George Zimmerman back in the news yet again
- Thread starter Her
- Start date
Sir Codin
Guest
- 0
- Posts
Florida cannot sink to the bottom of the ocean fast enough.
Pinkie-Dawn
Vampire Waifu
- 9,528
- Posts
- 11
- Years
- Age 31
- California
- Seen Feb 16, 2021
I can understand where he's coming from with this whole "cultural cleansing" of American history, because you know the say: "Those that don't learn from their history are doomed to repeat it." We need to keep these "offensive" historical monuments to remind ourselves what has happened in the past and how we should prevent it from repeating it for future generations.
But what about the theme parks at Florida? I don't want them destroyed when that happens. ;_;
But what about the theme parks at Florida? I don't want them destroyed when that happens. ;_;
Sir Codin
Guest
- 0
- Posts
Didn't Obama say "The Confederate Flag belongs in a museum?" I don't recall him ever saying, "let's erase this thing from history."
I can understand not liking the guy, I'm not fond of him either; I can understand getting irritated with people getting so knee-jerk that they remove the flag from everywhere, including Dukes of Hazzard (a show I don't recall was even about "white pride" to begin with), but I think claiming that the administration wants to "erase history" is a bit of a stretch.
I can understand not liking the guy, I'm not fond of him either; I can understand getting irritated with people getting so knee-jerk that they remove the flag from everywhere, including Dukes of Hazzard (a show I don't recall was even about "white pride" to begin with), but I think claiming that the administration wants to "erase history" is a bit of a stretch.
Silais
That useless reptile
- 297
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Seen Jul 17, 2016
I hate to agree with Zimmerman on anything (he's a real scumbag) but his anti-Muslim buddy is quite right about how our knee-jerk reaction to a symbol like the Confederate flag has caused an upsurge in the removal of historical items related to the Confederacy. By removing symbols from history from the public eye we are, in truth, trying to hide its existence. We are trying to either remove its influence from our society (an unwise move) or cleanse it to appear less racist, evil or detrimental than it actually was. Instead of frightfully removing the Confederate flag, statutes of Confederate generals or the names of Confederate supporters from street signs and schools, we should have an open discussion on the Confederacy and how it affected and continues to affect our country today.
CoffeeDrink
GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
- 1,250
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Lootin' Your Poké's
- Seen Dec 5, 2016
On Gods
Not so much of an affect against homosexuals so much as the complete and utter irrelevance of today's laws and the world we live in currently. People like to hold their old books up high and say "Hey, look at this. This is good stuff" and yet they completely forget the damage it wreaks upon society as a whole. Superstitions, ignorance and fear: no greater armour could the Dark Gods have crafted for themselves.
People see shadows and witches and heretics (and or infidels) and sinners in every shadow. They chain their women, beat their children, and torture innocent people utilizing a holy text (or cut people's heads off). It sickens me. Not so much the fact that these things have transpired, but the complete lack of knowledge that such things happened in the first place irk me. Such is the folly of the ignorant. Me? I prefer my books and my spells.
As to GZ, he's a dweeb and must be recycled and pulped into fertilizer. That will be the only way he will contribute anything halfway decent to society.
Zimmerman's a real piece of work. Almost as bad as OJ with his book "I didn't do it, but if I did, here's how it happened." Profiting off the fame he gained from his alleged criminal activity is a real lowlife move. I generally err on the side of "innocent until proven guilty," but this kind of thing really makes me doubt that he did what he did in self-defense. Either way, he's a piece of work for profiting off it.
That said, he has (and should have) the right do this if he wants, and we have (and should have) the right to call him a real POS for it.
That said, he has (and should have) the right do this if he wants, and we have (and should have) the right to call him a real POS for it.
I agree with your overall sentiment, but that in particular is more about the fact that those phrases were never there to begin with. Also, at least as far as the Pledge goes, it's an awkward thing for someone who doesn't believe in God to say. The Pledge is supposed to be about loyalty to the United States, not religion. It's not a huge deal to me, though; I just remain silent during that line if I'm ever in a situation where I'm expected to say the pledge.
Last edited:
Bidoof FTW
[cd=font-family:carter one; font-size:13pt; color:
- 3,547
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- the States
- Seen Apr 5, 2024
- 11,468
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Seen today
Why should archaic reminders of a dead state and a dead way of life, whose lasting imprint is one of violent oppression, be left in those places? They're not museums or institutions dedicated to preserving history in all the forms it takes - the good, bad and the ugly. A school or a public park is not in the same vein as Auschwitz, a historical site of evil which survives today as a constant reminder to never forget the past. Leaving signs of racial oppression in these casual, public areas is spitting on all those affected by the actions of the Confederacy then and now.
They serve no purpose other to commemorate those who took part in it, to glorify it, for what other purpose do flags and statues hold?
What bugs me is how people are acting like We're Scrubbing Away History, or the nonsense Fahrenheit 451 paranoia as shown in the thread. These symbols are not being destroyed or filed away, the past is not being censored. By all means, media discussion over the impact of America's past is more prominent than ever - hardly an act of censorship. I'll admit that the actions taken over the General Lee car are a bit puzzling, but overall, these symbols are not being 'erased'. They are just being relocated to places whose job it is to educate us, without glorifying it.
This issue is really three separate issues.
1. I do take issue with the government specifically flying that symbol. Government speech is distinct from individual speech in that government speech is seen as representative of the people. There is a reason government speech is not classified as protected free speech in our legal code. I don't think the government should be flying any flags other than those of the United States, let alone one of the flags symbolizing, among other obvious things, open revolt against the United States and its ideals.
2. I don't have any problem with Confederate symbols appearing in entertainment, fiction, or history. As it relates to those things, hiding our past failings is not how we progress; we need to see those things and to talk about them, to learn from our history, not hide it. This is why I disagree so strongly with Germany's decision to censor all things related to Nazism. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Germany is currently seeing an underground neo-Nazi movement that is gaining popularity with some of their youths, and I believe the government's open censorship of all things related to Nazism is a major contributing factor.
3. I don't particularly like people flying that symbol themselves as a show of support, but I believe, absolutely and completely, in their right to do that. One of the greatest triumphs of the United States has been our free speech protections and how narrowly we define exceptions to them. The things we classify as not being protected free speech manage to curtail very real dangers (direct threats of violence, for example) while still being sufficiently narrow to avoid curbing political, creative, or philosophical expression.
Personally, it is my belief that these people must be free to fly these sorts of symbols, no matter how hateful or offensive we think they are. The right of citizens to express their own beliefs must not be infringed, for so many reasons that I could write an entire book on the subject. But if I must point out one reason above all others, it is that if we give ourselves the power to censor speech we dislike, if we make it criminal to express an opinion that offends us, we doom ourselves to being ruled by the tyranny of the majority at all times.
Let's look at some examples. In the mid 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr., made a speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial appealing to the American people to see blacks not as blacks, and whites not as whites, but to see people as people. This offended many people very deeply because it challenged their fundamental beliefs. And that needed to happen. More recently, homosexual couples had begun to make the argument that they should be free to love each other openly, to be in public the way they are in their hearts. And this offended many people very deeply. And that also needed to happen.
It's very easy to say that their causes were just and that the cause of these people in this moment is not, but that misses the point. Everyone believes their cause to be just. That's why we need to allow ourselves to have that discussion, and that is why we cannot allow ourselves to fall into the trap of censoring those with whom we disagree. It is not for the government to decide what speech is acceptable. It is for each one of us, individually, to decide for ourselves whether what they have to say is with merit or not. We have that discussion, we talk things through, and we move forward with a more enlightened view of the social and political context that we inhabit. To fail to do so condemns all those with whom the majority disagrees to be criminals.
I will leave you with this quote from my favorite fictional starship captain, himself quoting a different fictional character.
1. I do take issue with the government specifically flying that symbol. Government speech is distinct from individual speech in that government speech is seen as representative of the people. There is a reason government speech is not classified as protected free speech in our legal code. I don't think the government should be flying any flags other than those of the United States, let alone one of the flags symbolizing, among other obvious things, open revolt against the United States and its ideals.
2. I don't have any problem with Confederate symbols appearing in entertainment, fiction, or history. As it relates to those things, hiding our past failings is not how we progress; we need to see those things and to talk about them, to learn from our history, not hide it. This is why I disagree so strongly with Germany's decision to censor all things related to Nazism. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Germany is currently seeing an underground neo-Nazi movement that is gaining popularity with some of their youths, and I believe the government's open censorship of all things related to Nazism is a major contributing factor.
3. I don't particularly like people flying that symbol themselves as a show of support, but I believe, absolutely and completely, in their right to do that. One of the greatest triumphs of the United States has been our free speech protections and how narrowly we define exceptions to them. The things we classify as not being protected free speech manage to curtail very real dangers (direct threats of violence, for example) while still being sufficiently narrow to avoid curbing political, creative, or philosophical expression.
Personally, it is my belief that these people must be free to fly these sorts of symbols, no matter how hateful or offensive we think they are. The right of citizens to express their own beliefs must not be infringed, for so many reasons that I could write an entire book on the subject. But if I must point out one reason above all others, it is that if we give ourselves the power to censor speech we dislike, if we make it criminal to express an opinion that offends us, we doom ourselves to being ruled by the tyranny of the majority at all times.
Let's look at some examples. In the mid 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr., made a speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial appealing to the American people to see blacks not as blacks, and whites not as whites, but to see people as people. This offended many people very deeply because it challenged their fundamental beliefs. And that needed to happen. More recently, homosexual couples had begun to make the argument that they should be free to love each other openly, to be in public the way they are in their hearts. And this offended many people very deeply. And that also needed to happen.
It's very easy to say that their causes were just and that the cause of these people in this moment is not, but that misses the point. Everyone believes their cause to be just. That's why we need to allow ourselves to have that discussion, and that is why we cannot allow ourselves to fall into the trap of censoring those with whom we disagree. It is not for the government to decide what speech is acceptable. It is for each one of us, individually, to decide for ourselves whether what they have to say is with merit or not. We have that discussion, we talk things through, and we move forward with a more enlightened view of the social and political context that we inhabit. To fail to do so condemns all those with whom the majority disagrees to be criminals.
I will leave you with this quote from my favorite fictional starship captain, himself quoting a different fictional character.
Jean-Luc Picard said:
Last edited: