Confederate Flag Avatars: Time to say Goodbye

[MacDawg]

Why did Governors and businesses take it down?
Simple politics and $$, nothing more... and to pretend it was righteous indignation is laughable

I personally don’t care if MR bans the use of the Confederate flag or not.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I wasn’t planning on ever using it as an avatar or anything else.
In fact, I can’t say I have noticed anyone using it, although I’m sure they are or this wouldn’t be brought up, right? Right?
I am born and raised in the South of the good ole USofA, but I don’t fly one from my truck, have one hanging in my yard or even own one.

If the Confederate flag is announcing you as a proud racist, what does the American flag along with saying I’m a proud American say?
For many around the world it signifies imperialism, colonialism, unbelievers, murderers, and much more.

Ironically, those who cry out for inclusion and tolerance are typically the first to hop on the “ban-wagon” as well, whether it be flags, religion, guns, etc.

Like I said, I don’t really care… ban or no.

I’m sure my avatar is offensive enough as it is to Gator fans, Vol fans and Tiger fans (Auburn, Mizzou, LSU, Clemson… heck, why can’t they be more original).

When are we going to realize that EVERYTHING is offensive to SOMEBODY

Apparently it only counts when it is offensive to us

 

[vrDrew]

So far, it doesn't seem like the community agrees with you.

I don't care. This is not a popularity contest.

This is about doing what is right. I would rather be right, have my conscience clear, than be "popular". Any more than Fox News cable ratings have any bearing whatsoever on the factual accuracy of their reporting.

I will advert you to an article Tom Petty wrote in Rolling Stone on the subject, discussing his regret at having used the imagery during the 1980s:

It was dumb and it shouldn't have happened.

"When they wave that flag, they aren't stopping to think how it looks to a black person. I blame myself for not doing that"

Again, people just need to think about how it looks to a black person. It's just awful. It's like how a swastika looks to a Jewish person.

 

[ucfgrad93]

I don't care. This is not a popularity contest.

Well, then why did you make a poll? I'm sure if the results, as of now 21-14 for allowing, were reversed you'd be trumpeting that.

This is about doing what is right. I would rather be right, have my conscience clear, than be "popular".

You are not the final arbiter of what is right. Just because you say it is right doesn't make it so.

I will advert you to an article Tom Petty wrote in Rolling Stone on the subject, discussing his regret at having used the imagery during the 1980s:

Good for Tom Petty. He is allowed his opinion.

 

[ucfgrad93]

Why did Governors and businesses take it down?
Simple politics and $$, nothing more... and to pretend it was righteous indignation is laughable

Well said. Businesses want to make money, and politicians want to avoid controversy.

 

[vrDrew]

Well, then why did you make a poll? I'm sure if the results as of now, 21-14 for allowing, were reversed you'd be trumpeting that.

The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.

Dr. Martin Luther King

I'll tell you something: I bet you are a little scared right now.

Because, somewhere I think you know that in the long run, there is going to come a day when you look back on this and say "I wish I'd not done that."

Why ARE you championing the display of a symbol a significant number of your fellow countrymen and women find to be unpleasant and/or offensive? Again - I'm not talking about 1st Amendment terms. I'm talking about civil society terms.

Let me also tell you something: I believe America, as a country, is better than this. Correct, that, I know we are better than this.

Why? Many reasons, but I'll let Will Hoge give you four minutes of really good ones.

 

[Eraserhead]

I would say more American flags have been burned around the world than Confederate flags
Of course I have no proof, and neither would anyone else, just perception
But when was the last time you saw a Confederate flag burned in front of an American embassy?

Check with many in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, North Korea, and see if any are revolted by the American flag
Hell, check in Britain, France or Germany
Geez, for that matter, check in the USA

I for one, stand for the Star Spangled Banner and put my hand over my heart
I recite the pledge of allegiance and say "one nation, under God"

But not everyone shares that sentiment around the world

Unlike the Confederate flag Americas flag stands for a lot of good too - such as freedom and the American Dream. It is also the flag of a nation state.

 

[ucfgrad93]

I'll tell you something: I bet you are a little scared right now.

Because, somewhere I think you know that in the long run, there is going to come a day when you look back on this and say "I wish I'd not done that."

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. The arrogance in your statement is just astonishing.

Why ARE you championing the display of a symbol a significant number of your fellow countrymen and women find to be unpleasant and/or offensive? Again - I'm not talking about 1st Amendment terms. I'm talking about civil society terms.

There are lots of things in this civil society that are offensive to me. But that is part of life. No one has a right to not be offended. Time to put on your big boy pants and realize that.

Let me also tell you something: I believe America, as a country, is better than this. Correct, that, I know we are better than this.

Yeah, pretty much the way I feel about abortion, but I don't see that changing any time soon. So, I have to learn how to live with it. Just like you'll have to figure out a way to live with Confederate flag avatars here.

 

[dan110]

I don't care. This is not a popularity contest.

This is about doing what is right. I would rather be right, have my conscience clear, than be "popular". Any more than Fox News cable ratings have any bearing whatsoever on the factual accuracy of their reporting.

I will advert you to an article Tom Petty wrote in Rolling Stone on the subject, discussing his regret at having used the imagery during the 1980s:

vrDrew ... you really need to take a step back and do some soul searching and basic research on American history's past and present to include "freedom", "liberty", and the history behind the Civil War and the Battle Flag. This country is being refashioned into this ultra sensitive politically correct totalitarian state where if you don't believe what the mob tells you, then it's (1) wrong and (2) not true (3) makes you a: "racist"; "homophobe"; "transmysoginist", etc. We live in a multicultural country to INCLUDE people that live in the South and revere their southern history. I may not agree with that, but that's their right to believe whatever they want. Now, removal of the Confederate Flag from State buildings was long over due, but now you're taking that to www.macrumors.com ? Come on. Where does it stop? This is censorship run amok and it's a slippery slope from here to other things we saw happen under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Saddam, ISIS. Remember, Nazi Germany happened in stages. It started with little things like this and slowly progressed into bigger things that we now wonder how could an entire country be so "easily" seduced to follow this cabal of evil men. Take 30-minutes a day or even a week and read Plato, Marcus Aurelius, The Magna Carta, The Levelers, John Locke, James Madision, Thomas Jefferson (slave owner), Benjamin Franklin (slavery supporter), George Washington (slave owner). What you'll realize is that the greatest part of the idea of "America" was that the individual had the right to express himself EVEN IF it offended all others.

 

[vrDrew]

Where does it stop?

It stops when you think about the words "civil society."

One of the things that I admire about Southerners is their (alleged) concept of good manners.

I think if you ponder good and hard over what the Confederate Flag might mean to some of the other good folks who come round here, you might begin to understand its not the sort of thing they might want to see.

Don't keep wasting my time with the tired (poor and huddled) argument about "where does it stop." Its very easy. It stops with the Confederate Flag.

If in another ten or twenty years, the poor MacRumors administrators have to make another terribly hard decision over an overtly offensive symbol of racism; segregation; oppression; slavery; and treason - then I'll cry them a ****ing river.

But until that time, its pretty easy: No Confederate Flag Avatars.

 

[LOLobo]

Atheists may find God being touted in their face every where they go as offensive. But God is on money, on billboards, in the media, and constantly coming out of politicians mouths.

A "significant number" also owned slaves and enlisted people under indentured servitude. "Significant number" doesn't make right/wrong absolute.


The majority does always rule, even if they are ruling as sheep, influenced most of the time by a charismatic few. At least we have the media to help spread drama via wildfire.

I wonder what our future offspring will say 100 years from now, looking back, reflecting on current societal trends we follow because a "majority decision".

 

[Scepticalscribe]

This is an unusually thought-provoking thread which I have read with considerable interest. Discussions and debates about (national) identity are always interesting, above all in the US.

However, I would contend that to equate the flying of the current US flag (which does indeed excite strong emotions and lit matches at times in some other countries) but which is viewed with a respect bordering on reverence within the US itself with the right to fly the Confederate flag is missing the point to a certain extent.

There is the historic state of the CSA, a political, economic, and moral failure, and there are the rather murky motivations of those who - by flying this flag today - are clearly expressing their wish to be identified with the values and sense of identity of a state that was a historical anachronism even when it existed.

Rather than a blanket condemnation, I would rather ask those who deliberately make a choice to identity themselves with this symbol of failed statehood, a feudal economy, and a society predicted upon institutionalised racial oppression just what they think they are saying when they seek the right to fly this flag today.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Lots of crappy slippery slope arguments, irrelevant diversionary arguments about the national American flag and the usual mansplaining and reactionary whining about political correctness. For those who are complaining that its removal from various uses was just about money, that's how the 'free market' works.

The designer of the flag was in no doubt about its meaning:

As a people we are fighting to maintain the heavenly ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.

Such a flag would be a suitable emblem of our young confederacy, and sustained by the brave hearts and strong arms of the south, it would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized wold as the white man’s flag.
​

There is no doubt about its meaning, nor the sentiments of those who rallied to it.

Although I'm sympathetic to the initial argument, personally, I say don't ban it. Putting it up as an avatar is just a short-term right-wing backlash and will die out as the years pass. Associating with it will be seen increasingly as an embarrassment or the province of arseholes. I suspect that over time, its use will die out except among the hard-core, who tend to generally cross the line in other ways, sometimes leading to time-outs and bans.

 

[Doctor Q]

A forum administrator's 2 cents

Some forum rules are easy for the moderators to judge in a particular situation. The rule against offensive avatars isn't one of them. Whether an avatar is within the rules depends on their assessment of "community standards", which in turns depends on what we see and hear from forum users. In many cases an avatar is obviously over the line and most people would agree. In other cases we think a user who complains is being too sensitive about a slightly provocative avatar. The poll in this thread is the type of community input that helps define what most users consider acceptable.

 

[v3rlon]

Censorship offends me more than a flag being misused by idiots and trolls.

 

[b0fh666]

best.thread.ever

dug 15 'progressist' censors already. keep up the good work.

 

[AngerDanger]

A few things occurred to me as I read through this thread:

1. Freedom of speech isn't really the issue on forums owned by Arn and company; if they find something distasteful on their forums, they have every right to remove it.
2. There are slippery slope fallacies posited by both sides of this argument: 2.a) Censoring one image, which is associated with white supremacy and atrocities committed for its sake, will not automatically lead to censoring arbitrary things that aren't associated with violence or oppression. 2.b) Standing up for freedom of expression isn't equivalent to agreeing with the ideas others express.
3. By not censoring this flag, it will be easier for forum members to figure out who they might want to ignore if they base their interactions on the contents of others' avatars.

MR should disallow the use of confederate flag avatars if they want to, but I have no problem with people exposing their potentially inane and antiquated values graphically.

 

[Renzatic]

Let's look at it another way. If it's banned, you know someone is going to pop up and start screaming about being oppressed by the moderator's progressivist social liberal agenda, and probably throw in a few references to the Nazis for flavor. I'd much rather let them all swing the flag around, and go HONK HONK HONK off in their own little corner than feed their ever growing victim complex.

Like Blue Velvet said, it's just the latest and greatest political fad in a long line of political fads, and now that it's fate has been sealed (by Republicans no less), it'll fade into memory once the wailing and gnashing of teeth subsides.

...except for that family who lives just a couple miles away from me. They've been flying the Confederate flag on a pole topped by what looks like a human skull hanging off a bulls horn over three little gravestones that might be old family dogs for about as long as I remember. They represent a demographic that'll probably keep it hanging for years to come.

edit: Hey, they took it down. Looks like someone else moved in, and cleaned up their yard.

Google Street View is so cool.

 

[FrisbeeK9]

I don't think that is acceptable behavior in the sort of community I want to be part of.

Well said.

 

[juanm]

My previous avatar was deemed offensive by someone (really, it wasn't, it's a well known internet joke not even mildly nsfw unless you were obsessed with sex to the point of seeing it everywhere, in which case the problem is not my avatar) and after being reported, it was censored by the mods. It left a bad feeling.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

A few things occurred to me as I read through this thread:

1. Freedom of speech isn't really the issue on forums owned by Arn and company; if they find something distasteful on their forums, they have every right to remove it.
2. There are slippery slope fallacies posited by both sides of this argument: 2.a) Censoring one image, which is associated with white supremacy and atrocities committed for its sake, will not automatically lead to censoring arbitrary things that aren't associated with violence or oppression. 2.b) Standing up for freedom of expression isn't equivalent to agreeing with the ideas others express.
3. By not censoring this flag, it will be easier for forum members to figure out who they might want to ignore if they base their interactions on the contents of others' avatars.

MR should disallow the use of confederate flag avatars if they want to, but I have no problem with people exposing their potentially inane and antiquated values graphically.

My previous avatar was deemed offensive by someone (really, it wasn't, it's a well known internet joke not even mildly nsfw unless you were obsessed with sex to the point of seeing it everywhere, in which case the problem is not my avatar) and after being reported, it was censored by the mods. It left a bad feeling.

Hm.

There are a number of separate and distinct issues here.

There is the Right to Freedom of Expression/Speech argument, citing a dislike of 'censorship' (an argument sometimes disguised as an argument against 'political correctness' by some who lurk on the right of the spectrum).

Then, there are the specific arguments against use of the emblem and flags that are associated with the CSA, a perfectly dreadful entity, and a frightful political and economic and social example, one that should serve as no model for anything except catastrophic moral collapse, and complete social economic and political failure to anyone with an interest in politics, state-building and public policy.

Leaving all that aside (and @juanm, I am grateful to you, as I have learned today what nsfw means, it is not an acronym I was acquainted with, let alone familiar with, and so I looked it up), I do wonder why the argument of Free Speech is used in support of being able to - for example - upload avatars that some may deem offensive.

Why the need to offend? Why the wish to give offence - or what is the satisfaction that is to be derived from uploading emblems, or slogans, or flags, or symbols that others deem offensive?

In some ways, the Freedom Of Speech argument is a fig-leaf, or fallacy when it is used to defend the right to be offensive; in essence, it says my right to express myself allows me to trump your right to feel uncomfortable at the obnoxiousness of my stated views especially when the expression of these views makes clear my contempt for who you are and what you represent by your very existence (which is what the expression of racist, homophobic and sexist views do to blacks, gays and women).

The thing is that a forum is a public space, and, while most of us are cloaked by the anonymity afforded by our respective noms-de-plume, does this anonymity - and the concomitant right to Freedom of Expression - bestow or confer the right to express oneself in a manner deliberately intended to be - and known to be considered as - obnoxious and offensive? So, @juanm, I'd be grateful if you explained why the request to change your avatar (I hadn't noticed anything, but then, I have poor eyesight for complicated visual details unless I am examining them closely).

Courtesy in the public space of the online world is every bit as attractive a trait as courtesy in a workplace or a social space such as a pub or restaurant.

For a long time, on these fora, much time and energy was expended (by newbies and others) demanding, and requesting the right for all (not just those who had reached the magic number of 6502a) to upload an avatar.
In a way, it would be a pity if the debate were now to have to resolve itself into a lengthy discussion on what kind of avatar can be uploaded.

And, at the end of the day, the people who run this forum have a right to determine that discussions be conducted in an atmosphere of courtesy and consideration.

 

[juanm]

Leaving all that aside (and @juanm, I am grateful to you, as I have learned today what nsfw means, it is not an acronym I was acquainted with, let alone familiar with, and so I looked it up

Oh I have so much to teach you! Now, where should I start? Brace yourself, it's going to be a while...

I'd be grateful if you explained why the request to change your avatar (I hadn't noticed anything, but then, I have poor eyesight for complicated visual details unless I am examining them closely).

Since it's relevant, and it's not the first time it's been posted on this very board, here's the image.
However, since it was deemed offensive by some people, instead of enclosing the original image, I'll just put a censored version and a link to the original one.

If you're curious about the offending word, here you'll find the original image.
Warning, clicking on the link will bring up a non-graphic cartoon that contains ONE perhaps nsfw word.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MUe2i8Bo5js/VFCjrtnSaPI/AAAAAAAALDU/jv0t82hdx9s/s1600/bet4.jpg

The image references how the internet has the power to bring the worst of some people, making them lose any semblance of civility. I took the last uncensored image, in a humorous attempt to label myself as someone who shouldn't be taken too seriously.
It looked like this, but much smaller:

A few years later, someone complained to the mods, who after some debate, decided I should change it, so I replaced the text with the word [CENSORED] as a stance for my freedom of speech.


With the migration to the new forum platform, the square image didn't fit the new round avatar design, so I recently changed it to my current completely unrelated avatar: it's a frame taken from the movie Avatar. I thought it was fitting to this purpose, and wouldn't offend anyone. Perhaps, in a few years, someone will decide that a movie depicting scantily clad blue-skinned aliens is offensive and I'll have to change it again.

 

[AngerDanger]

… I do wonder why the argument of Free Speech is used in support of being able to - for example - upload avatars that some may deem offensive.

Why the need to offend? Why the wish to give offence - or what is the satisfaction that is to be derived from uploading emblems, or slogans, or flags, or symbols that others deem offensive?

In some ways, the Freedom Of Speech argument is a fig-leaf, or fallacy when it is used to defend the right be offensive; in essence, it says my right to express myself allows me to trump your right to feel uncomfortable at the obnoxiousness of my stated views especially when the expression of these views makes clear my contempt for who you are and what you represent by your very existence (which is what the expression of racist, homophobic and sexist views do to blacks, gays and women).

I wonder whether it's the need to offend or something similar to the pride taken by minorities who feel marginalized. Homosexuals and allies display pride and solidarity by using rainbow imagery which would upset beholders of more traditional values. Allowing uncensored avatars might encourage users to take pride in traits of theirs that others find distasteful—the difference, of course, between homosexual and Confederate pride lies in the oppression of the former and the oppressiveness of the latter. That difference aside, it's presumably difficult for people to dissociate the imagery they use from their own self image, so if you have a problem with one, you have a problem with the other. It's almost a defensive measure disguised as an offensive one by perspective.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Oh I have so much to teach you! Now, where should I start? Brace yourself, it's going to be a while...



Since it's relevant, and it's not the first time it's been posted on this very board, here's the image.
However, since it was deemed offensive by some people, instead of enclosing the original image, I'll just put a censored version and a link to the original one.

View attachment 573911

If you're curious about the offending word, here you'll find the original image.
Warning, clicking on the link will bring up a non-graphic humorous infographic joke that contains ONE perhaps nsfw word.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MUe2i8Bo5js/VFCjrtnSaPI/AAAAAAAALDU/jv0t82hdx9s/s1600/bet4.jpg

The image references how the internet has the power to bring the worst of some people, making them lose any semblance of civility. I took the last uncensored image, in a humorous attempt of labelling myself as a total [censored].
It looked like this:
View attachment 573914

A few years later, someone complained to the mods, who after some debate, decided I should change it.
I changed it, replacing the text with the word "Censored" as a strong stand for my freedom of speech.

The image, however, didn't fit the new round avatar design, so I changed it recently to my current avatar, which is completely unrelated: it's a frame taken from the movie "Avatar". I thought it was fitting to this purpose, and wouldn't offend anyone.

Thank you for the explanation, @juanm; most illuminating.

I had noticed the version of your avatar that had the speech bubble which said 'censored', had idly wondered at it, and then forgot about it. The earlier, ancestral version, I hadn't noticed, and, now that you have explained the background of the original avatar (and I have just checked out the link - these discussions are extraordinarily educational - and see what you mean) I see that your original avatar was intended as an ironical comment on how online anonymity allows some individuals to behave like complete prats just because they can.

The entire sequence of John Gabriel's 'cartoon' is actually very good; and no, I hadn't seen that before. Very interesting.

Okay, now I get why you wrote that this 'left a bad taste'. Given your posting history, and online presence, which I respect, I had been a bit surprised at what had initially seemed to me to be a post in defence of the right to be offensive under the safe cloak of the 'free speech' defence when, in fact, it was an ironic comment on how online anonymity can allow an uninhibited expression of offensive views.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I wonder whether it's the need to offend or something similar to the pride taken by minorities who feel marginalized. Homosexuals and allies display pride and solidarity by using rainbow imagery which would upset beholders of more traditional values. Allowing uncensored avatars might encourage users to take pride in traits of theirs that others find distasteful—the difference, of course, between homosexual and Confederate pride lies in the oppression of the former and the oppressiveness of the latter. That difference aside, it's presumably difficult for people to dissociate between the imagery they use and their own self image, so if you have a problem with one, you have a problem with the other. It's almost a defensive measure disguised as an offensive one by perspective.

Yes, but pride in an identity that has been marginalised - and seeking to reclaim how that identity is expressed by appropriating some of the vocabulary of the oppressors - is one thing.

Pride in opinions, and views (views which were once expressed as deeply offensive and unfair and oppressive laws, whereby women, blacks and gays were deprived of, or denied, rights, simply by virtue of who and what they were) which seek to express such abhorrent attitudes is quite another.

I fully take the point that anyone who elects to have a racist, sexist, or homophobic avatar identifies themselves is choosing to advertise the fact that their views are repellant.

 

[juanm]

Okay, now I get why you wrote that this 'left a bad taste'. Given your posting history, and online presence, which I respect, I had been a bit surprised at what had initially seemed to me to be a post in defence of the right to be offensive under the safe cloak of the 'free speech' defence when, in fact, it was an ironic comment on how online anonymity can allow an uninhibited expression of offensive views.

Exactly. What I really didn't like with my little avatar gate story is that the plaintiff could have asked me nicely to change it (I probably would have done it), but instead chose to report it to the mods. What'll be next? Should we say Richard Cheney instead of Dick Cheney because that person cannot tolerate the sight of that word? What about a wad of chewing tobacco? Is that off-limits too?

I like to consider all sides when facing a problem, even those not usually considered politically correct.

In this case, I had initially voted NO, but then I changed to YES, because there's a larger issue at stake, and I believe the realisation of the obscene aspects of the confederate flag will come, not from censorship, but from education... And then I changed it back to NO again, because right now, the flag is likely to be used for the sole purpose of provocation.