White Nationalists v Democratic Socialists!

[Flash]

Flash, you openly refuse to talk to anyone who has a contrary position to yours on this.

You don't personally know anyone who does, or who is a target of that flag, and you don't care to know anyone. You want to cut off debate and cut off other perspectives because they don't accommodate yours.

So you have no way of legitimately saying you understand the elements of racism when you refuse to even listen to the people who are the targets of that racism because you are a narcissist.

It sounds to me like you're scared to do the work because it might upset the conventionality to which you are steadfasting clinging.

If you learned that flag is a tool of oppression and intimidation, you couldn't really defend it along 1A lines.

It's the same realization I came to after befriending, knowing, and talking to people that flag targets. I used to have your perspective; that I couldn't understand how an inanimate object could be intimidating until I was able to listen to the people that flag targets, even realizing that as a Jew, I am also a target of that flag. So as a Jewish person, when I see that flag waved about, the impression I get is that person wants to be able to subjugate me -or worse- because of what that flag represents and how it's used as a tool to advance that representation.

You live in isolation and because of that, your world view is limited and narrowed to purely your own perspective.

So that's why it's impossible for you to fathom that flag being used as a tool of intimidation and oppression of others.

It is not that I haven't listened or that I don't understand, it is that I put our 1st Amendment rights ahead of a person being offended.

And, it has nothing to do with views contrary to mine. I am just citing basic constitutional and criminal law. There is not another view about what the law is, you just disagree with current law.

And you are very selective of your empathy. On this forum I have seen you:

1. Insult and curse people
2. Call for people to be shot

Are these intimidating (using your definition)? Is it intimidating to call for someone's death because you disagree with their actions? Where is your empathy?

 

[TTQ64]

No, you don't think it is intimidation because you aren't one of the people that flag targets.

This is what I mean when I say you lack the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes.

It's impossible for a narcissist like you to do that.

A lot of white americans are this way.

 

[Flash]

YES! Right. The state does that.

Which means the state can also make intimidation legal, which is what they did when they passed all those laws and bills that established these monuments and flew the flags above state offices.

It's a two-way street Flash. If the state can make intimidation illegal, it can also make it legal. And the laws passed to preserve the Confederate monuments on state grounds do precisely that.




Not if that flag is used as a tool of intimidation and oppression, which it was and still is.

They wrote the laws that said it wasn't a tool of intimidation and oppression, which is how and why they were erected.

This is the history of the flag you seem so adamant we preserve, while at the same time, utterly ignoring for the sake of your shitty argument.

You misunderstand the law. Nobody made intimidation legal by constructing those memorials. They just built them. The 1st Amendment prohibits government from passing laws restricting our freedom of expression.

 

[Flash]

So this is a cop-out.

Instead of defending your shitty argument, you foist a task on an anonymous message board because you don't want to admit that these racists bent the law to let them intimidate people for generations with that dumb flag.

Because you don't think the flag is intimidating, no one else should...that is narcissism, you fucking stooge.

Nobody bent the law. The 1st Amendment has always protected freedom of expression.

Many would think your calling for people to be shot would be threats much worse than being exposed to a flag or statute of some guy on a horse most of those driving past do not even know who it is.

 

[Flash]

A lot of white americans are this way.

Those who defend the 1st Amendment.

 

[TTQ64]

None of that overrides our constitutional rights or changes the legal requirements for intimidation which is the main point about waving a flag--not what it represents.

And, I am sure I understand those elements of racism better than you.

what is the legal requirement of intimidation?

 

[CFM]

Nobody bent the law. The 1st Amendment has always protected freedom of expression.

Many would think your calling for people to be shot would be threats much worse than being exposed to a flag or statute of some guy on a horse most of those driving past do not even know who it is.

LV is just another idiot that hasn't figured out that if someone is intimidated by something it's because of themselves not the one they want to blame.

 

[Flash]

So this is a cop-out.

Instead of defending your shitty argument, you foist a task on an anonymous message board because you don't want to admit that these racists bent the law to let them intimidate people for generations with that dumb flag.

Because you don't think the flag is intimidating, no one else should...that is narcissism, you fucking stooge.

The point of empathy is becoming a better person. You are not a good person when you insult and intimidate others. You choose to show empathy toward blacks while ignoring empathy with anyone you disagree with. You justify that lack of empathy by pretending their views do not deserve your concern.
It is not an either/or situation, we can be tolerant, empathetic, and humane toward all people.

Calling for the death of others is not being a good or humane person.

 

[Flash]

what is the legal requirement of intimidation?

Intimidation means using force or threats to try to force a person to take some action or prevent them from acting. You can look up the term and see the criminal statute defining it in each state.

If everyone got to decide if they were victims of intimidation there would be millions of cases per day. What would that involve? Just going to the police and claiming you felt intimidated because somebody wore a Bernie, BLM, or Trump shirt? Courts never approve laws so vague and have struck down laws for "offensive" speech as being too vague.

Simply carrying a Confederate flag is not intimidation. It may offend some people, but that is true of many things.

 

[TTQ64]

Intimidation means using force or threats to try to force a person to take some action or prevent them from acting. You can look up the term and see the criminal statute defining it in each state.

If everyone got to decide if they were victims of intimidation there would be millions of cases per day. What would that involve? Just going to the police and claiming you felt intimidated because somebody wore a Bernie, BLM, or Trump shirt? Courts never approve laws so vague and have struck down laws for "offensive" speech as being too vague.

Simply carrying a Confederate flag is not intimidation. It may offend some people, but that is true of many things.

So you don't think it intimates Blacks?

If not, how do you come to this conclusion?

 

[CFM]

You misunderstand the law. Nobody made intimidation legal by constructing those memorials. They just built them. The 1st Amendment prohibits government from passing laws restricting our freedom of expression.

People claiming they're intimidated by such things are actually saying they don't like opinion someone has the right to express.

 

[CFM]

So you don't think it intimates Blacks?

If not, how do you come to this conclusion?

An inanimate object doesn't have that ability. If you're offended by it, tough shit. That's your problem.

 

[Flash]

So you don't think it intimates Blacks?

If not, how do you come to this conclusion?

I didn't say that. I said it doesn't meet the criminal definition of intimidation. A guy walking down the street carrying a flag is not trying to force blacks to do anything or stop doing something by threatening harm to them.

Carrying that flag is also protected by 1st Amendment rights. My point is that we can't stop somebody from exercising their freedom of expression because it might offend someone. Because, as I said, that is so subjective and so widespread people would try to stop all types of free expression.

A person might be offended by gay marriage but their right to marry trumps his being offended. A city council member in the Houston area yelled and screamed at some teenage girls in an ice cream shop for wearing Trump shirts but their right to wear those shirts outweighed her being offended.

 

[Flash]

People claiming they're intimidated by such things are actually saying they don't like opinion someone has the right to express.

Yes, I am waiting for LV426 to explain how his calls to shoot and kill conservatives is not more intimidating than a flag.

 

[CFM]

Yes, I am waiting for LV426 to explain how his calls to shoot and kill conservatives is not more intimidating than a flag.

I'm not worried about that puss. He made all sorts of claims about how he could identify me, what he'd do with the information, etc. if he had a chance to look me in the eye. When I gave him detailed directions on where I was, he went into IA hiding. Haven't seen him yet.

 

[TTQ64]

I didn't say that. I said it doesn't meet the criminal definition of intimidation. A guy walking down the street carrying a flag is not trying to force blacks to do anything or stop doing something by threatening harm to them.

Carrying that flag is also protected by 1st Amendment rights. My point is that we can't stop somebody from exercising their freedom of expression because it might offend someone. Because, as I said, that is so subjective and so widespread people would try to stop all types of free expression.

A person might be offended by gay marriage but their right to marry trumps his being offended. A city council member in the Houston area yelled and screamed at some teenage girls in an ice cream shop for wearing Trump shirts but their right to wear those shirts outweighed her being offended.

So if a Black person is intimidate by the flag............so fuckin what?

"I didn't say that" - that's exactly what your saying.

That flag represents hate, violence, slavery, oppression and a horrid history of america.

as a Black person, what it represents INTIMIDATES ME!

But since I'm not born white, what intimates me doesn't matter.

 

[LV426]

why do non LGBTQ people wave the rainbow flag?

So you think the rainbow flag represents oppression and supremacy? How so? When has the rainbow flag been used to intimidate people?

one doesn't have to be a white supremacist in order to have southern pride

And only the Confederate Flag can represent "Southern Pride"? What did they do before the Confederacy to show their "Southern Pride"?

same as one doesn't have to be gay to support gay rights.

So you're saying someone doesn't have to be a racist to support racism?

 

[Saudade]

I wish some people were as unsettled by white nationalists as they are by democratic socialists.

Well, sometimes, they're the same. Richard Spencer leans socialist, for example.

Many of the white nationalists in Europe are socialist as well.

 

[LV426]

dude, i've seen people intimidated by a cat

Well to be fair, cats are assholes.

how are you going to stop that? outlaw cats or make a crime about using cats as a weapon? i

Cats aren't a tool of intimidation and oppression targeting specific races, nationalities, religions, or ethnicity.

But the Confederate Flag is, and has been.

No one has ever said, "let's put up a flag of a cat to remind everyone that we think cat owners are superior and should subjugate all non-cat owners".

 

[LV426]

Now your logic has gotten completely whacko. The law decides that intimidation is. And you have jumped from waving flags to erecting flags.

Flash, come on. When a flag is erected, it waves. Waving and erecting the flag are the same thing, so stop with the sophistry.

And yes, the law decides what that intimidation is, but who wrote the laws? The same people who were erecting and waving those flags.

Isn't it convenient that the people who erect and wave those flags also determine that doing so isn't intimidation?

And no, a flag on a flag pole does not try to force somebody to do something which is the definition of intimidation.

You don't have to force anyone to do anything to intimidate them.

Intimidation can merely be the presence of something intended to have an intimidating effect on the people they're targeting...like erecting Confederate Flags atop public buildings where black people vote. Or what these people did just two weeks ago in North Carolina:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1228779127253143552

So what would be the purpose of lining up all those Confederate and Nazi flags directly adjacent to an early polling site?????