryland, but I could have sworn I heard Whites say the same thing about parts of Baltimore, one of the country's worst cities in Homicides.

Nah, it must all be in the South.

 

[radical matt]

You're right, there are 0 race problems in the south.

I didn't say that. I'm just suggesting it may be worse there than it is here (at least, in Texas.) Or do you not consider Texas part of the South? If you're only talking about Georgia and Alabama being bad, maybe you should talk about the "racism in Georgia and Alabama" and not the "racism in the South", as the South includes Texas, and we don't seem to have it as bad here as, apparently, you do in Illinois. ^_^

Are you fucking kidding me? Drive down to Georgia where some proms are segregated, a white prom and a black one. Drive through Alabama. If you're black, skip certain parts cuz it's guaranteed you won't make it out alive.

Again, that's not the whole South. Besides, are you going to tell me there's no place in Chicago, New York City, or Los Angeles where I (a white guy) can go that some people wouldn't try to hurt or kill me? For that matter, are you going to say those places are so devoid of racism that there aren't places there where blacks are in danger as well?

I'm just saying it's no worse in the South than the North (and West), and that it's even possible it's worse in the North (considering it seems, from you and Cher, that it's pretty bad in Illinois, and it isn't like that at all here in Texas anywhere that I've lived.)

There's no way to distinguish since some people are dishonest cowards. But there are some cases where you CAN distinguish, like the kids in my high-school who proudly let us know that they were anti-black. I don't think we should limit freedom cuz of assholes in any shape or form.

YES!!

Then we're agreed? We'll submit that there are assholes out there, but we won't limit freedom because of them. We won't let these assholes take away our freedom.

...if that's the case, then we've reached an agreement, right? ^_^

 

[radical matt]

Hm? What do you mean, Ico?

You talk like I was trying to be "cute", but...I was actually being serious...

 

[JayHawk]

I have lived in 32 of the fifty. Racism is in the minds of the ignorant no matter the race or what they hate.

People who dont have anything need something to blame for their plight. They blame that which is different from them. In Hawaii the kids all sound like they were born on the island speaking pidgeon brudder. If they don't they get the shit kicked outta them. So they adapt to survive. Think of the Islamic youth in France. Hell think of the Islamic youth across the middle east. Where Kingdoms and Rulers have split the wealth for themselves. That has created the have nots. The have nots try to kill each other and Americans when they can.

How very American to assume we have all the problems and we can fix it. Maybe someday when everyone has everything. ( a better definition of that time would be never)

As Matt pointed out Symbology is a powerful thing. Thinking you can outlaw it is ignorant. How long was the Soviet Union around? They outlawed religion. As soon as they dissolved the USSR people whipped out their crosses and started praising Jehovah.

You can not legislate deep set ideas that are handed from generation to generation. You can only educate and hope lifes experiences will teach tolerance and cause people to embrace diversity.

 

[JayHawk]

That is a different part of the equation. You can not legislate morality or tolerance but many have institutionalized hate.

Of course if we lived in a police state where all is handled for us by a fair and equal govt then you wouldnt even hear cuss words.

Somewhere in the middle I believe is where we need to be.

 

[radical matt]

I'd rather see a free state with people who are free to do anything but restrain themselves to do what they know they should and not what they shouldn't.

We, of course, have laws dealing with big things (don't kill people, don't steal from people, ect.), but at some point it has to end. At some point, people have to be free otherwise no one would live, and those people that didn't kill themselves would be useless. At some point, you have to let people be free and trust (or hope, if you prefer) that they do what they should. It's funny what a difference freedom makes, even if it's just an illusion of freedom/choice.

 

[kallipolis]

We, of course, have laws dealing with big things (don't kill people, don't steal from people, ect.), but at some point it has to end. At some point, people have to be free otherwise no one would live, and those people that didn't kill themselves would be useless. At some point, you have to let people be free and trust (or hope, if you prefer) that they do what they should. It's funny what a difference freedom makes, even if it's just an illusion of freedom/choice.

In an ideal world your idealistic thoughts, would make sense. However the anarchistic mind set has yet to prove its worth to the human race.

I am sure that you are a responsible human being. Regretfully crime statistics would suggest that there is a considerable pool of human life that does not subscribe to your humane way of living your life.

Hope enables us to keep on trying to improve our own lot, and that of society in general.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hm, if that's the case, that I wasn't clear, Kul, then my apologies. And if this clears things up for Kul, then thanks, Matt. And if it doesn't, thanks for nothing, Matt.

Well then, if that clears things up for Kul, then you're welcome, Ico. And if not, you're welcome for nothing, Ico.

I can't see where I responded to this, so--

Yes, Matt, I was making free speech the absolute, as an attribute/aspect of freedom, which is an asbolute.
Tanks.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh hell naw, lemme take my earrings off. First of all, who the fuck are you to say that the blacks complaining about this are welfare cases? And my example was high-school kids, in HIGH SCHOOL racist whites threw this flag in our face. Are you assuming that we'd all grow up to be welfare cases?

What about the intelligent blacks who work hard, it's okay to thrust racism in their face because SOME blacks are welfare cases, that it justifies disrespect? How fucking DARE you defend ignorant racists (not all confed. flag flyers, but the ones I was talking about) and justify it with welfare cases? I'm aware they exist, but I can't imagine how far your head is up your ass to think "racism is okay because some blacks like handouts."

You just fell halfway down the ladder with that one dude. How far does this "judging all by the worst" go? Can I go around punching Muslims cuz of 911? Can I go around kicking white men in the balls for Tuckaseegee, Bush, and the War on Iraq? I cannot fucking STAND people who cattle-herd all blacks by the worst of our group, and from YOU Kuhl you might as well kill my father and fuck my mother now cuz I couldn't get any more disrespected by you than what you just said.


So your view of blacks everywhere is based on the ones you've seen, and the WORST cases on TV? You'd be hardpressed to find many blacks who actually claim Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. None of us take them seriously, and they DO NOT represent black Americans or black anything. Your experience explains but does not justify your narrowminded, DISRESPECTFUL statements.

Well, son, let me put on my professorial togs and get out my red pen.
Your reading comprehension is weak.
You react more to your own emotions than to the content of that to which you're responding.
You failed to take into account the broadened reach of the ongoing discussion.

No grade assigned; do over.

 

[Kulindahr]

.... it's apparent to me that Illinois has a problem with racism. Instead of attacking the Confederate battle flag (which has no true power anymore) or the South (which isn't causing the racism in Illinois), Illinois should start fixing the problem with racism that it has. Attacking racism elsewhere may make you feel better up there, but it won't decrease or eliminate racism in Illinois, it will only serve to increase it as people will go THERE to be racist (since, OBVIOUSLY, if you're not a "redneck" from the South, you can't be called racist!)

Just for information value: the KKK is alive and well in the south... of Tillamook County, Oregon, where no black who values his skin would want to do more than drive through; and in the south... of Indiana, where my best buddy lives, where blacks are looked down on about as much as gays, as being insults to the dignity of the human race by just being "dark"; and lots more places.

Kul...let me make another post for you... ^_^;

Aw...
Come see me after class, you.

Oh yeah, and Marley, you didn't answer my question. How can you tell the ones that are saying FU and the ones showing honor, and should we outlaw them all, honor and FU alike, in order to prevent the FUs? Should we abolish free speech just because someone can say "fuck you", or should we embrace free speech with the hope that, someday, no one will?

I bothered to examine some of the motives behind the differences there, and got mugged for it... and you expect an actual answer?

 

[Kulindahr]

Uh...I was actually speaking of myself. -blush- I'm the kid that wouldn't swat flies (mosquitoes aside... ^_^), would carry crickets out of the house instead of killing them, and would carry bugs out of swimming pools so they wouldn't drown.

I kind of suspected.

...even as an adult, I'm still far to nice for my own good. I helped a fly out of the swimming pool at my apartment the other day, and I realized I do that a lot. Our society says that guys should be tough and callous. For a long time, I took my niceness as a weakness, a heart far too soft.

...then I realized something, it's not weakness, but strength. It takes far more power to to be weak and survive than it does to be a wall of stone. For a Human to stand against fate and darkness, unflinching, is far more difficult and requires far more strength than a large stone to simply sit there against unforgiving winds. The full extent of this revelation I haven't quite realized, but...it's actually nice, I think. Hiding behind a heart of stone is cowardice, not strength. Daring to show compassion; now that takes true power and not a small measure of courage.

If I had back all the money I'm out due to helping people, I wouldn't be in debt, and I might be able to dream of having my own house.
Some call it stupidity... and sometimes I wonder.

Not sure about any response to this. I just thought it was quote worthy. ^_^

Thanks. If there's one thing that irritates me endlessly at the shooting range, it's people who act like having a gun makes them better, more powerful, or whatever -- just like it drove me crazy as a lifeguard when people who were vastly better swimmers used it to look down on others. If you take up a right, that right ALWAYS involves a responsibility -- and if you're not down with shouldering that responsibility, you should lay down exercising that right.

I think the difference between you and me (and why your view tends to alienate people) is how we go about presenting this. To you, it is a duty and responsibility to be ready at any time to throw off the shackles of tyranny and fight. To some people, this seems too aggressive, too close to warmongering and rebellion. To me, it's a thing of utmost sadness and regret to take a life; all the more to fight against a government or army who are only attempting to follow what they see as their duty. As such, I hold it as a last resort; one that should be prepared for and allowed, but one that would never be used. It's like nukes and mutually assured destruction; a deterrent never to be used, but to always be threatened to be used. If you destroy the Earth, you won't win, you just prevent your opposition from having victory, after all. It isn't what is best for you, it's what is worst for the enemy. And in this way, you discourage the enemy from being your enemy.

I'll stand with the Founding Fathers, that it's a duty of everyone to be ready to fight tyranny at every turn, if we want to deserve liberty -- which is the thesis behind Franklin's oft-quoted words. That means standing up at every point for those who freely exercise their religion, even if you can't stand it, supporting those whose newspapers print what you abhor, signing petitions to get issues you disagree with on the ballot just because it looks like something people should be given a shot at voting on... and ultimately, reluctantly getting out the means and making your voice heard with bullets rather than ballots.
I'd much rather fight tyranny with ballots -- but far too many people are sufficiently complacent that they'll happily (and are in the process of doing it) sell us all down the river just for creature comforts, and I sincerely doubt that we'll much longer be able to do it that way; the lack of pledges by candidates to fight to rip out the "USA PATRIOT Act" root and branch, to impeach Bush and Cheney, to reduce police powers, etc. shows that those who are in or are seeking power really don't care to fight for our liberty.

While I believe you wouldn't go around indiscriminately killing, your words and personality seem to lend to one who would use force in cases where it may not be necessary.

I've been prepared to use it twice:
1. When as the guy responsible for a youth group on a camping trip, I came back from taking some morning photos to find a guy lifting the edges of their sleeping bags and looking in... and he wouldn't back off... and he was twice my size... and he was wearing a knife with an 8" blade. He didn't respond to requests, or warnings, or even me just loading my rifle, so I finally very loudly slid back the bolt and popped in a round. Even then he didn't back off till I got it to my shoulder and looked him square in the eye without flinching.
Would I have fired? If he'd at that point so much as touched one of those kids, hell yes!
Then I'd probably have gone and thrown up, once the threat had been neutralized.
2. Again camping, when I returned with some buddies from checking out an old abandoned gold mine, to find some idiots "target shooting" in the direction of and as far as we could tell even into a swimming hole full of kids. We were just ready to swallow hard and deploy when the barbarians decided on their own to depart. With relief we put our tools away... and proceeded to engage in a set of the shakes.
Would I have fired? If after a proper warning they had not backed down, and if they'd in any way threatened us for seeking to protect kids and families, and if I'd had a clear shot (setting that up is what took time before moving), yes!

I'll let others argue whether those shots would have been "necessary". In my book, though, if the innocent and undefended are facing a lethal threat, I'll err on the side of taking out the bad guys once making clear to them that they'd better back off.

...what I want people to know, though, is that there are some people like me who also say that it's important for people to be able to carry guns. Maybe I think that hearing from someone who really would never use one, they would realize how important it is that someone like me would feel the need for it (akin to if Ghandi or Mother Theresa called for a war against Hitler, that would be seen as an eye opener, wouldn't it?)

Of course, my view is based in a combination of reason and heart...but there will still be people that don't listen to me, justifying it as not listening to you. ^_^; But oh well, such people defy reason and I can't reach them anyway, so what does it matter? Just as long as they don't cause more harm by having their way and opening people up to extreme danger as a result (another case of evil being done in the guise of good...)

Note here that what Ghandi called one of the worst sins of the British Raj was disarming the people!

While that is a nice analogy, you miss MY point. ^_^

I saw your point; I just took the theme a bit of a different direction, looking at more than the hypothetical few options.

Out of these three options:

-Be a sword to slay all evil
-Be a shield to protect all that is good and innocent
-Be a sheep to lay before the slaughter and hope for the mercy of malevolent beings

...I would choose to be a shield. Causing harm is against my nature. However, at the same time, I realize that there can be some evils that will be relentless. You know, like little boys that wanna punch you in the stomach just because you're a badass and can take it. ^_^ It's not like they pose a threat to you at all, it's not like their punches are even hurting (if your stomach's strong enough to take them, like mine is...), but it's that they don't realize that it's annoying and they need to stop. ^_^ The only difference is that evil people are much more dangerous. If I had all the powers of Superman and could stop bullets with my bare hands, that doesn't mean I should just spend all my time following a crook around standing between them and their would-be victims stopping their bullets. Even if I CAN stop them every time, they still have to be stopped. After all, what happens when I'm gone or not around to protect people? They'd come to harm then, right?

What's sad is that there are people who don't believe in evil!
Yeah, if the option were real, I'd rather have the powers of "The One" in The Matrix. Unfortunately, in the real world the best way to stop the guy with force on his side is with force (else police and soldiers would carry flowers, not firearms).

So I understand that sometimes, someone must take on the mantle of the warrior in order to defend. However, I much prefer the mantle of the guardian; to protect. If I ever had to cause harm to do this, then I guess I would, but I wouldn't like it...

<shudder>
The idea of "taking on the mantle of the warrior" doesn't make me happy -- if I could be a character type from a fantasy RPG (e.g. Dungeons and Dragons) it would not be a Fighter; I'd be a Druid, able to influence and work with Nature to heal and make thrive. But as with Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings, who never really wished to fight, I'd still cultivate what skills in that role could be used that way (he did, recall, carry a sword on occasion).

Actually, that "dragonscale" sounds far more interesting to me. I wish I could get involved in some R&D projects working on stuff like that (I wonder if they use physicists for that sort of thing...) But you're wrong...

...if you can be impervious to all damage, then you could always defeat a foe without having to kill them. You only have to cause harm to an enemy that poses a threat to you and those you're defending. If they can neither hurt you nor your charges, then you don't have to do anything to them but shrug off their blows.

Ah, there's the rub: Superman can relax only when everyone he would protect is also invulnerable. But if the innocent can be, the evil will find a way -- and you're back to square one.

Besides, there are far more weapons than swords and bows. The mind is a powerful weapon, as is a well toned and trained body for the martial arts and defense. Guns are powerful, in a way, and it takes a great deal of strength to defeat one. While this is much easier with a gun of your own, it's not impossible without one...you just have to be exceptionally well trained and resourceful. A level currently beyond my own, that's what I would like to be able to do...just in case. I mean, if I cannot have a weapon, then I must become a weapon, that way if others are ever in danger, I can fight for them. Especially if the gun control people have their way...

I remember our instructor in Tae Kwon Do asking one evening, "What do you do if someone has a gun out and is going to shoot you?" After all the gung-ho Chuck Norris fantasy answers, the instructor shook his head and said, "You lose".

Maybe you're right. I wouldn't go that far, though. I think this flag is used by a lot of people to represent independence and individual capability; that the individual has the power to defend and support him/herself and can do so without needing someone else (Big Brother or what have you) to do it for them. People that insist they can provide for and protect themselves.

I'm not sure that it means freedom and defiance against tyranny, although I could see it being used for that as well (since that is just an extension of individual liberty, ability, and responsibility), but a lot of people also use it to mean worse things; another form of oppression and tyranny itself.

There are always two sides to meaning: what is meant, and what is perceived. The OP is wrong in assuming that only what he perceives is "the" real meaning, just as anyone who flies it to mean standing up for yourself would be to think everyone will see it that way.

In the end, though, it's more pressing onward than catching ourself up on the past that we must do. To shun something from the past or to embrace the past are equally destructive. If you shun the past, then you put it away, you forget it, and in doing so, you doom yourself to repeat it. As such, you cannot grow and move beyond it, move to the future. On the other hand, if you hold the past too tightly, then you lock yourself to it...not to be stuck repeating it, but rather to never move on from it. Only by remembering and cherishing the past, but not binding yourself to it, can you move on to the future as you should do.

The number of novels based on that theme is legion. Even -- since I've used it as an illustration -- the Lord of the Rings saga involves the concept that those who forget the past are most vulnerable to it. If I pulled off my shelves the books which make use of that theme, I wouldn't be able to carry them all --
And yet however often we're reminded, we forget the lesson. It's easier to think that some Frodo will come along with champions to put him where he can save us, than to face that it took a Gandalf and Elrond to remember that there was a threat in the first place, and admonish ourselves: remember!
In that our OP is both right and wrong: he wishes us to remember, but only in order that we might forget -- a delicious irony.

This flag can be used as a symbol of the past, it can be shunned and forgotten, or it can be reused, made into a symbol for the future. Out of those three things, the last one is the best. CHOOSE this symbol, and CHOOSE what YOU want it to mean to carry you into the future. The Cross was a symbol of imperial punishment and shame, and yet the Christians turned it into a symbol of hope and forgiveness for generations and generations...it's still used for that purpose today. Likewise, Hitler took a symbol ancient and used for "holy" and ancient practices, and turned it into a symbol for hate.

And always, even the symbol must be fought for, or its meaning will be what others make it: today the cross is being turned into a symbol of hatred, but this time wielded by those who claim to be the heirs of those who changed its meaning to something bright!

What's important about a symbol is not just what it was used for in the past, but what you hold it for now, and if you're using it to pave a way to a brighter future, or using it to revive its meaning in the past.

... and that you make your meaning clear. There's why I prefer the "Don't Tread On Me!" banner.

...in any case, to shun it is pointless and destructive, and to try and control the people using it is, at its core, an effort to CONTROL PEOPLE. None of this is good, and it should not be allowed or condoned.


...that...is what I believe.


But...I could always be wrong. ^_^

You're not wrong. An evil ignored is like an infection ignored: it will come back to get you. And the very effort to make it go away can turn into the very thing you say you're fighting.

So whatever the meaning intended, I'll cheer for people flying that battle banner... and when their reasons are bad, seek to correct them.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am sure that you are a responsible human being. Regretfully crime statistics would suggest that there is a considerable pool of human life that does not subscribe to your humane way of living your life.

Hope enables us to keep on trying to improve our own lot, and that of society in general.

Having been in jail, I know that a LOT of "crime" is just people doing things by themselves that don't hurt anyone. Our government, for our "safety", forbids all sorts of things that don't hurt anyone.
That gives rise to another common variety of crime, one Lincoln warned us against: people who see that the system is wallpapered tyranny, who say "Fuck it!" because they know that we've gotten to where justice is for the rich and "law enforcement" is often an excuse for an "officer" to persecute someone of whom he does not approve. So they live as they wish, often harming no one, and are declared "criminals" when their freedom crosses some arbitrary line.
Most of the people I met in my brief stay in jail subscribed to what used to be known as freedom: exercising their rights, and not treading on anyone else's. But since what one does on one's own property can be made a "public nuisance", and enjoying yourself in a safe and responsible way can be declared "disrupting public order", they're turned into criminals.

Crime statistics indicate what the interpreters want us to believe, and that usually is that there are very disruptive elements in our society against whom we need ever more police protection. That over 1 in 100 of our population in the U.S. is behind bars strongly indicates that the line is false, and that "crime" is about something else altogether -- like, providing job security for those in power by constantly giving them something to point to as a "threat" to "public safety".

Just those two words should give anyone with an awareness of history a chill!

 

[Kulindahr]

Would you object to the suggestion for you refer to freedom as a constant, and not an absolute? The word 'absolute' comes with such baggage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutist And constant seems more applicable, since it is a definite, a fixed value, but the final calculation is dependent on the variables to which it is assigned.

I like that -- a constant, a fixed value in political life.

Good one!

 

[Kulindahr]

^ I've never seen a geekier post than that. D&D, The Matrix, Lord of the Rings (a lot!), Chuck Norris AND Superman all in one post? Wow. That's a fanfic's cast from hell.

Hay, matt started it!
He talked about his (gasp) personal life!

 

[Kulindahr]

Marley:

I read your last post, and you just repeated what I said: you're reading into things from an emotional basis and not a rational one. The spin is that you're running my words through an excessive sensitivity, making them mean something that isn't there, and saying that the meaning you're imputing -- not the actual one -- is spin.

 

[radical matt]

Kallipolis: It may be idealistic, but if one doesn't dare to hope, then the world doesn't change. And compare them; a world without freedom will see the death of everyone. A world of anarchy at least has some hope if people can get over themselves and do good. This indicates that, while we should maintain some sense of balance, the side we should lean toward is freedom, not bondage.

Nope, I'm a bit to realistic to try to guage which is worse, especially since I barely need 2 hands to count the states I've been in.

Then you shouldn't be saying that "the South" is bad. Instead you should be saying that "racism" is bad, wherever it's found. You can speak to the racism in Illinois, so you should say: "Racism is bad. Racism is in Illinois, and we gotta fight it!" That's it. Singling out the South by name gives a pass to all racists that aren't in the South, whether you intend it to or not.

You're joking right? Texas doesn't have bad racism? You're right, I forgot how much all Texans embrace blacks and Mexicans and Muslims.

Do you live in Texas? How many cites in Texas have you been in? Were you a personal witness to racism in Texas?

Texans in general don't have a chip on their shoulder towards anyone, really (except maybe the French, but that's beside the point. ^_^) Most Texans actually do either embrace blacks and hispanics, or they simply regard them as fellow citizens. There are a few bad eggs here, but then they exist everywhere. To judge everyone in Texas by them alone is foolish, and I think you know that.

Oh, and to answer the questions you asked: No, I'm not joking. And no, Texas doesn't have "bad" racism. There is some, but it's not an epidemic here shared by a majority of the people.

*NOT saying all, but some

Well then, why didn't you say this before? But...by that token, doesn't that make us the same (or better) than Illinois, which also has "not all, but some" racism?

No, I didn't say that in the slightest.

Good. Cause that'd just be silly. ^_^

Oh, well if you haven't seen it then it must not be bad down there (in some places).

I didn't say it didn't exist. I've been to a lot of places in this state, though. Texans got used to whites and hispanics (you may not realize this, but hispanics and...gasp! blacks...can be Texans too) a long time ago. Also, Texas didn't have that many plantations or slavery even back into the Civil War (relatively speaking, compared to its population.)

...add to that that people here tend to be pretty mellow (something Northerners who have visited here have told me, so that's a "Northern" perspective on Texas.) We tend to hold a live and let live attitude.

But let's compare, shall we? I haven't seen that much racism in Texas during my lifetime (and most of that was older people.) In your time in Illinois, you've seen lots of racism, and it's been a lot of young people (the NEXT generation, not the one passing into age and losing power as the younger people take over.) Taking these personal examples, it would seem that Texas actually doesn't have that bad of a racism issue.

...and that's a good thing. ^_^

Sorta, you spun my words to make them sound illogical, so I dunno.

I quoted your words as you said them (no edits), and then told you what those views mean if taken to their natural conclusion. If they sound illogical to you, then maybe you need new views, or, at least, new words.