|
Smoothrich posted:Germany having it ILLEGAL to depict their own former flag just reminds me of how they became Nazi Germany in the first place. Ah yes, because the one thing Nazi Germany is infamous for is outlawing hate speech.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
Not entirely sure that outlawing a flag was particularly instrumental to the formation of nazi germany. Also, nobody has outlawed the confederate flag.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
Wait, I know this one. It's, "To fly it".
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Piell posted:If you want to fly a flag that shows your pride in the South, fly your state flag. Georgia state flag:  Confederate national flag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America):  I think we flew this one in under the radar boys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Ah yes, because the one thing Nazi Germany is infamous for is outlawing hate speech. A flag is not hate speech you pussy. Neither is a cartoon of Muhammad for that matter. SJW and Wahhabist ideology seem to coalesce on these kind of things I've noticed. Racist = Infidel. Man I just got a great idea for a new flag... (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:A flag is not hate speech you pussy. Neither is a cartoon of Muhammad for that matter. SJW and Wahhabist ideology seem to coalesce on these kind of things I've noticed. Racist = Infidel. But a comparison between Germany and Nazi Germany because they ban one flag (representing perhaps the most horrific regime in the history of the world) on the other hand is not hyperbolic at all
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:But a comparison between Germany and Nazi Germany because they ban one flag (representing perhaps the most horrific regime in the history of the world) on the other hand is not hyperbolic at all Strafgesetzbuch, aka German Law posted:Insult is punishable under Section 185. Satire and similar forms of art enjoy more freedom but have to respect human dignity (Article 1 of the Basic law). I break all these laws by lunchtime probably every day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
InvincibleMadHouse posted:Important differences between Germany and the American South: 1. ain't true, lest you forget Germany's African colonies. Not too many, much more than 0. What we got here is another southerner for whom black lives don't count, looks like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:A flag is not hate speech you pussy. Neither is a cartoon of Muhammad for that matter. SJW and Wahhabist ideology seem to coalesce on these kind of things I've noticed. Racist = Infidel. Please tell me more about "SJW ideology" and how it relates to Nazi Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Please tell me more about "SJW ideology" and how it relates to Nazi Germany. If I were Rumplestiltskin, I could spin all the liberals you're arguing against into gold, then use that gold to pay you to shut up. (Because they are made of straw, you see.) User loses posting privileges for 3 days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:I break all these laws by lunchtime probably every day. do a lot of race agitation do you
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:do a lot of race agitation do you Not really, I don't write for Salon after all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:do a lot of race agitation do you friggin italians, man
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:And who can TRULY hate this? I can and will, and furthermore confer upon the Convair CV-300 the title of Most Patriotic Aircraft for being good enough to conduct rebel degenerates into the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:A flag is not hate speech you pussy. Neither is a cartoon of Muhammad for that matter. SJW and Wahhabist ideology seem to coalesce on these kind of things I've noticed. Racist = Infidel. A flag is a symbol. It can symbolize hate just as well as words can. Though you seem to be pretty good at hate, so you should know!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:friggin italians, man I'm a Polack actually. You guys are "punching down" to a minority. Aren't you supposed to listen when we speak? I'm being triggered from a lifetime of casual racism, the same four jokes calling me stupid, and the attempted enslavement, genocide, and ultimately the Great Betrayal of my race by White Males who overwhelmingly still can't even pronounce my name.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:I'm a Polack actually. You guys are "punching down" to a minority. Aren't you supposed to listen when we speak? I'm being triggered from a lifetime of casual racism, the same four jokes calling me stupid, and the attempted enslavement, genocide, and ultimately the Great Betrayal of my race by White Males who overwhelmingly still can't even pronounce my name. getting a bit try hardy now
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I can and will, and furthermore confer upon the Convair CV-300 the title of Most Patriotic Aircraft for being good enough to conduct rebel degenerates into the ground. I love how noted Canadian Neil Young had a 70s rock version of a rap war with Lynyrd Skynyrd. Neil Young disrespected the South's honor with Southern Man and Alabama, so Lynyrd Skynyrd represented with Sweet Home Alabama, and I think the racist rednecks came out on top. If only our popular culture today was as hosed up on drugs and down to jam out the Big Problems like they were. Instead it's all about blogs, pundits, and blowhards who talk too much and don't even have any pro riffs to accompany their message. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVRxdPWV3RM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye5BuYf8q4o
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:I love how noted Canadian Neil Young had a 70s rock version of a rap war with Lynyrd Skynyrd. Neil Young disrespected the South's honor with Southern Man and Alabama, so Lynyrd Skynyrd represented with Sweet Home Alabama, and I think the racist rednecks came out on top. Well they started out on top anyway; then their jet ran out of fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well they started out on top anyway; then their jet ran out of fuel. Yeah but as Southerners they had spare cousins and brothers and crap to just replace them and go back on tour like nothing happened eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:I break all these laws by lunchtime probably every day. Whoa, so edgy. Are you one of those people who say that you're not racist because you hate everyone equally? I think that we should start a betting pool with all these people who think that Germany's laws against representing Nazi symbols (and other free speech related laws throughout Europe, etc) are going to make them turn into a fascist dystopia. Like, set some date in several decades and if they haven't yet become the 4th Reich all the Smoothriches of the world have to pay up. For some reason I doubt that any of the people saying this sort of stuff genuinely believe that limiting hate speech is going to have some terrible slippery slope effect and lead to fascism. While I'm uncertain personally about the benefits of limiting hate speech, I'm pretty sure that doing so would not be the first step towards fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm pretty sure that doing so would not be the first step towards fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
There is no good reason for 'the South' to want to be associated with 'the Confederacy' or any of its uniquely created symbols, because those symbols unambiguously stand for racist 'Southern Nationalism.' The Confederacy is very obviously an institution that was founded to ensure racial subjugation, in a way that even National Socialism doesn't match, which is why I brought it up. The exact racial policies of the Nazis, though always very awful, were often initially un-codified or left deliberately ambiguous in such a way that even into the 40s the Party still wasn't sure exactly what they were going to do with the Jews. This was deliberate, because for many Nazis, being a member was as much about "feeling proud to be German" as it was about killing Jews and other untermenschen - moreso in fact. An individual Nazi might've been a Nazi because he hated Jews, or he might've been one because nationalism made him feel proud and gave him an identity and ensured his economic stability. That doesn't make it any less shameful to cling to the iconography. So yeah, I think identifying with the Confederacy and offering apologetics for it and its symbols is a lot like being a "Southern Nationalist" in a literal and obvious way. That doesn't mean the rest of the US isn't full of it's own atrocious history, or that you should feel ashamed to be a southerner and not take pride in the good things about the south. The real point is that there is really remarkably little ambiguity to hide behind when it comes to the Confederacy in particular, and I truly think the Nazi comparison helps convey that. The Confederacy, as a cultural memory, is something to be deeply ashamed of, and any argument you use to try to associate it with "Southern Pride" should be offensive to any southerner for that reason. Southerns should, and often are, very embarrassed and angry about that aspect of cultural inheritance, and I think that's the correct view. Don't ban the flag, just take it down and know it makes you look like a loving Nazi when you defend it as "heritage not hate." lol tfw sjw fags think signs signify Mia Wasikowska fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
when the founding fathers want to secede and create their own slave owning nation it's great, but when those filthy southerners try to do it it's pure evil 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:when the founding fathers want to secede and create their own slave owning nation it's great, but when those filthy southerners try to do it it's pure evil How many times is the right to hold slaves guaranteed the US Constitution? Not that it wasn't a slave state, but the US wasn't created for the explicit reason of holding slaves. The CSA was and they made that very clear in the CSA Constitution. BadOptics fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:when the founding fathers want to secede and create their own slave owning nation it's great, but when those filthy southerners try to do it it's pure evil The British were A-OK with American slavery during colonial and revolutionary times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:How many times is the right to hold slaves guaranteed the US Constitution? Not that it wasn't a slave state, but the US wasn't created for the explicit reason of holding slaves. The CSA was and they made that very clear in the CSA Constitution. Once, the 3/5ths portion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Once, the 3/5ths portion. Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution posted:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 4 of the CSA Constitution posted:No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. The 3/5th compromise was answering the question that if your state allows slavery, how will they be counted towards your # of representatives; not that it was guaranteed that you could hold slaves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Did that part get stripped? Did prisoners only count as 3/5ths of a person since they aren't free and aren't allowed to vote?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Did that part get stripped? Did prisoners only count as 3/5ths of a person since they aren't free and aren't allowed to vote? Yeah, I believe the 14th basically re-wrote that part and ended up throwing out the prisoner portion. Edit: "Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." I can't say for certain how it worked before then, but looking at the text (and not taking into account any SCOTUS rulings between 1789 and ratification of the 14th) it would seem that they would be counted as 3/5ths a person. BadOptics fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:The 3/5th compromise was answering the question that if your state allows slavery, how will they be counted towards your # of representatives; not that it was guaranteed that you could hold slaves. Putting in a system that gives greater representation to areas that own slaves is effectively not only condoning slavery, but empowering it. Slavery was inherently constitutional as a result. I think the Confederate flag is inherently racists, but don't pretend the Constitution is a shining beacon of liberty when it expressly empowered CDs that had slaves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Surely it gives states less representation if they held slaves as opposed to states full of freemen? Because slaves count less towards your number. The work still has to be done either way, states with fewer slaves would need more free citizens to function.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Surely it gives states less representation if they held slaves as opposed to states full of freemen?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Surely it gives states less representation if they held slaves as opposed to states full of freemen? A slave state wouldn't choose between slavery and freemen based on electoral representation. The compromise was between slave states (who wanted slaves to be counted in population in full) and free states (who didn't want them counted at all).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
The correct answer is to do neither and instead dispose of it properly: Bathe it in the blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, then chuck it in the fires of Mount Doom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:
I find I do my best holocaust denial after a hearty lunch, why do you have to start so early?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Personally the bit about distribution of child pornography seems slightly more concerning?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Surely it gives states less representation if they held slaves as opposed to states full of freemen? The slave-holding states wanted their slaves to be counted as whole persons, so that they would have more control of the government via more seats and more electoral votes. The free states wanted slaves to not be counted at all. In the end, they decided to compromise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:In the end, they decided to compromise. That was a while before universal suffrage though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The best compromise would have been "the population of the state shall be taken as the number of natural persons there who are entitled to vote." I don't think the South would have agreed to that though? It would have been the same as the North's position of only freedmen being counted for representation/taxation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 13:57
|
|