South Carolina Massacre Results In Apple Going Flag-Stupid In The App Store
from the sigh dept
It's been mere days since Dylann Roof forced his name into our lives by walking into an historic African American church in Charleston, South Carolina, praying with several black members of the church, and then brutally shooting most of them to death. As you can imagine, whenever a tragedy such as this occurs, the country enters into a rare moment of somber seriousness, finally choosing to discuss difficult topics that we've been otherwise avoiding and coming together united to build a better life for our collective futures.
Just kidding, we're talking about flags, y'all! With only the briefest respite provided by some in the media choosing to inject video games into this tragedy for no reason at all, most of our time has been spent discussing the Confederate battle flag. In case you're not sure, yes, this is indeed crazy. Not that the idea that a treasonous symbol of failure like the Confederate Navy Jack flying over the capital of a state in Lincoln's union isn't absolutely asinine. It most certainly is. But for our attention to be diverted from the deaths of living people to a stupid symbol from a war won long ago while the bloodstains have barely dried in that church makes absolutely no sense at all.
And just when you think this couldn't get any more stupid, Apple gallops to the rescue by losing its mind in its own App Store.
Many large US companies, like Walmart and Amazon, have already banned the sale of any Confederate flag merchandise as a reaction to the recent events. Now, it appears that Apple has decided to join them by pulling many Civil War wargames from the App Store. As of the writing of this story, games like Ultimate General: Gettysburg and all the Hunted Cow Civil War games are nowhere to be found. Apple is famous for reaching for the axe rather than the scalpel when it comes to political issues (like rejecting Hunted Cow's Tank Battle 1942 for depicting Germans and Russians as enemies), so this move doesn't come as a great surprise.Just so I have this straight, because a racist killer murdered nine people in South Carolina, I, here in Chicago, can't play a Civil War simluation and kill Confederate soldiers? How does that make any sense? Well, it's likely that Apple didn't bother to think any steps beyond noticing that the Confederate battle flag was included in the game, therefore the ban-hammer was brought down. In fact, Apple has told game developers as much when communicating with them about the ban.
It's looking like Apple has pulled everything from the App Store that features a Confederate flag, regardless of context. The reasoning Apple is sending developers is "...because it includes images of the confederate flag used in offensive and mean-spirited ways."No, it didn't, you dolts. It's history. That flag actually did exist in the context of the time period of the game. And the result is predictable: everyone is mocking the hell out of Apple as we speak. Popehat was helpful, as always:
Apple announces that all banned Civil War wargames will be restored, with this redesigned Confederate flag: pic.twitter.com/IkDtHunpLZ
— Popehat (@Popehat) June 25, 2015 While others tried to helpfully show Apple how this has been handled by others far, far better:
Hey Apple, let me show you a thing: pic.twitter.com/paSgpNLw01
— Stephanie G. (@SigmaRue) June 25, 2015
In other words, we're all adults here, or close enough, so let's not simply try to pretend the bad thing from history never happened. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't do nuance, so instead we end up with two banned historical games that were simply too accurate for the iOS platform.
Bet you they're still available for Android, though.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: app store, civil war, civil war games, confederate flags, dylann roof, flags, racism
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
People were killed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People were killed?
Cant wait to read about all dem conspiracies about how the government is behind this because they wanted to ban this flag, or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People were killed?
/crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People were killed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People were killed?
Succinct. Damn, your country is crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People were killed?
Seriously though, about the flag. I live in SC, I support the flag, and personally I'm tired of people telling ME why the flag is so horrible, so racist, why I'm such a horrible human for supporting such a thing, getting their facts wrong, and telling ME what I should be doing or believing in. Let me put it this way, I'm not racist, I love and hate everyone equally, so that makes me human, I guess, but not equal in THEIR eyes, sounds familiar right? And the strange thing is, its justified for some reason. The flag is a symbol of southern pride, not southern prejudice. Nothing more, nothing less, about the closest thing I can relate it to is possibly someone being proud of the American flag, or perhaps a going overboard with a favorite teams flag, or a school. Not really good comparisons, I know, but either you get it or you don't. The build up here, or the point I wish to make, is simply this: pick something, the cross, a symbol, something, anything, that is part of your life, your heritage, and now have everyone tell you it has to go, your horrible for supporting it, whatever...sounds crazy, but, imagine a school expelling all kids for wearing a Christian cross, or a Jewish star, etc..yes, I know, bad examples, religious symbols compared to a flag but I'm trying to make a point. How would you feel? I'm not a flag carrying teeth missing ignorant southern inbred, I have a few degrees, actually have my hands in several patents that everyone here and elsewhere uses or sees on a daily basis. I do not carry around the flag, or fly it, sport it, wear it, in fact no one would ever guess I support it, but when people slander my state, my heritage, my flag, without even knowing basic historical facts, and I stand to correct and protect, why, I'm a monster! Again, pick something near and dear, have someone try and take it away, think that's what this sight likes to point out quite a bit, and see how you respond. You might have an idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People were killed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People were killed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People were killed?
The only possible value in any idol is it's symbolic value: That flag is the symbol of the confederacy of states that went to war to preserve slavery. That people may choose to identify the southern states with other, more appealing traits is neither here nor there; "Southern Pride" was not why the states seceded - slavery was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People were killed?
To you, maybe. To most non-southerners (and an awful lot of southerners) it has always been a symbol of hatred and prejudice.
Nobody can dictate what a symbol means to anybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People were killed?
I am largely of German ancestry, and if someone told me the air base in my town was being forced to take the iron cross off their planes, my reaction would not be "hey that's a symbol of German pride!" it would be more like "wtf was that doing there to begin with?" Sorry, your example fails.
Also, what other people said to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People were killed?
All that being said, the flag belongs in a museum. It's no longer a symbol of the south but of reactionary politics and culture. Feel free to pull it out if you go to a reenactment. Apple pulling historical games because of it is just stupid. But you don't need to fly a flag to feel like you've honored the history of your family or region. You don't need a symbol to evoke that and you especially don't need it flying over or near the capital building in your state.
Your example of the cross or a Jewish star are not bad examples because the flag is treated like a part of a religion in many parts of the south, as much as football is. The Christian cross has been burnt on the lawns of black people as a symbol of hate. The Jewish star means something significantly different for Palestinians. Every symbol can be a symbol of hate and shameful to someone else.
You're not a monster because you support the flag. You're just focusing too much on your own fixation with the flag and conveniently ignoring the meaning of the flag to other people. You couldn't be blamed for inviting friends over to an afternoon barbecue party only to find out that one of your friends' father died in a freak grilling accident and the sight of a grill brings them to tears. But you should be well aware of what the confederate flag means to a significant number of your neighbors for its very real history of being used by people who fought, among other reasons, to keep their ancestors as slaves, and by racist Klansmen to terrorize black people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Argh! H is not a vowel! Why do people keep saying this? It gives me an heavy heart every time I see such an horrible mangling of our language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's also why there's an unwritten preceding aspiration in the way some (posh?) people pronounce certain words like whether. Hs preceded Ws in older versions of modern words that start with WH. The Old English version of whether was hwether.
"In 'Ertford, 'Ereford, and 'Ampshire, 'urricanes 'ardly hever 'appen."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not the letter so much as the sound (or lack thereof that it makes). Remember, English is a spoken language first and written second so the written rules bend to the sway of the spoken.
As for 'an historic', I've heard people say the word historic like the 'h' is silent. I think they are uneducated when the do it, but it happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...which is bloody annoying for people like us who learn English as a second or third language, and who mostly learn new words by reading them on books or Internet sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're supposed to learn English from sitcoms, you ninny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yeah; the traditional rule for an H is that it has no voice of its own -- so you treat any word beginning with an H as if it began with the next letter. This coincides with the pronunciation of the H in many English dialects -- totally silent. In US English, this rule has for the most part been dropped, so "a historic" is now accepted, but the traditionally accepted form is "an historic" or "an horse" or "an heart" -- pronounced, of course, as "an 'istoric" "an 'orse" and "an 'eart."
Blame Samuel Johnson -- this is one of the bits of his original dictionary that was preserved by Oxford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An travesty, it is. Don't you have anything better to do? Here, play with this: aneroebic.
Note some English words come from Greek (who knew?) while many others come from Latin, and the Greeks and Romans seldom agreed on anything (if they didn't have to).
It might be helpful to remember "our language" is inherited, and languages tend to evolve. You know, K&R C vs. ANSI Standard C.
"I before C except after E" works on Latin derived words, not Greek derived. Cf. "seismic."
Have a marvy day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not sure that's really the division, it seems like there are just numerous exceptions to the rule (more of a guideline, really), some of which are from Latin.
http://alt-usage-english.org/I_before_E.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wish you yanks would stop shitting all over our language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> see such an horrible mangling of our language.
They're literally decimating it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one is going to care about flag panic in a month, barely anyone will remember in a year.
At the very least I wish the media would shut up about it. Because I could not care any less about a sheet of fabric that represents a political entity that existed two hundred years ago. I am yet to find anyone to convince me otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grammer Nazi. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From one Nazi to another ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's an idea: quit caring about a 200 year old symbol. If some people use it as the symbol of their movement, so what? How does that affect you and how does removing to affect that movement?
Sorry, did this ancient emblem somehow create confederate soldiers out of thin air because they saw it on the Apple store?
Basically anyone who thinks a flag is what caused/helped/represented the shooting and that if they could only remove this one symbol then the whole thing would have never happened and all the racists will disappear is lying to themselves or have an axe to grind. Or, as of late, are trying to gain political brownie points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's it. That's all the meaning the flag actually has...it's the flag of the Confederate Army's main fighting force.
You are free to disagree with slavery and the principles of the Confederate States of America. I sure do; I believe slavery was a reprehensible, disgusting practice, but I also recognize that it was practiced worldwide around the time that the American Civil War was fought, and existed in many places after. This includes New Jersey and New Hampshire until 1865...technically, per the executive order of the Emancipation Proclamation, the Confederacy "ended" slavery two years earlier than the Union.
It's easy to be judgmental and look back at the "barbaric" past with a modern viewpoint. People will do the same to us (*cough* how did you justify extrajudicial drone killings? *cough*).
But the flag isn't the problem. There will probably be many people who do terrible things because they're racists and bigots who live in a black-and-white world filled with nothing but ignorance and hate. They were that way without an old army's flag, and hiding the flag away won't solve the problem.
This is simply an example of America in denial. We don't want to address the real problem...that racism, sexism, and bigotry are very much alive in our culture and that we may have to take a hard look at our own behavior. Instead we attack things we don't understand, like video games, music, the internet, and flags.
Ironically, that reaction is exactly what drives the very same bigots everyone here claims to be so disgusted with...ignorance. We tend to hate what we don't understand. Bigots exist because they have decided that it's "us vs. them" and categorized the "others" into something they don't understand and therefore would be better without. The way to solve this is to gain a better understanding of other people; of other races, genders, cultures, and beliefs.
So the next time you go on a crusade against this new "thing" that is "evil" try and remember that you're doing exactly the same thing racist fanatics do. Terrorists have labeled the U.S. (and other countries) as evil, the police have labeled minorities as evil, the list goes on and on. Think carefully before doing the same thing yourself. Nobody is immune to bias, and it's always harder to recognize your own bias than someone else's.
Something to think about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course not, but is it appropriate for the state government to use it, given its history and symbolism? Clearly Apple was way off the deep end of stupid, but it seems totally appropriate to me to strike the flag from the statehouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To you the flag may symbolize hatred, racial prejudice, treason, and slavery. To someone else it may represent state vs. federal rights, oppression from government, freedom of speech, military and cultural pride, and state history. The slavery and racial aspect may not even be something that occurs to them.
I could make the same argument about the American flag. How dare you fly this symbol of racism, violence, and hatred! The U.S. practically wiped out an entire continent of people, has killed more foreigners per year on average than any other country in the world, is the only country to ever use atomic weapons in combat, and did so against civilian targets, and is currently killing children in foreign countries with drone strikes. Take down the flag!
See how silly that sounds? How it takes all the bad in a country's history and applies it to their flag? Every country in the world has things in their history they aren't proud of. That doesn't mean you have to erase the symbol of that country from the history books.
Keep in mind you're viewing the Civil War with a modern bias. For many people, especially in the southern United States, the issue has little to do with slavery and everything to do with whether or not the government can define your morals and override the social decisions of the states. From a modern perspective, the answer to this question is "Yes, of course they can," but for many people this is a major political issue that has virtually nothing to do with racism.
Switch this around. What if the Civil War was fought over the right to smoke Marijuana? What if we had "Weed" states in the South and "Clean" states in the North?
I'm not trying to minimize the horror of slavery, but that's only because I'm looking at it from modern eyes. The point is that the issue itself was secondary, and it was secondary for Lincoln. I'm sure Lincoln was anti-slavery (and he said as much elsewhere) but he would have abandoned abolition to prevent secession.
And that's what the fight was really about. Secession, and where the power lies. In the opinion of the North, the federal government ruled. In the opinion of the South, the states ruled, and the federal government broke ties. You can argue all day which is right and which is wrong but that's ultimately why over 620,000 men died in the Civil War; they were fighting for their "country" whether that was the Union or the Confederacy.
The South lost, a bunch of amendments were passed to solidify the power of the federal government, and today we have five unelected people determining a national social issue based on those amendments. Love it, hate it...that's the history, and that's the reality, and our current government is the result.
I get it. I hate racism and I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry. But there are consequences when these things are resolved in the wrong way. I disagree with federal spying, extrajudicial drone killings, federal copyright law, civil asset forfeiture, police militarization...the list goes on and on. And if I want to move somewhere that doesn't have these rules or allow them my only option is to leave my country entirely. I can't just go to a state that fits my values because the federal government controls these policies for everyone.
So to actually answer your question, no, I don't believe it's appropriate for a state government to fly the Confederate flag. But I believe that they should have the right to choose whether or not they want to do so, and I reserve my right to ignore them. I don't believe in forcing my values on others, even when I find them awful.
That flag didn't kill anyone. Some psycho did, and there are plenty of psychos out there itching for a reason to kill. Label them as racists, label them as terrorists, they're all fundamentally the same...they're murderers, and we have ways to deal with them using our existing rules.
I don't know how to cure "murder." It probably isn't possible. But I do know what won't solve the problem...removing a flag from a statehouse. All you're doing is making more people angry and giving the symbol more meaning.
Seriously, for a site that spends so much time promoting free speech, no matter how awful, I'm honestly surprised that so many people want the flags taken down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you believe that, I doubt we're going to get anywhere.
Seriously, for a site that spends so much time promoting free speech, no matter how awful, I'm honestly surprised that so many people want the flags taken down.
Keep in mind that this is not about making private citizens or businesses do anything, it's about whether the flag should fly over a government building. I don't see that as a free speech issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My position is based on the work of contemporary historians, but hey, you're free to believe whatever you want. The South seceded because they wanted to preserve slavery; this is absolutely true. The war, however, was fought to end the secession, not to end slavery. If it were fought to end slavery, then slavery would have ended in the Union in 1861, when the war started and there wasn't a political reason to preserve it, rather than in 1865, when it actually ended.
So yes, slavery was certainly the primary factor leading to the civil war (along with conflicts over westward expansion) because that's the factor that led the south to secede, but Lincoln didn't start a war because the South had slaves, he started it because they quit the club. It was a war over control; the South wanted to control human beings, and wanted to keep their "traditional values" (no matter how sick those values), and the North wanted control over the "Union" and was willing to kill to preserve their power. Everyone has an ideology they use as an excuse, but it's naïve to think America fought against itself for anything other than power, plain and simple.
The North didn't have to fight; they could have abandoned the Southern states, let them secede, and gone on with their day. Everyone acts like it was inevitable, that the South forced the North to act. Bull. They could have let it go, and after a few years and a few inventions, plus a lot of education, slavery most likely would have died off in the South like it had been doing everywhere else in the civilized world. Instead, we fought a bloody war that has people divided over it 150 years later.
I'm not really defending the South. They could have avoided the war too by not freaking out when Lincoln became president, especially when he had said multiple times during his campaign that he didn't intend to end slavery. "Lost Cause" proponents tend to forget that the South didn't have to seceded...they chose to. But there's two sides to any fight and this was not a "good vs. evil" conflict as much as we'd like to villainize the Confederacy today.
Keep in mind that this is not about making private citizens or businesses do anything, it's about whether the flag should fly over a government building. I don't see that as a free speech issue.
But that's the conflict. It's a state building, and if the elected leaders of the state are following the intent of those they represent, that's exactly what a republic is designed to do. It's when the minority dictates what the majority can do that the basic principle of democracy breaks down. If you don't like it, move there and vote against the leaders who put up that flag. Otherwise, that's their business.
Sure, the majority isn't always right. But I trust the majority to generally follow the values of the people more than special interest groups with their own agendas. Sure, I like some of those agendas, but I don't like others, and I'd rather my vote actually mean something rather than be a "well, you voted, but this small group of people is going to override you because they say you're wrong."
Be careful what you wish for, because the interest groups' designs may align with you today, but when they don't (*cough* TPP *cough*), and you wonder why the government is ignoring the will of the people, well, now you know. It's because they know what's in your "best interest," your opinion be damned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A) TVTropes is very American-centric.
and
B) Despite glorifying wars and guns so much, the US has a tiny reference pool when it comes to actual wars, so the same ones will always be referenced: American Civil War, WWII, and sometimes Vietnam or Iraq if the creator is feeling politically edgy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Libertarians believe Lincoln and The Union were wrong in forcing the Confederates to remain in The Union. I abhor slavery, but I do believe states should have the right to seceed from the Union. I'm not in favor of forced marriages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I presume that belief wouldn't be so strong if the land being used to create Murdipublica was the believer's back yard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wonder what would have happened if they were allowed to secede and then every other country refused to trade with them (assuming it could be actually made to stick).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Slavery was relatively unimportant to them: the more intelligent among them realised that they could keep their slaves tied to them anyway,but it was a way to get popular support. On the other side, it was a way for Lincoln to keep Britain and France from supporting the CSA, because their governments were under competing pressures from the cotton and tobacco industries (who wanted to buy raw materials in North America rather than in the East) and the abolitionists (and those with interests in the East who liked US protectionism).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-trust or monopolistic behavior?
Hmm, I'm seeing Hunted Cow somehow using TPP or some such agreement to drain money from Apple (or the US) now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anti-trust or monopolistic behavior?
I think Android has more than enough market share to make Apple safe from monopoly abuse concerns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same Issue, Different Context
Imagine that I wrote a War of 1812 simulation from the Canadian point of view, where you kill American soldiers and burn American cities and towns.
Imagine the uproar if Apple approved the app. They'd have found a reason to reject it, even before the Charleston massacre.
"As you are a Canadian we would normally approve your app as reflecting Canadian history. However we note that you have recently relocated to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba...."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same Issue, Different Context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Same Issue, Different Context
More importantly it wasn't distributed through the Apple Store. Which bans apps for countless reasons and is constantly adding new reasons in an effort to be family friendly and non-offending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Same Issue, Different Context
Correlation does not imply causation
Violent video games cause real world violence -vs- Violent antisocial people play violent video games, take your pick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Same Issue, Different Context
No, I don't want to kill you. I don't even know you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Same Issue, Different Context
Sadly, you are an outlier in modern society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same Issue, Different Context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same Issue, Different Context
Imagine the uproar if Apple approved the app.
Why would there be uproar about that? Maybe a few idiots complaining, but I would think the overall reaction would be somewhere between nothing and "of all the wars to make a game about, you picked 1812?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same Issue, Different Context
I, as an American, would play it. Why not? It's history. We got our butts kicked. It happens.
Hell, half the Call of Duty games involve the U.S. getting blown up by somebody. Woop-de-do, it's a video game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's ban the skull and crossbones from the stores
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's ban the skull and crossbones from the stores
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's ban the skull and crossbones from the stores
"This just in: Apple announces that it is banning Pong from the App Store because the game is a metaphor for nuclear war!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's ban the skull and crossbones from the stores
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's ban the skull and crossbones from the stores
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolly_Roger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's ban the skull and crossbones from the stores
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These apps will likely return after enough ridicule has been heaped on Apple for yet another idiotic problem with app store rejections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dukes of Hazard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dukes of Hazard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dukes of Hazzard
Doing a quick search of Amazon, appears that you can still buy the DVDs and other items... can even buy a model of the General Lee (car). So, looks like they are being selective about what is banned?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dukes of Hazard
Star Wars, Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation have been re-mastered with new effects, sound and whatnot. No doubt someone will find it worth the investment to use CGI to edit out the confederate flags in the Dukes of Hazard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dukes of Hazard
I get the feeling that this isn't coincidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dukes of Hazard
> because of the car...
If you take the VIP studio tour at Warner Bros. Studios, one of the stops is a display of various picture cars used in movies and TV shows over the years-- everything from the many incarnations of the Batmobile, to the Scooby Doo Mystery Machine and Austin Powers' Mini Cooper. Last time I was there, they had one of the original DUKES OF HAZZARD hero car General Lees on display, but with no Confederate flag on the roof, which prompted one of the other guests to doubt its authenticity. The tour guide replied that they chose to deface this piece of television history by painting over the flag after someone on the tour complained about being offended by it.
So to all those who say this isn't about sanitizing history and the flag is fine if confined to a museum, here's an example of how even museums are pressured to, and cave to, political correctness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CRAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CRAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the "lets up the ante" party
I'm offended and I demand justice because.......I can't get past this....uhh..because I'm to F'ing stupid to be able to put anything into context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the "lets up the ante" party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the "lets up the ante" party
I knew a guy who was from Georgia. He was not happy when people called him that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the "lets up the ante" party
Sounds like an unfounded assumption. Are you sure most whites don't associate the Confederate flag with slavery and/or bigotry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the "lets up the ante" party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the "lets up the ante" party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its tricky, you don't want games that glorify the symbol, but banning it from games using it in a proper historic context is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And they're behaving just as stupid as the guys who want to ban the confederate flag. You can't even kill Nazis in Wolfenstein, they had to change the flag.
The irony is of course, that the whole world is now actively embracing Nazi ideology with mass surveillance and oppressing dissent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Future Headline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
[well that and various SJW types have been trying to remove it from the public sphere for years, can't let any crisis go to waste now I guess]
So, the next time a hate group/mass murderer wraps themselves in 'old glory' we'll be falling over ourselves to remove the stars and stripes as well?
For example, the completely made up (I hope) Montana Minutemen believe that the United Nations in concert with European Socialists and other undesirables is trying to take over the United States. They believe in a literal reading of the Constitution, no gun laws, no central bank, no income taxes. America for the Americans.
They have a web site, a manifesto, and lots of YouTube videos consisting of members either wrapped in the American flag ('old glory, stars and stripes, etc.), or with the flag displayed prominently behind them and on their materials.
Just last week, their members shot up a Texas Walmart. Sixty-three people killed, including twenty-two children. The YouTube video released moments after the incident explains that this Walmart was going to be used as a detention center by the United States Army, working under the direction of the secretary of the U.N. as a detention center to process U.S. citizens that refused to submit to the new U.N. overlords.
Of course there were several United States flags displayed prominently throughout.
Within hours, the call when up to remove that symbol of hate and oppression from the public sphere. Native American leaders give interviews about how their people were massacred by the thousands under that symbol of hate and oppression.
"How can anyone stand to have such a divisive symbol of hated, oppression, and genocide in predominant display?"
Apple, Google, and Walmart pull all American flags off the shelves (both digital and actual).
World War II vets and others try to make the case that it's about history not hate. It's the flag we hoisted over Okinawa and planted on the moon.
That doesn't matter. Because some people associate it with hated and oppression, that's all that counts. It was featured prominently by the group that shot up all those people just last week. Just how insensitive can you be? Are you one of those constitutionalists, those racist terrorists?
You don't think that could happen? It's already happening.
What's next, you'll need a special permit to purchase subversive books [see: Germany and Mein Kampf]?
So if flags are verboten, what's next? 'The Bible', 'The Koran', '1984'?
If freedom and the U.S. path of tolerance is to mean anything, I think we shouldn't be so quick to impoverish the marketplace of ideas. Popular ideas don't need protection, it's the currently unpopular ones that do.
Personally I would prefer that racists and others that I disagree with proudly wear their colors and march down our streets. At least I'll know who they are. The other option is to force them to keep to the shadows, fermenting hate and plotting in secret like a festering wound.
If there's to be any hope of change, their ideas need to be discussed, debated, examined. To simply outlaw the symbols, trappings, and ideas will only cause them to grow more extreme and dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
Books about hyperbole?
As you point out, while there are some dark chapters in America's history - as with all countries - the American flag stands for many great things to be very proud of. The confederate flag is associated almost exclusively with a fight to continue slavery. There's no credible comparison.
No-one is outlawing the confederate flag. No-one is requiring "a special permit to purchase" one. It's not being censored.
Saying "I do not want to be associated with it" is a different matter. Companies are welcome to do that. People are welcome to do that. Governments, responding to the people they serve, are welcome - if not obligated - to do that.
It's not the same as the government or anyone else dictating to YOU that YOU can't associate yourself with it. You're still welcome to fly the confederate flag, and no-one will stop you. The same goes for your company.
Of course, other people are welcome to express their opinion of it, opinions you might not like. They may refuse to do business with your company. That's freedom, not a lack of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
That elephant in the corner is known by the name of "States Rights", just so's you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
Like the right for citizens of slave states to take their slaves anywhere in the U.S. and not have them taken away or set free. And the demand that new states and territories be pro-slavery.
Declaring the civil war be about States Rights is about as honest declaring 9/11 to be about Boeing 767 operation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
Slavery was certainly a huge factor in the Civil War, but slavery is what caused secession, not war. The war was fought because the South seceded, and the question became whether or not they had the right to do that.
This may seem like a minor distinction but it's important. Secession, and whether or not a state could choose to leave the United States, is 100% a state's rights issue. Slavery was the catalyst that forced the answer.
And the Union won, so the answer is that you can't secede, as the Supreme Court would reaffirm in 1869. But pretending those factors didn't exist because the Confederacy was pro-slavery and seceded due to slavery is pure fallacy and ignores a massive amount of context for the Civil War.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
I guess the flag does also stand for slaughtering indians?
https://finnegan2749.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/ok2zd00z.jpg
Or imprisoning people without due process (like, you know, slaves)?
http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/xWEBSITE/photos/photos/2011/01january/110110-N-4936C-012.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/24/farrakhan-i-dont-get-debate-over-confederate-flag-we- need-to-put-the-american-flag-down/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Warner Bros example is a bit ironic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Navin R. Johnson understood it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The World’s Buddhists & Hindus say “Aw, Diddums!”
Apple is hardly alone in taking this action. As they say in Real Life™: “Deal with it!”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The World’s Buddhists & Hindus say “Aw, Diddums!”
apple is a lame wannabe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that I'll be buying it, it's not my preferred game type. But I hit "Store" and there it was. Apparently it's getting pretty good reviews, and only costs $15. You've missed the 50% off Summer Sale, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About time...
The hipsters at Apple are so socially inept that they don't know the flag from a hole in the ground. (What does that mean anyway?)
To me, the confederate flag simply represents failure; social failure, economic failure, strategic failure, educational failure, spiritual failure, etc.
I may be mistaken - but the war did not start simply because of slavery, but because of the desire for southern sovereignty and someone from the north threw in the subject of slavery to gain supporters for the Union. Then - more southern failures ensued. But I could be mistaken. Hiding the flag won't help enlighten me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: About time...
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/25/8846879/ken-burns-civil-war
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: About time...
Of note: Symbols are a form of language and as we know, most languages are fluid. My kid likes the Show Supernatural. She has shoes that 50 years ago would have caused riots in the street. They have the demon trap symbol on them. Different times, different meanings.
So, it seems to me, if you take offense at what I'm wearing or what I'm flying, you may well be guilty of petty theft. What Southerns might want to do is a media campaign about any virtue bestowed on the flag as it stands today. Shout out the new definition or help it sink in that today - it means something different. But you'd have to get enough folks to buy in and fewer folks using it the same old bad way.
Never-the-less, its historical connotation will stand in the minds of folks for many years to come, but it shouldn't fall victim to censorship. And yet, disfavor will win out for a time. Perhaps, as it should be, until some healing has come to pass. It just shouldn't be quite so personal. Don't take offense where none is meant. Don't be so thin skinned. Attack the attitude not the symbol. Attack the arrogance, or the racism, or ones own ignorance. Learn to manage ones self and not try to control everyone else. It just seems so ham-fisted to squelch every expression of the confederate flag for those who take offense at so many things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: About time...
Why does that distinction matter? If it was slavery->secession->war isn't that the same as slavery->war? No, because the war wouldn't have started without the secession (or at least there's no evidence it would have). If the South had ignored Lincoln's election and continued on there would not have been a Civil War. If the North had simply allowed the secession there would not have been a Civil War. The secession was the key; the fact that it was caused by slavery does not make slavery the driving force behind the conflict (also, slavery was not the sole factor that led to secession, as there were also nationalist, political, religious, and expansionist factors; slavery was just the biggest contributing factor).
It may seem like a minor point, but when you have legal slaves in the North up to 1865, it seems that the "the North hated slavery and the South loved it, so they fought" argument falls apart pretty quickly. It also requires ignoring a huge amount of historical accounts, including quotes from Lincoln himself.
Granted, the Civil War wasn't fought over states' rights either. But the majority of contemporary historians agree that the spark of the Civil War was the secession of the Southern states and the creation of the Confederacy, regardless of why those states chose to go that route.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: About time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another distraction from the real issue
Ever since the Sandy Hook (or maybe before), President Obama has said that mass shootings will not become the "new normal". Well, guess what, without any real discussions about gun control, this HAS become the "new normal".
Slate did a piece a while back trying to track all the shootings that occurred after Sandy Hook, but gave up because there were too many.
Now there's yet another shooting and we're banning a flag?! Where's the outrage over guns? How come Wal-Mart hasn't stepped up to say they're not going to sell guns any more because the killer used a gun? Oh, right, "2nd amendment rights".
Why is it not possible to live in a country with 2nd amendment rights AND not have mass shooting all the time? Why aren't more legitimate gun owners stepping forward to help prevent mass shootings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet another distraction from the real issue
Those stories don't get signal-boosted, though, because a) they don't have the mounds of corpses that the media love and b) they don't fit the media narrative of gun owners being some scary "other". Much like the fact that these criminals overwhelmingly pick places where others are legally disarmed like, say, schools.
Then go and search for mass shootings outside of the US. Turns out you're not the only ones who produce these cretins, just the most self-centered. Most other countries don't approve of turning killers into celebrities the way the US does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legitimate gun owners do more to stop mass shooters
Yet more fond gun-lover mythology, totally divorced from the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legitimate gun owners do more to stop mass shooters
> divorced from the facts.
Could you please explain how, if guns are to blame, that the city of Detroit which makes up only 9.8% of Michigan's total population, somehow accounts for 58% of the murders in the state, where all residents have the same access to firearms and are all subject to the same state and federal gun laws? (Despite neighboring communities literally sharing a border with the city having a murder rate that is only a fraction of Detroit's?)
Because if guns are to blame, then the murder should be more or less equal throughout the state.
http://cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_1206_023dc3f4fdca1358305516513b556172
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legitimate gun owners do more to stop mass shooters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legitimate gun owners do more to stop mass shooters
Asking the same of gun owners shouldn't be that prohibitive. There's nothing inherently wrong with expecting people to have actually learned how to safely use the things they take out in public. Innocent bystanders should be allowed to assume they have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the two are intrinsically linked.
refer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL8JEEt2RxI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I really have no idea. Especially if I compare this to other countries with huge amounts of firearms available to people, like Greenland, Canada, Switzerland.
As for shootings in general, there seems to be one big factor, that's sadly not visible in the statistics: Handguns versus rifles. All the other countries with a high firearm proliferation have very little handguns available. Most of the guns are shotguns and rifles.
But mass shootings? You'd expect them to be mostly done with long guns, and people in the USA don't have a lot more of those than people in other countries; but mass shootings still are not as common as in the USA. Maybe it's a cultural thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where have you guys been?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where have you guys been?
It's not just blacks who think it should be removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't see them pulling apps related to those
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What else could be expected from the dumbest corporation on earth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]