I suppose I’d better add, monstro, that this is what I’d like to be able to say. I’m not sure it’d actually be true, which would be a shame, but if I were capable of living up to my own ideals, it would be.
And cainxinth, I’m sorry to hear that you have no problems with certain forms of prejudice. Not terribly surprised, since it’s a pretty common thing, but sorry nevertheless. What I am not going to do is pardon you for it; if prejudice is wrong, no form of it is excusable. Even yours.
You’re either a jackass or a liar.
Or, possibly, someone who tries to live life by a consistent and reasoned morality which precludes judging someone without having a reasonable degree of information about him or her. That you do not use the same moral code as I choose to use is utterly irrelavant.
Also, I should add, someone who recalls that personal insults are to be kept out of GD. And, finally, someone who can’t spell “irrelevant.”
Your name is always tricky to spell for me, g8rguy!
Am thinking about getting it changed for precisely that reason. Well, not because you, specifically, have problems spelling it, but because it gets rearranged into so many interesting permutations. Also because with any luck at all, I will be an ex-g8rguy within the next 6 months. 
The fact that someone is wearing a symbol of a racist movement IS information relevant to the judgement of that individual. If someone is going around in a Nazi SS uniform, you do have a reason to form an opinion of them on a factual basis. Like all judgements, this one should be mutable, but it would in no way be baseless.
Oh, no question laigle, that what symbols a person associates himself or herself with is relevant information. I just question whether it would be enough information with which to smear someone.
In the case of someone wandering around in the SS uniform, carrying a sign that says “Jews must die,” it’s an excellent inference to assume that the person is anti-Semitic. In the case of someone flying the Confederate flag, it is a less reasonable inference to assume that the person is a racist.
Wearing a generic swastika, by itself, doesn’t tell us too much either; as pointed out earlier in the thread, it’s a pretty old symbol. It may say something about the person’s (lack of) taste, or (lack of) sensitivity to the fact that it offends some people, but it doesn’t constitute grounds to automatically label someone as something that he or she may well not be.
And maybe that guy with the cowboy hat and boots, isn’t really a cowboy, but an escaped mental patient who just thinks he’s one. Luckily you have a “consistent and reasoned morality which precludes judging someone without having a reasonable degree of information about him or her,” and you wouldn’t make the mistake of saying, howdy.
Your bullshit semantics are almost as ridiculous as your bullshit defense of confeds. Yeah maybe the guy with a swastika on his jacket is just behind the times, but it’s a lot more bloody likely he’s a fucking degenerate. And if you can’t see that you’ve lost your grasp on reality altogether, consistent morality or not.
Four points, and four points only.
I must have missed when deciding whether someone was or was not likely a cowboy become a moral issue. That is, I don’t consider deciding whether someone is a cowboy or not to lie on remotely the same plane as deciding whether someone is a racist or not. Fortunately, the cainxinth approach turns this into a moral issue, to the relief of cowboys everywhere.
I wouldn’t have to decide whether or not to say “howdy” to begin with, as I am a pretentious git. “Good morning” serves quite nicely.
Your “realistic” principles are responsible for condemning an awful lot of innocent people. Perhaps I am unrealistic in failing to jerk my knee; perhaps, however, people who try to think before they judge make the world a better place. Before condemning someone, it behooves us to be sure that he or she deserves our condemnation; “likelihood” of being a jerk is not sufficient reason to treat someone as if he is.
That said, you’ve given me plenty of evidence to make an informed decision about whether discussing this with you is worth the time. Unsurprisingly, my conclusion is markedly to the negative. Try me again when you can exhibit some pretense of civility.
First, a Pretentious git? Dude, you’re from Florida, not Cambridge.
Second, you are in fact certifiable, so I’ll explain this like I would to a two year old.
[ul]
[li]Most people who wear swastikas hate Jews[/li][li]Many people who display a confederate flag hate black people[/li][li]All people who wear cowboy hats, boots, stirrups, etc. are cowboys, except for the random nut job.[/ul][/li]
It’s no more complicated than that. If you feel the need to beat this horse until it’s good and pulpy, feel free because I’ve gone from bewildered to amused.
I’m going to condense my thoughts all down in this one post rather than try to address each of the several posts already made. As it happens something else was brought up that ALSO impacts me to a degree, and may provide an instructive example on why I feel the way I do about the ‘Confederate flag’. I won’t post again (do I hear applause? ;>) since I doubt I’ll change any minds and as has been said, this is done to death.
I’ve mentioned in several other threads that I’m a practicing Asatruar, Asatru is a modern reconstruction of the old norse/germanic pagan faith. Among Asatru’s many holy symbols is the fylfot, also known as the swastika… it’s ancient pedigree as a symbol of the sun (and for some Thor’s hammer in flight) is well known and precisely the reason the nazi’s subverted it for their own use. So here I am, the descendent of several Confederate soldiers, proud southerner in heritage, the product of a wonderful salt of the earth family with virtues and traditions I would like to pass down to my children who also has reason to respect two extremely controversial symbols. As it stands, I see a lot fewer problems with displaying the Confederate flag in various ways than I do about the fylfot.
To answer monstro’s question, here is the difference between the two as I see them. The ‘Confederate flag’ was never officially the flag of the CSA, it has no official political ties unlike the swastika featured prominently on the flag of the third Reich. To me the more apt comparison would be the ‘Confederate flag’ and the German ‘Iron Cross’, both were emblems of battle… both are misused today by racists, both have histories of honorable use by veteran and civic groups and are hugely recognizable as cultural symbols. Whereas the flag of the Third Reich is irredeemably linked with that regime’s sickening political ideology and little else, the swastika along with it, I believe the Iron Cross and ‘Confederate Flag’ have come to have important honorable meaning as well as the unfortunate negative meanings attached to them.
That a symbol of pride and importance has a dark side is nothing new, as I’ve mentioned before almost all symbols throughout history have had black marks against them. I can see and understand why somebody might see the Iron Cross, the ‘Confederate flag’, the Cross, the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes and have negative feelings about them. There are reasons, VALID reasons why they might feel that way. I only ask that they use their brains and recognize that those symbols also mean other things to other people and look for their use IN CONTEXT before making rash judgments. If I’m a Confederate re-enactor and have a bumper sticker on my car with the ‘confederate flag’ and a unit number in support of my hobby… don’t presume I’m a racist. If I am seriously into Harley Davidson bikes and own a jacket with a ‘confederate flag’ patch, well… I just might not be a racist. If I am an alumni of Ole Miss and on my way to a football game, with confederate flags flying from my car… I might not be a racist you know. If on veterans day I respectfully fly the US flag, my state flag and the confederate flag below it in honor of the men in my family who gave their lives in battle… don’t presume I’m a racist. There have been millions and millions of items of merchandise sold that have been emblazoned with the ‘confederate flag’… you cannot possibly tell me that every single one of these people are racists who bought those items to support hate.
There are people who like things simple, all Muslims are terrorists, all Christians are fundamentalist clinic bombers, all northerners are rude, all southerners dumb, all Californians flakes… blah blah blah. Nothing is ever really simple like that, the ‘confederate flag’ is a symbol of hate, it’s also a symbol of pride… and love of one’s home and the south, of rebelliousness and patriotism in an odd way. Try to have an open mind.
Hmm. That was almost passably civil, and it affords me an excellent opening to clarify the important distinction between my view and those of some of my opponents. Plus, it may give me the chance to get the last word, which is always important…
Indeed; it is in ignoring such technicalities that pretentiousness is born in the first place.
I thank you for that illuminating and insightful contribution, which had no doubt escaped countless readers. I was not, in fact, among those readers who had failed to grasp the deep subtleties of your point; witness my statements that I am not comfortable around people displaying the confederate flag or the swastika.
However, I would like to draw your attention to the words used to start the first two items in your list: “most” and “many.” I remind you that “many,” “most,” and “all” are three distinct words with three distinct meanings. I further remind you that it is wrong to treat a person as guilty of some infraction unless you are reasonably certain that they are, in fact, guilty. I remind you still further that “suspicion” and “certainty” are also distinct words with distinct meanings.
The logic of my position should now be transparent.
I would have thought these statements were trivially obvious (just like the statements on your list), but apparently they needed to be explicitly spelled out, as what I find trivially obvious you find deeply mystifying, even insane.
The confederate “cause” is slavery. It is racism. States rights? Guess what the SPECIFIC “right” in question was. Yup, it was the “right” to not only perpetuate slavery but to spread it ACROSS THE ENTIRE USA!
Likewise, these selfsame states were happy to trample on the rights of free states.
Confederacy == racism and slavery. Neoconfederates == racists and wannabe slavers
It seems to me that Dean was making two points -
[ul][li]That the Democrats had better pick up some votes in the South, or they can kiss their chance at the White House good-bye for this election cycle. [/li][li]That they aren’t going to pick up white Southern votes by obsessing on political correctness. [/ul][/li]The first point seems to me too obvious to require much discussion. “The Solid South” is now solidly Republican. Democrats have the black vote sewn up, but that isn’t enough to control the South. If they, or Dean, want any shot at all, they have to widen their appeal.
The second point seems to be getting proven by the nature of the debate. Dean being the front-runner, all the other candidates are pulling the leading crab back into the bucket. In the process, one faction in the Democratic party is trying to exclude anyone who doesn’t kneel before the altar of PC.
Southern swing voter: “I’m not a racist, just a history buff.”
Democrats: “Yes you are a racist, you scum - get out of my party!”
SSV: :shrugs and goes off to vote Republican:
Regards,
Shodan
cainxinth
[Moderator Hat ON]
cainxinth, you better take it down a notch, NOW.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Sweeping generalizations == unhelpful and beneath a reasonable person.
Did you try hard to make it out? 'Cause it sure don’t look that way. Care to actually address my ( quite simple ) point instead of misrepresenting it and gleefully thrashing the straw from your creation? If they show a symbol lots of people interpret as racism then they are promoting racism, intentionally or no. How can you and the other flag waving apologists ignore this?
I can ignore it because it’s nonsense which you have utterly failed to establish, or even provide a reasonable argument for. Which is why I’m having such a hard time making your argument out. There isn’t an argument, just an assertion with no support; I am trying to figure out what support you can give it, since you have provided nothing helpful into which to sink my teeth.
Incidentally, as I have no flag to wave and have stated repeatedly that I am uncomfortable with the flag but unwilling to ascribe racism to those whose motives I cannot know, you are utterly mistaken in using the “flag waving” monicker with respect to me. Just an FYI.
Since that perhaps was too abrupt, and left you not enough information with which to either hang me or be hung, I should probably clarify. So let me try to recap what I’m saying, in a bit more detail.
You: Flying the flag promotes racism.
Me: Why?
You: Because lots of people associate it with racism.
Me: That is a fault not of the flag-flier but of the people making the unjust insinuation. It is the prejudice of those who assume that flying the flag is an approval of racism.
And from there, I’ve utterly lost you. You seem, to me, to be saying that flying the flag is a statement in support of racism because lots of people think the flag is a racist symbol. I am simply saying that these people are being prejudiced inasmuch as they assume that a person is a racist based on a symbol whose meaning depends on who is asked.
And I don’t see that you’ve provided any meaningful rebuttal to any of this; you haven’t demonstrated why it is the fault of the flag-flier that people take him to be supporting racist beliefs. You just continually say that it IS, and I have no idea why you believe it; perhaps it’s just an axiom of yours, in which case I think the axiom is just wrong, or perhaps you really do have an argument, in which case I’d appreciate its presentation.