SmarterthanYou
rebel
are you willfully avoiding the issue?
what should one do if they wave around the Texas flag, but someone is offended????
White Nationalists v Democratic Socialists!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I think you're deliberately missing the point.
You say that waving the Confederate Flag about isn't intimidation because the law doesn't say it is, even though the law was written by the same people who flew those flags specifically to make it possible for them to do so without violating anyone's Constitutional rights.
Isn't that what happened? Who controlled all the state legislatures that made the decision to fly those flags or erect those monuments? The same people who institutionalized those tools of oppression and intimidation.
So it's really convenient for you that the law -which was written by the same people who flew those flags- says flying those flags isn't technically intimidation, even though it obviously is.
Umm...but how could it possibly come to represent that or convey that message?
And do you not agree that message is intimidating?
Ah, but you just said that the message conveyed by that flag is just that...so...how is that not a message of intimidation? You just said it was.
LMAO, Flash, you just admitted literally one post ago that the message conveyed by that flag is one of intimidation. Specifically, "I think you are inferior and should be my slave or returned to Africa."
Do you not think that is intimidation? You don't think it's intimidation to say to someone that you think they are inferior and should be your slave or sent to Africa? Because I think that's intimidation.
It may intimidate you but not violate any laws against intimidation (remember, you asked me for the legal definition?). Did someone flying that flag threaten to harm you if you didn't do something against your will? If he did, he committed illegal intimidation but the flag had nothing to do with that.
It seems rather hypocritical to be concerned about something that intimidates black people but not white people. Don't you favor equality?
I would tell the white person who was intimidated the same thing I would tell the black person. "Everything is OK, nobody is going to hurt you", or "don't go to that rally, there might be intimidating flags", or "don't look", or "it can't hurt you, it's only a flag."
Again, please explain what you would do about anything and everything that people find intimidating.
What action would you take to prevent any person (black or white) from being intimidated by:
1. Gay marriage
2. Someone wearing a Trump shirt
3. Someone waving a Mexican flag
4. A Klan rally where the speaker was advocating for segregation
Unlike the Confederate Flag, there is no history of cats being used as a tool of oppression and intimidation of specific ethnicity, races, sexuality, nationalities, or religions.
However, the Confederate Flag has that history, as you've admitted yourself.
But apparently that is history that isn't convenient for you because you can't explain how it's not a history of intimidation or oppression, and you can't do that because you have no capacity for empathy since you're a narcissist and sociopath.
White nationalist is a made up media term. Just like white-Latino.
Ah, so the flag does have a history of intimidation and oppression...good...
Dylan Roof literally murdered 9 black people in a church to start a race war. So yeah, that's a lynching.
Here's a picture of him with the Confederate Flag:
They went farther and actually killed them, yes. Like your hero Dylan Roof, who lynched 9 people in Charleston.
The fact that you keep going back to "offense" and not "intimidation" proves you aren't listening at all.
It is not intimidation unless it involves a threat to force somebody to take some action (MEMORIZE THIS).
A message unaccompanied by illegal action is not illegal intimidation. It is protected free speech. We are free to advocate anything we choose even if illegal--violent overthrow of the government, sex with children, killing all Jews and blacks.
You are using intimidation in such a vague manner it can be anything you choose. If you want to ban something because it is intimidating, you have to at least be talking about illegal intimidation and then it does not involve symbols.
Were you intimidating people when you called for them to be shot or insulted them?
No, what you're doing is searching for a way to not have to admit that flag is a tool of oppression and intimidation because if you did admit that, you couldn't argue that waving it is defended by the 1A.
And yes, it wholly has to do with views contrary to yours; you've literally said you don't care to listen to the people who are targeted by that flag, and you continue to dismiss their views by calling it "offense" because if you said they were "intimidated", you couldn't argue that waving the flag about isn't an act of intimidation.
So you're being very careful to replace "intimidation" with "offense", and that's how you avoid culpability for being a narcissistic sociopath.
Do you know what "empathy" is?
Of course not, because you're a narcissist.
Empathy is the ability to see things from someone else's perspective.
You are simply incapable of doing that.
OK, let's talk about the people whose actions I disagreed with and why I thought the government should have bombed the shit out of them....
Those people took up arms to intimidate the federal government into letting them have their way.
I said that the government should have called that bluff and given them the war they wanted, because they would have all lost.
I don't think you can empathize with that. How do you empathize with those who are deliberately trying to intimidate others?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
correlation does not equal causation
One person does not represent an entire demographic, unless we can label every liberal out there a pedophile because of epstein
as i stated above, one person doesn't represent an entire demographic. you should know this
No, it's not me who is misunderstanding anything...it's you who is deliberately doing so.
Isn't it convenient that the same people who erected those flags and monuments also determined that doing so wasn't an act of intimidation?
WRONG!
That is literally what they did.
Those monuments and memorials were built for the purpose of oppressing and intimidating the newly freed slaves and their descendants. They were erected to celebrate white supremacy, with dedication after dedication speaking about the gloriousness of the white race and the Confederacy, which was a white supremacist state. ALL OF THIS IS DOCUMENTED.
They just built them to intimidate black people by celebrating, memorializing, and elevating the white supremacist ideals that were the basis of the Confederacy.
For someone so adamant about not "erasing history", you are doing nothing but erasing history.
Do you think they built those monuments and flew those flags just because? Or do you think doing so was intended to convey a message? And what message would that be? The same one you said the flag conveys before.
So you do agree that they are tools of intimidation and oppression, after all, don't you?
Of course they did!
You said yourself the message the flag conveys is one of white supremacy and pro-slavery and subjugation.
I would consider those intimidating messages, wouldn't you?
So if those are intimidating messages that are conveyed by that flag, and it's illegal to intimidate someone, how are the flags being flown? Is their message not intimidating? If so, who determined that? The same people who flew the flags in the first place.
So it's like letting a bank regulate itself; of course they're not going to think they're doing anything illegal because they are the ones making the determination.
I mean, dude...come on.
Who am I calling to be shot, specifically?
Nazis.
And what is a Nazi, but someone who intimidates others with their white supremacist beliefs.
There is no such thing as a peaceful Nazi, and there is no such thing as a non-threatening Nazi. Nazism is inherently intimidation. Unless you want to argue otherwise...
I think most people would side with me in the belief that Nazis should be shot.
It's weird that you don't.
The point of empathy is to see something from someone else's perspective, which is something you have literally said yourself you refuse to do.
Dismissing people isn't empathizing with them.
For you to empathize with someone, you'd have to acknowledge and understand their perspective.
You don't do that, Flash.
You dismiss their perspective.
You've done it dozens of times on this thread. You've even said you do it. Empathizing with someone doesn't mean you dismiss them, it means you listen to them and understand their perspective.
You have repeatedly said you can't do that because you can't understand how a flag could intimidate someone.
So that's not you empathizing with anyone.
When I volunteer to tell you how the flag does that, instead of understanding or accepting it, you dismiss it or feel you have to counterargue it.
The only reason you do that is because you personally cannot understand how someone could possibly not see things your way (what you would call the "correct" way because of your entitlement)...and that's what makes you a narcissistic sociopath.
No, you still don't understand the law. The law was not written having anything to do with flags or monuments. The laws against intimidation are basically the same in all states so the fact that those erecting monuments wrote the laws is irrelevant. Those same actions would not violate intimidation laws in any state.
Any laws against intimidation that make it illegal to merely show a flag or monument would be struck down as unconstitutional for violating symbolic speech.
Correct, but you have to threaten to harm them if they do not do what you want. It must involve threatening behavior. If you weren't so lazy and researched intimidation I wouldn't have to keep explaining it to you for the 100th time.
The purpose might have been to scare voters away, but it is impossible to prove a flag was threatening to anyone.
There was a voter intimidation case in 2008 in Philadelphia when the New Black Panther Party members stood in the entrance to a polling place with a billy club shouting racial slurs. Most of those charges were dropped. "The federal government eventually obtained an injunction forbidding Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location." This was much more intimidating than waving a flag a far distance from the poll, but it still did not fit the law.