A Confederacy of Dunces?

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

I said many people, not all. It isn't just neo-nazi's that want blacks wiped out..

many southerners believe this country would be 1000 times better without them.

If by 'many' you mean even 50.1% you would be wrong.  One thousand times better?  No.  Do you write from the perspective of someone raised in the South? Living in the South?   The South of 2015 is not the South of 1915 or even 1995.  Don't let your hyperbole get the better of you.

---

I said many, not majority. And yes, those that feel this way do believe it would be 100 times better. I am speaking from the perspective of someone who has dozens of family members living in various southern states. All of them have spoken of some of their neighbors who think we would be better off without blacks in the US. I'm not throwing out percentages here. That would be foolish. But even 1% is far too many. The last US census put the population of the south at 114,600,000 people. 1% of that number is 1,146,000.  Is a million people "many"? Many is not a hyperbole.

The 1000 was a typo i missed. it's easy to hit an extra 0.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

Congratulations Dres.  This is cause for a big celebratoin! 

[Cinnamon Mistwood]

---

Dresden wrote:

I ask the following questions not to be incendiary, but because I honestly believe that doing so might actually start an interesting discussion:

Considering recent events, do you believe that Linden Lab should follow the likes of Wal-mart, Target, Amazon and Etsy, henceforth banning the sale (and perhaps even existence) of any creation containing the image of the confederate battle flag from its services?  And, of course, why/why not?

...Dres

ETA: the word battle.

---

Linden Lab should do whatever it feels is right for the company and its image.  Second Life is their world no matter what the motto says.  Wal-mart, Target, Amazon and Etsy should do whatever they feel is right for their companies and their images.

As for the rest of this philosophical debate, here is my opinion

There is a certain amount of freedom we enjoy in the US as individual beings.  One of them is the freedom of speech.  Individuals should be allowed to fly whatever flag they want and make whatever statement they want regardless of who is offended or what the flag represents.  I will not be the the one to decide what someone is allowed to have in their yard or plaster on their car or what they are allowed to believe in.  It may be ignorant and hateful in my eyes and I am offended by the sight and symbol, but there are no laws against ignorance and hate (just acting on them).  Thought police are not going to be riding in war horses to trample those thinking hateful thoughts.  All we can do is recognize it for what it is and voice our opinions and fight for enlightenment and change.  What we can't do is decide what other individuals can believe based on our own personal opinions (popular or otherwise).  Those are individual freedoms. 

I don't think the flag should fly over a government building.  Corporations can do whatever the hell they want and deal with the consequences.

Just to be clear - <IMO Everything about that flag raises my hackles.  Everything it stands for pi$$es me off.  The self righteousness of those who fly it under the lie of southern pride, but really fly it  knowing exactly the hate and death it really stands for sickens me.  You can disagree with me, but you can't tell me I am wrong. All you can do is try to change my mind. IMO> 

 

You have the right to fly your flag

I have the right to be offended and think you're an idiot. (and I am allowed to say so)

 

Cinn

 

Congrats, Dres!  It's about damn time :matte-motes-smile:  *tosses birdseed*

 

[Aethelwine]

I think most people outside the USA think it has something to do with the Dukes of Hazard.

hehe

But a little investigation and you find out the real meaning of the South Carolina confederate battle flag being raised over their Statehouse in 1962 was as a White Suprematist symbol of resistance to the growing Black Civil rights movement. As such its meaning is clear and for anyone that thinks their state should not be proudly broadcasting its racism, its usage as such is inappropriate.

I am not for banning symbols of hate,but any individual or organisation distributing such symbols has to think and consider if that is something it wants to be seen to be doing. And anyone wearing one on a sim where I have ban and eject rights can consider themselves under caution and I will use my ban hammer alot quicker on them should they be an arse.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

In the slaver's mind it is their right to prosper on the loss of others. In the mind of a nazi, it's fine to commit genocide without any valid reason.

---

That is exactly the point people are trying to make. In many minds the people waving the confederate flag would like nothing more than to see blacks wiped off the face of the earth, or removed from the US at the least. Which makes them just as bad if not worse than the Nazis as they are spouting about racial purity when they aren't pure themselves.

---

You aren't making the discussion any clearer by bringing in two new groups, on top of white slavers and post civil war Southern politicians. You bring in people with an opinion about others waving the Confederate battle flag and people waving that flag, saying they want to get rid of African Americans altogether.

That last group is rather small and can be charactarised as "hate group", which is not at all the same as white "supremacy groups". (U.S. law doesn't seperate "hate crimes" from other crimes without a reason.) The first is more closely related to the nazis than the latter, which is closer to the 19th century South.

I completely fail to understand how you can compare any of those groups to the nazis, let alone conclude they are worse than the nazis. As far as I know, most hate groups have their origins in prison, not in politics. Their wish may be white United States, but I do not see they have any plans or opportunity to actually turn that wish into reality. Nor do they terrorise the entire nation, forcing that nation to march along, on a path to destruction. I have never heard about big plans about genocide on Africans and their descendants. If anything, they seem to deny it ever happened in nazi Germany. Having a certain wish (a white America) is not the same as creating a dictatorship with the main goal being the destruction of an entire race. They would never have succeeded, but with about 1/3rd of the race as they defined it exterminated, they were well on their way.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

[...]

It is a big leap from "we are not equal" to "

you are a pest to society

and you need to be exterminated"

Certainly

not

the same ideology.

---

i just jump back in here bc you mention me

i think that where we at cross purposes is that you are addressing the outcomes of the two situations and I am more addressing the philosophical basis that lead to these outcomes

---

Both slavery and the holocaust have terrible outcomes with a world of grief for the victims, their descendants and society as a whole. I have no way of measuring that grief, nor does anyone else.

The basis of both "ideologies", as I see them, are in the quote above. The fact that one can lead to the other doesn't make them equal.

 

---

if you had a choice: be enslaved until you die, or die now, which would you choose? Or if view this as a 3rd-party which would be the lesser of the two evils?

[...]

there is no choice for the objects of their intentions. Both these evils begin with the removal of choice

---

Since we're talking about the ideology here, not the outcome, I think you approach the situation completely backwards. It's not about the victim, it's about the aggressor.

 

---

we fear the other tribe, one we have not previously met, bc of what they might be able to do us

We dont fear them bc of what is unknown, we fear them bc of what is known to us based on our past experience with other groups we have encountered

we dont fear the unknown, we just go carefully

racism doesnt come out of fear of the unknown. It comes out of fear of the known

---

We don't know what the "other tribe" wants to do to us. We don't know their intentions, we don't know their motives. I call that unknown. Of course I can't prove it, but I am pretty sure that a certain group that has never encountered another group, will normally react with at least hesitation when they are faced with an unknown group.

Even if it's not the case (and in history we can see some very naive encounters), whether racism is based on the known or unknown, it's still part of society or human nature, originated in self/group preservation.

[irihapeti]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Since we're talking about the ideology here, not the outcome, I think you approach the situation completely backwards. It's not about the victim, it's about the aggressor.

 

---

We don't know what the "other tribe"

wants

to do to us. We don't know their intentions, we don't know their motives. I call that unknown. Of course I can't prove it, but I am pretty sure that a certain group that has never encountered another group, will normally react with at least hesitation when they are faced with an unknown group.

Even if it's not the case (and in history we can see some very naive encounters), whether racism is based on the known or unknown, it's still part of society or human nature, originated in self/group preservation.

---

about the first

given a victimizer first approach, then we can easy enough dissemble the motivations and rationales of the victimzer. Not so easy when we take the victim first approach

+

about the second

so we agree that racism isnt a product of an unknown property

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

irihapeti wrote:

given a victimizer first approach, then we can easy enough dissemble the motivations and rationales of the victimzer. Not so easy when we take the victim first approach

---

I think nazi intentions, motivations and rationales are crystal clear.

---

so we agree that racism isnt a product of an unknown property

---

I don't see how you read that in my comment, I did say it is rather irrelevant in this discussion, since one way or the other, it means there's a seed for racism in every human being. The mere fact that we are both talking about the other tribe, means we make a distinction: us and them.

[irihapeti]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

---

I think nazi intentions, motivations and rationales are crystal clear.

---

so we agree that racism isnt a product of an unknown property

---

I don't see how you read that in my comment, I did say it is rather irrelevant in this discussion, since one way or the other, it means there's a seed for racism in every human being. The mere fact that we are both talking about the

other

tribe, means we make a distinction: us and them.

---

on the first

and so to are the slavers intentions, rationales and motivations, from the victims pov. The victim of the slaver is fully aware of the slavers intentions, motivations and rationales. The victims dont accept these as being valid but it is crystal clear to them what these are

+

on the second

it was relevant to the discussion bc you asserted it earlier. That racism is a product of the unknown. Which you now defer to as being irrelevant. So thats good

+

us and them

us and them is about fear

your other assertion you made earlier. That racism is borne from fear. That bc we are fearful of those we dont know then from this we can conclude that we are all seeded with racism

is trivial provable that this is not the case

i am walking down the street, alone after dark. There are 3 rather large guys standing on the footpath drinking beers. I go hmmm! I dunno these guys. I am a bit fearful, so I cross the street and walk down the other side. Bc I am fearful then the assertion follows that I am racist when they are not the same tribe as me. And I am not racist when they are the same tribe as me, yet I am still fearful bc I dont know them

as can see is trivial to show that racist bc fearful is nonsense, philosophically and actually

+

so if racism is not a product of the unknown. And is not a product of fear. Then what is it a product of?

is a product of choice. We choose to be racist. Is a concious and deliberate choice

 

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

irihapeti wrote:

on the first

and so to are the slavers intentions, rationales and motivations, from the victims pov. The victim of the slaver is fully aware of the slavers intentions, motivations and rationales. The victims dont accept these as being valid but it is crystal clear to them what these are

---

You kind of lost me on this one earlier., but you have completely lost me now.

---

your other assertion you made earlier. That racism is borne from fear.

That bc we are fearful of those we dont know then from this we can conclude that we are all seeded with racism

is trivial provable that this is not the case

i am walking down the street, alone after dark. There are 3 rather large guys standing on the footpath drinking beers. I go hmmm! I dunno these guys. I am a bit fearful, so I cross the street and walk down the other side. Bc I am fearful then the assertion follows that I am racist when they are not the same tribe as me. And I am not racist when they are the same tribe as me, yet I am still fearful bc I dont know them

---

I did not say that. I said people make distinctions. I (as did you) mentioned "the other tribe". Whether this "tribe" is of a different race or not is not relevant to me. The fact is, people make distinctions, irrational as they may be. Distinctions between sports teams, between sexes, between ages, between food preference. Making a distinction based on race is by definition racism.

Being a bit distressed about "three large guys drinking beer" is rather rational if you ask me, no matter what race they are. If they are white, you were anxious because they were large and were drinking beer. If they were black, you were anxious because they were large and were drinking beer. (If they were your friends, your "tribe", you would have walked over and greeted them) If you would walk right past them because they were white and not if they were black (or the other way around), that would have been a racist action.

[Venus Petrov]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

I said many people, not all. It isn't just neo-nazi's that want blacks wiped out..

many southerners believe this country would be 1000 times better without them.

If by 'many' you mean even 50.1% you would be wrong.  One thousand times better?  No.  Do you write from the perspective of someone raised in the South? Living in the South?   The South of 2015 is not the South of 1915 or even 1995.  Don't let your hyperbole get the better of you.

---

I said many, not majority. And yes, those that feel this way do believe it would be 100 times better. I am speaking from the perspective of someone who has dozens of family members living in various southern states. All of them have spoken of some of their neighbors who think we would be better off without blacks in the US. I'm not throwing out percentages here. That would be foolish. But even 1% is far too many. The last US census put the population of the south at 114,600,000 people. 1% of that number is 1,146,000.  Is a million people "many"? Many is not a hyperbole.

The 1000 was a typo i missed. it's easy to hit an extra 0.

---

Thanks for clearing up the 1000x v 100x since, even then, 100x would be 'completely and unequivocally better'.  Interesting, too, that your 'family members living in various southern states' speak of their neighbors who think we would be better off w/out blacks.  My mother was native N.C. and, when I asked her if she thought that she'd ever felt prejudice toward blacks, she responded 'yes'.  She did not feel that way at the time that I asked her but she was in touch with her feelings from decades earlier and honest with me.

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

I completely fail to understand how you can compare any of those groups to the nazis, let alone conclude they are

worse

than the nazis. As far as I know, most hate groups have their origins in prison, not in politics. Their wish may be white United States, but I do not see they have any plans or opportunity to actually turn that wish into reality. Nor do they

terrorise the entire nation, forcing that nation to march along

, on a path to destruction. I have never heard about big plans about genocide on Africans and their descendants. If anything, they seem to deny it ever happened in nazi Germany. Having a certain wish (a white America) is not the same as

creating a dictatorship with the main goal being the destruction of an entire race.

They would never have succeeded, but with about 1/3rd of the race as they defined it exterminated, they were well on their way.

---

The Nazis didn't "force the entire nation to march along," at least before the start of World War II. They were elected and formed a government using legal means, and then due to a [possibly staged] incident the German parliament gave Hitler dictatorial powers. One reason is that the Nazis didn't publically identify themself as being against groups, but by being pro-German. Obviously Hitler was extremely anti-Jew, as were some of the rest of the Nazi power structure, but a lot of the rest of Germany just went along. The more strident anti-Jewish literature like Der Stuermer was looked on as a joke even by many in the Nazi party itself. I'm not sure the Holocaust would have happened the way it did if there hadn't been the war because it would have just been so conspicuous in peacetime no matter how much things were hidden. I could easily see the Jews forcibly removed from the country but the majority of Germans probably woudn't have supported wholesale slaughter if they'd known about it.

ETA: While looking for something else, I found that there was a Nazi plan to do exactly this (deportation) - to Madagascar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

I recently found a "Confederate catechism" written in 1929 that was meant for young American Southerners to read, basically justifying everything the Confederates did. The history wasn't the most rigorous I've ever read, let's put it that way. However, one of the things it mentioned that without the war slavery "would have just faded away" due to changes in agriculture. It didn't mention exactly what would have happened to the ex-slaves though. All things considered, I doubt that they would have become ordinary citizens after they ceased being useful. I'm not saying they would have been exterminated by any means (although it's not completely outside the realm of possibility - say after a large violent insurrection by the slaves) but it's very likely they would have been shipped Somewhere Else, and not by their choice. Actually some in the North (including Abraham Lincoln at times) considered similar "solutions", but at least they'd have been voluntary.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

The Nazis didn't "force the entire nation to march along," at least before the start of World War II. They were elected and formed a government using legal means, and then due to a [possibly staged] incident the German parliament

gave

Hitler dictatorial powers. One reason is that the Nazis didn't publically identify themself as being

against

groups, but by being

pro-German

. Obviously Hitler was extremely anti-Jew, as were some of the rest of the Nazi power structure, but a lot of the rest of Germany just went along. The more strident anti-Jewish literature like

Der Stuermer

was looked on as a joke even by many in the Nazi party itself. I'm not sure the Holocaust would have happened the way it did if there hadn't been the war because it would have just been so

conspicuous

in peacetime no matter how much things were hidden. I could easily see the Jews forcibly removed from the country but the majority of Germans probably woudn't have supported wholesale slaughter if they'd known about it.

---

In the federal elections of 1932 and 1933 the nazis got 38% and 32% of the votes, both a win, but not enough to form a government. Note the decline in votes. Also note that the decline in votes was after the reichstag fire, resulting in the Reichstag Fire Decree, together with the Article 48 in turn resulting in the arrests of many of the political nazi opponents. So one might argue how fair those elections actually were.

I found this page which explains it all quite well.

In 1934, Von Hindenburg threatened to end Hitler's government if the S.A. wasn't disbanded, in fear of the S.A. taking over the army, which was under Von Hindenburg's direct control. Hitler took this opportunity to arrest and kill 150-200 of the senior members of the S.A., (the Night of the Long Knives) which was also a threat to Hitler's nazi party.

Under the dictatorship of Hitler, from 1934 onwards, it was "you're with us or you're against us", the first concentration camps were built in 1933. The Gestapo was formed in 1933.

The above has "forcing the entire nation to march along" written all over it if you ask me, long before the start of the war.

There is no chance there wouldn't have been a war. The entire nazi nation was built around expansion. Hitler, blaming the "Jew bankers" of capitalism, was not exactly shy of issuing IOU's, ones that could only be paid for by funds and resources not available in Germany. This system was of course the reason Hitler got as much support as he did in the mid 30's. He pretty much ended unemployment completely overnight and got the economy going. However it wasn't a system that was sustainable for more than a handful of years.

I already talked about how it was the regime, not the population responsible for the extermination of Jews, although in my mind it's not possible that they were completely ignorant of what was going on.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

---

In the federal elections of 1932 and 1933 the nazis got 38% and 32% of the votes, both a win, but not enough to form a government. Note the decline in votes. Also note that the decline in votes was

after

the reichstag fire, resulting in the Reichstag Fire Decree, together with the Article 48 in turn resulting in the arrests of many of the political nazi opponents. So one might argue how fair those elections actually were.

---

No, the 32% number was in November 1932 - in March 1933 after the Reichstag fire the Nazis polled 43% - according to the article you quoted, no less. I suspect that public opinion in Germany under Hitler was similar to Russia under Vladimir Putin. He was pretty popular with the general population.

Most of my post was made before I found out about the Madagascar Plan. This would indicate that even during World War II the Nazis weren't always planning on killing all the Jews as part of their underlying philosophy - they just killed six million people because it was, well, the most convenient thing for them to do at the time. Still horrifying, of course. Maybe even moreso.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

No, the 32% number was in November 1932 - in March 1933 after the Reichstag fire the Nazis polled 43% - according to the article you quoted, no less. I suspect that public opinion in Germany under Hitler was similar to Russia under Vladimir Putin. He was pretty popular with the general population.

---

Must be the weekend, I got those numbers mixed up indeed. Nevertheless, after wiping out the competition, 43% isn't exactly convincing. (Please don't start another comparison with the Hitler regime, this one is even farther fetched ..not going to comment on that at all)

---

Most of my post was made before I found out about the Madagascar Plan. This would indicate that even during World War II the Nazis weren't always planning on

killing

all the Jews

as part of their underlying philosophy

- they just killed six million people because it was, well, the most convenient thing for them to do at the time. Still horrifying, of course. Maybe even moreso.

---

The Madagaskar plan points out how deluded the regime was. The nazis went from removing civil rights, to deportation to extinction. The overall picture is, just as in the way Hitler took power, it quickly went from bad to worse (to unbelievable). It was a matter of pushing and pushing and pushing the boundaries of an initial insane idea.

I'll add this quote by the minister of propaganda:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels

I get your point about extermination not being the initial way of treating the Jews. I won't deny that, there are far better examples than the plan you mention. But looking back at history it feels like the Final Solution was the only logical outcome of nazi Germany. It certainly was not in their party program.

[irihapeti]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

---

I said people make distinctions. I (as did you) mentioned "the other tribe". Whether this "tribe" is of a different race or not is not relevant to me. The fact is, people make distinctions, irrational as they may be. Distinctions between sports teams, between sexes, between ages, between food preference. Making a distinction based on race is by definition racism.

---

yes. we (people) do make distinctions. Some distinctions are born from a natural cause, and some are not and are from choices we make. Consider the following statements. Some are true. some are not:

i am white. You are black. We were born this way

you are 24 years old. I am 24 years old. You and I were born 24 years ago

i am anti-racist. You are racist. We were born this way

i am anti-semetic. You are semetic. We were born this way

you are a Heat fan. I am a Blues fan. We were born this way

+

this part you wrote: "Making a distinction based on race is by definition racism"

no it isnt. If you say to me: "you are Maori", then you have made a distinction. You are not being racist. You are making a factual statement. Is true. I am

if you say to me: "You are Maori and I want nothing to do with you or your Maori kind" then you are racist

substitute:

"you have black hair"

"you have blue eyes"

"You have blue eyes and I want nothing to do with you or your blue-eyed kind"

that I say that you have blue eyes doesnt make me a racist. Is want comes after the "and" that does

 

 

 

[irihapeti]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

on the first

and so to are the slavers intentions, rationales and motivations, from the victims pov. The victim of the slaver is fully aware of the slavers intentions, motivations and rationales. The victims dont accept these as being valid but it is crystal clear to them what these are

---

You kind of lost me on this one earlier., but you have completely lost me now.

---

my point is that when a slaver is unsure of the motivations and rationales of their intentions, it doesnt follow that the slave is also unsure

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

irihapeti wrote:

this part you wrote: "Making a distinction based on race is by definition racism"

no it isnt. If you say to me: "you are Maori", then you have made a distinction. You are not being racist. You are making a factual statement. Is true. I am

---

But yes it certainly is. Racism is the act of acknowledging there's a difference, based on race. It might be nitpicking over a term, that's why I added the motivations for crossing the street in your example.

I can add another example. You walk down the street and see 10 people waiting for the bus. Or you walk down the street and see three caucasians, two muslims, three elderly, a Mets fan, and a skater waiting for the bus.

Racism is not the same as supremacy, which would be a step further. Supremacy would be where one puts ones race above the other, which is what happened in both the Southern States and in nazi Germany. Probably even more so in the U.S., since the blacks were viewed as inferior, the Jews above all as a threat to society.

---

my point is that when a slaver is unsure of the motivations and rationales of their intentions, it doesnt follow that the slave is also unsure

---

Still not clear to me, in two ways. Is the slave unsure of their own intentions or of the slaver's intentions?

The slaver always knew why he did what he did: "blacks are inferior, they need to work for us".

The slave never had any intentions on slavery, he was forced into a certain role.

[Paul Hexem]

It doesn't matter if we like the flag or not.

Anyone has the right to fly any flag they'd like. In any country. But here in the United States, we have a pretty specific document that protects that right.

It doesn't matter if it's a Confederate flag, a Swastika, the KKK's white robes, or what- we all have the right to like or dislike it as we choose.

So we can each personally choose to not display it (or in the case of retailers, not sell it)- but banning it is out of the question.

Personally, I dislike the flag. But I fully support anyone's right to display it. And further, if LL does try to ban it, I'll be one of the ones to fight that decision.

[irihapeti]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

this part you wrote: "Making a distinction based on race is by definition racism"

no it isnt. If you say to me: "you are Maori", then you have made a distinction. You are not being racist. You are making a factual statement. Is true. I am

---

But yes it certainly is. Racism is the act of acknowledging there's a difference, based on race. It might be nitpicking over a term, that's why I added the motivations for crossing the street in your example.

I can add another example. You walk down the street and see 10 people waiting for the bus.

Or

you walk down the street and see three caucasians, two muslims, three elderly, a Mets fan, and a skater waiting for the bus.

Racism is not the same as supremacy, which would be a step further. Supremacy would be where one puts ones race

above

the other, which is what happened in both the Southern States and in nazi Germany. Probably even more so in the U.S., since the blacks were viewed as inferior, the Jews above all as a threat to society.

---

my point is that when a slaver is unsure of the motivations and rationales of their intentions, it doesnt follow that the slave is also unsure

---

Still not clear to me, in two ways. Is the slave unsure of their own intentions or of the slaver's intentions?

The slaver always knew why he did what he did: "blacks are inferior, they need to work for us".

The slave never had any

intentions

on slavery, he was forced into a certain role.

---

on the first. nitpicking. and your view that racism and supremacy are different things

you are nitpicking with the contributors to the Oxford dictionary

as defined by Oxford:

"racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

the operatives are 1) that racism is a belief, and 2) that it is believed that the characteristics possessed distinguish a race as being inferior or superior to another/others

i dont see how you can think that a belief in the supremacy of one race over another is somehow different to belief in the superiority of one race over another

+

about your additions to the "3 guys" proof showing that racism is not a product of fear

what your additions show are confirmations of the proof. Your additions also support the statement: "racism is a product of choice". So we are agreed on that also

since we started this part of the convo , you have abandoned all of your opening assertions about the origin of racism. Further you refuted these yourself, both philosophically and actually, in the arguments you made

+

you nitpicking this one also as well

"Is the slave unsure of their own intentions or of the slaver's intentions."

you keep avoiding addressing what I asked. To consider your philosophical position on Old South slavery from the slaves pov

so far all you have said on this: "The slave never had any intentions on slavery, he was forced into a certain role"   

a slave statement: "My enslavement is an evil enacted on me by you. That you feel it is unfair to be compared to a genocider doesnt make me not your slave"

if you have a philosophical argument for or against this statement then I be interested to hear it

 

[Derek Torvalar]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

It doesn't matter if we like the flag or not.

Anyone has the right to fly any flag they'd like. In any country. But here in the United States, we have a pretty specific document that protects that right.

It doesn't matter if it's a Confederate flag, a Swastika, the KKK's white robes, or what- we all have the right to like or dislike it as we choose.

So we can each personally choose to not display it (or in the case of retailers, not sell it)- but banning it is out of the question.

Personally, I dislike the flag. But I fully support anyone's right to display it. And further, if LL does try to ban it, I'll be one of the ones to fight that decision.

---

That document does not apply here.

Section 1 of the CS does.

 

1. Intolerance

   Combating intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life's Community Standards. Actions that marginalize, belittle, or defame individuals or groups inhibit the satisfying exchange of ideas and diminish the Second Life community as a whole. The use of derogatory or demeaning language or images in reference to another Resident's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is never allowed in Second Life.

 

Freedom of speech and what you think are your 'Rights' are an illusion here.  LL dictates at their whim what goes on and what is allowed. In fact, if you notice, the statement is self-contradictory in that on the one hand it encourages "satifying exchange of ideas" but only if you aren't being a meanie, in which case you will be eradicated. And just to add, usually reported on by one of your community members who have no regard for what you consider to be your 'Rights'.

And in that regard, what goes on in the real world follows much the same path. You only have the Right to do whatever someone in power tells you you have the Right to do or say. And if your neighbour becomes envious of you and covets your new 60 inch TV then you can expect the police to kick down your door at 3 am and haul your ass off for interrogation.

Stop deluding yourselves.

 

 

[irihapeti]

what Derek said

free speech in the USA is limited [in practice] to public places and on your own premises. Anywhere else your speech is preventable by the owner of the premise. The owner cant prevent you from saying what you like. They can eject you tho. Private property rights (ejection) trumps free speech rights in practice. SL is not a public place, is a private property

 

eta: [in practice]

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

irihapeti wrote:

on the first. nitpicking. and your view that racism and supremacy are different things

you are nitpicking with the contributors to the Oxford dictionary

---

I use the term "racism" in its most theoretical form. "the fact that there are racial differences". (and making choices based on that).

Since (I think) I explained that earlier, it's hard to believe you can't see why I don't classify the term equal to supremacy. "Racism" as defined by most dictionaries is the same as (racial) "supremacy", clearly.

I'll stop using the term in that way, but still feel there is a difference.

 

---

about your additions to the "3 guys" proof showing that racism is not a product of fear

what your additions show are confirmations of the proof. Your additions also support the statement: "racism is a product of choice". So we are agreed on that also

since we started this part of the convo , you have abandoned all of your opening assertions about the origin of racism. Further you refuted these yourself, both philosophically and actually, in the arguments you made

---

"Fear" is a feeling, "choosing" is an action. The action is based on the feeling, it doesn't exclude or replace it in any way. So yes I agree that racism is a choice, although I strongly feel that it's not a choice easily made. When raised with racist beliefs, the choice to not be racist is a lot harder than when you aren't. To see a race as equal, if all the signs tell you that they are inferior (poor, dirty, uneducated, which was the case in the Southern States) is not as obvious as one would like it to be.

I am still convinced that racism is based on fear of the unknown. How else can it be explained that people embrace others they have thought less of when they actually get to meet, know and understand them?

 

---

you nitpicking this one also as well

"Is the slave unsure of their own intentions or of the slaver's intentions."

you keep avoiding addressing what I asked. To consider your philosophical position on Old South slavery from the slaves pov

so far all you have said on this: "The slave never had any

intentions

on slavery, he was forced into a certain role"   

a slave statement: "My enslavement is an evil enacted on me by you. That you feel it is unfair to be compared to a genocider doesnt make me not your slave"

if you have a philosophical argument for or against this statement then I be interested to hear it

 

---

I avoid nothing, as I said your question wasn't clear to me... and it still isn't.

[Tari Landar]

One thing about the removal of the confederate flag that I find of interest is the fact that although there have been calls to have these flags removed(from lots of places, including personal property) there has not been a call quite as massive as the current one for a very long time.  I am not quite sure precisely how, or I suppose why, it took one tragic, heinous act, senseless act carried out on one small group of people(no, I am not saying even a small group is insignifcant, because it is not!) to see such a massive call for banning/removal. There have been, for much longer than most of us here have probably been alive, numerous sensless, tragic and heinous acts carried out in the name of white supremecy on US soil. Even in recent history, wherein one group of people was specifically targeted by someone's idea that whites are a supreme race. People have been acting on that idiotic(to me) idea for a very, very long time. Yet....no calls for flag removal on this massive of a scale anytime in the recent history. Yes some people have been calling for these bans/removal for as long as that flag has existed, but definitely not on the scale we have just seen. 

If the reasoning behind the call for removal/banning, was because of what it represents, this call should have been made a heck of a lot sooner than it was. Although I understand the desire to have it banned/removed, completely, I do not understand why it took some idiotic, likely mentally unstable, lunatic's, tragic and heinous act for people to now all of a sudden decide that because the symbolism of that particular flag lead to his beliefs, it should be banned/removed. Shouldn't that call for removal have been made in large part due to any other act committed by someone who has the same thought process as this...I don't even know what to call him in polite company...? There have definitely been deaths caused by others, fueld by hatred for one group or another, backed up by the belief systems(regardless of how misguided and absolutely wrong I do personally believe they are/were) those attacking held near and dear(again, for whatever reason). Blacks have been personally attacked and even killed in the name of "supremecy", and few people ever made a call to have the flag those lunatics(attackers) held so near and dear to them removed or banned.

So I guess my question would be....why this particular act in and of itself is more significant than any other hate fueled act. Personally, I find all of them atrocious, none more significant than others, all give me a massive head and heartache, headache due to the sheer ignorance and lunacy on the attackers' parts, and heartach for those on the receiving end of such treatment. It is all atrocious, to me.

As for having LL remove/ban, I honestly don't know if they should remove/ban it. I can probably come up with reasons for both sides of the coin, but I'm not quite sure any of my reasons would either make sense, or even be accepted as valid, as they may not actually be reasonable in the first place. In other words...I don't know how I feel about potential removal/ban of that confederate flag in sl. 

[Quinn Lysette]

i say they should let ppl own buy the confederate battle flag  its an honer 

 

that whole slave thing   i rember storys my great granma use to tell n she told me her family had a lot of slaves working for them no big whoop just workers