What about the Confederate Flag?

[Puffdragon 131]

14 hours ago, AbuMohammad said:

All is ok but russian naval St. Andrew's flag is like this

Thank you for correcting me brother.

[vsb 6171]

is it just me that thinks of the city security act whenever someone says csa in this thread, or are there any other lore idiots out there

[magik 184]

2 hours ago, BXNNXD said:

is it just me that thinks of the city security act whenever someone says csa in this thread, or are there any other lore idiots out there

I'm here with you too.

[CookiePuss 5379]

7 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

is it just me that thinks of the city security act whenever someone says csa in this thread, or are there any other lore idiots out there

 

What is lore?

[Acornie 490]

9 hours ago, NotZombieBiscuit said:

I find any images of Jesus, God, The Holy Spirit, or the cross no accurately depicted by those entities themselves to be highly offensive. Please remove from the game.

Ironic, I find Satanist symbols, the number 666 and upside pentagrams offensive, pls remove as well

You see those way more than any religious symbols or references 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Archon

[Nymphi-DoubleDee 37]

1 hour ago, Cyraa said:

So... you say it was never about the rights of Slaves... and then you say it was about taking slaves west. Which was in fact about slave rights. Why didn't we want slaves in the west or want them in the west as was the case with the south? Well it all has to do with this thing called the Senate. You can't pass a law if it can't pass the Senate and each state gets two reps in it... so as long as you have as many free states as you do slave states you maintain the status quo. As soon as you start having more free states than slave states you start having to worry about the slaves being freed.  Why did we want them free?  Because it wasn't moral according to abolitionists and they should have rights.  Thus it was about slave rights.

 

That is what the Civil War was about. The loss of political power that would ultimately result in the freeing of the slaves... so while the Civil War on its face wasn't about slavery, when you dig into the actual issues behind the issues it really was. People will go on about slave states in the west or States Rights etc... but what they always fail to mention is why those things were important in the first place to the north and south. The reason why was slavery.
Also... as to your PBS article... literally the third sentence says, "In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict."
Whether you or I or anyone else finds the confederate battle flag offensive is irrelevant. It matters if some large minority or majority of people find it that way with real historical reason. Now if the CSA still existed maybe you would have a point. But you have to look at the historical context for how it was used after the CSA ceased to exist. And that was largely as a symbol of defiance of the North and the freeing of the slaves and in support of things like separate but equal and Jim Crow laws. That is inherently racist regardless of what the CSA and the Civil War were about or stood for.

 

Further the information about Lincoln and Robert E. Lee is irrelevant to the discussion.  The private actions and thoughts of individuals on a national level are largely irrelevant to what happened on that national level.  Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong.  He didn't know what to do about it.  He did suggest sending them to colonize Liberia.  Robert E Lee did take that to heart and send many there.  How is that relevant to the discussion at hand?  It isn't.

 

Maybe you don't understand the difference between Economic Rights and Humanitarian Rights.

 

The South wanted to take Slaves West, because that was their work force. Thus making more money for the home states in the Territories West. The North didn't want that, because they wanted the money to funnel back North.

 

Since the South had lesser representation in the Senate and House, they didn't feel equally represented in the North controlled Federal Government.

 

Where does ANY of that have to deal with the moral reprocucion of slavery?

 

Also, the point of Robert E. Lee was because he was the General under the Confederate Flag. Yet, he inherited slaves, and set them free before the war, because he also found it morally repulsive.

 

He fought because he agreed with why the States wanted to move out of the USA. To fight against a tyrannical, overpowering Federal Government.

[vsb 6171]

2 minutes ago, Nymphi-DoubleDee said:

Maybe you don't understand the difference between Economic Rights and Humanitarian Rights.

 

The South wanted to take Slaves West, because that was their work force. Thus making more money for the home states in the Territories West. The North didn't want that, because they wanted the money to funnel back North.

 

Since the South had lesser representation in the Senate and House, they didn't feel equally represented in the North controlled Federal Government.

 

Where does ANY of that have to deal with the moral reprocucion of slavery?

 

Also, the point of Robert E. Lee was because he was the General under the Confederate Flag. Yet, he inherited slaves, and set them free before the war, because he also found it morally repulsive.

 

He fought because he agreed with why the States wanted to move out of the USA. To fight against a tyrannical, overpowering Federal Government.

i wouldnt bother, its far easier to just lump all southerners under the slavery banner

 

who even needs facts anyway

[Cyraa 2]

24 minutes ago, Nymphi-DoubleDee said:

Maybe you don't understand the difference between Economic Rights and Humanitarian Rights.

 

The South wanted to take Slaves West, because that was their work force. Thus making more money for the home states in the Territories West. The North didn't want that, because they wanted the money to funnel back North.

 

Since the South had lesser representation in the Senate and House, they didn't feel equally represented in the North controlled Federal Government.

 

Where does ANY of that have to deal with the moral reprocucion of slavery?

 

Also, the point of Robert E. Lee was because he was the General under the Confederate Flag. Yet, he inherited slaves, and set them free before the war, because he also found it morally repulsive.

 

He fought because he agreed with why the States wanted to move out of the USA. To fight against a tyrannical, overpowering Federal Government.

OH.  Let me check your original post... Let's see...  slave rights... I don't see any mention of Economic Rights and Humanitarian rights.  Nice splitting hairs there to deflect from the fact that everything I said was accurate.  And Robert E Lee is still irrelevant to the discussion as the personal views and inspirations of even a leading general of the south have nothing to do with the causes of the war.  If you want to argue if he was a good or morale man or if Lincoln was that would be something else but that isn't at issue here.  To say that everyone in the south chose to fight for the exact same reason as everyone else is absurd.  But we aren't arguing personal choices we are arguing societal base line reasons for why it happened.  You are basically arguing that important Person X in the South wasn't bad and fought for X reasons not Y so no one fought for Y reason and the defining reason for why the south was fighting wasn't bad it was this persons.  That is utter nonsense.

 

As for lumping everyone under the same banner.  I never did that.  I was pointing out fundamental paradigms of the south in terms of economy and politics and showing how that led to all of this and how it is all related to the underlying slave mechanic, WHICH others where arguing it wasn't about at all or at least only as a side issue of no real import.

 

As for being liberal or a SJW or some other bullshoot.  Sorry.  Texas here.  I believe in gun rights and the death penalty and even states rights as defined under the Constitution of the United States.  I don't believe in revisionist bullshoot history where suddenly we didn't fight a war over slavery that just wound up being all the things it was dealing with.  This was a key transitional moment in history and the South was on the wrong side of it.  If the South had won that war they still wouldn't have slaves anymore today.  Political and economic pressures that would have been exerted on them to change their ways would have certainly guaranteed a change in this policy.  Evidence:  Slavery of the sort practiced by the South does not exist anywhere in the world today.  To say that the fundamental causes of the war at the time where anything else is to ignore this fundamental paradigm shift in history and its greater impact on the world at large.

 

In the end though all of this is irrelevant to the subject of the thread.  And I point you to my original posts ending that actually talks about that.  If you are arguing that symbols should only be banned because it is morally bad I would then ask you, whose morals are we using as a base?  Which is why I presented my argument that the only way to rationally do that (in my opinion) is to find that which is offensive to significant portions of the population.  I also stated that the offensive nature of the flag doesn't extend from what it represented during the Civil War necessarily but how it was used to represent what came after.  That is my key point.  Everything either of us has said about the Civil War is pointless in regards to this thread, the key point is that the flag is offensive because of what it represented AFTER the war was over and what it meant to the peoples subjected to Jim Crow and exclusionary laws with the old CSA battle flag being the ultimate expression of that to many.

[Alani 475]

You guys are arguing about the history of the american civil war lol.

 

This community is still the best.

[-Rachel- 129]

17 minutes ago, Cyraa said:

OH.  Let me check your original post... Let's see...  slave rights... I don't see any mention of Economic Rights and Humanitarian rights.  Nice splitting hairs there to deflect from the fact that everything I said was accurate.  And Robert E Lee is still irrelevant to the discussion as the personal views and inspirations of even a leading general of the south have nothing to do with the causes of the war.  If you want to argue if he was a good or morale man or if Lincoln was that would be something else but that isn't at issue here.  To say that everyone in the south chose to fight for the exact same reason as everyone else is absurd.  But we aren't arguing personal choices we are arguing societal base line reasons for why it happened.  You are basically arguing that important Person X in the South wasn't bad and fought for X reasons not Y so no one fought for Y reason and the defining reason for why the south was fighting wasn't bad it was this persons.  That is utter nonsense.

 

As for lumping everyone under the same banner.  I never did that.  I was pointing out fundamental paradigms of the south in terms of economy and politics and showing how that led to all of this and how it is all related to the underlying slave mechanic, WHICH others where arguing it wasn't about at all or at least only as a side issue of no real import.

 

As for being liberal or a SJW or some other bullshoot.  Sorry.  Texas here.  I believe in gun rights and the death penalty and even states rights as defined under the Constitution of the United States.  I don't believe in revisionist bullshoot history where suddenly we didn't fight a war over slavery that just wound up being all the things it was dealing with.  This was a key transitional moment in history and the South was on the wrong side of it.  If the South had won that war they still wouldn't have slaves anymore today.  Political and economic pressures that would have been exerted on them to change their ways would have certainly guaranteed a change in this policy.  Evidence:  Slavery of the sort practiced by the South does not exist anywhere in the world today.  To say that the fundamental causes of the war at the time where anything else is to ignore this fundamental paradigm shift in history and its greater impact on the world at large.

 

In the end though all of this is irrelevant to the subject of the thread.  And I point you to my original posts ending that actually talks about that.  If you are arguing that symbols should only be banned because it is morally bad I would then ask you, whose morals are we using as a base?  Which is why I presented my argument that the only way to rationally do that (in my opinion) is to find that which is offensive to significant portions of the population.  I also stated that the offensive nature of the flag doesn't extend from what it represented during the Civil War necessarily but how it was used to represent what came after.  That is my key point.  Everything either of us has said about the Civil War is pointless in regards to this thread, the key point is that the flag is offensive because of what it represented AFTER the war was over and what it meant to the peoples subjected to Jim Crow and exclusionary laws with the old CSA battle flag being the ultimate expression of that to many.

 

Saying things like "The civil war wasn't about racism and slaves because Robert E. Lee freed his slaves" or "it was about states rights not slavery" (even though all those issues stemmed directly from the south wanting to maintain the institution of slavery) is pure sophistry. It's a deflection from the real issue, the civil war did in fact revolve purely around slavery and issues related to it, and the south fought and lost a bloody war in an attempt to preserve it. As such, it should be no surprise that people take offense to the display of a flag that represents those things.

Edited May 30, 2018 by -Rachel-

[LAPDAlonso 41]

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the confederate flag. Have people not seen the Dukes of Hazzard? 

Also there was nothing wrong with the flag until the "terrorist" group Black Lives Matter started complaining about it.   The only flags which are a problem are obvious the KKK, Black Panther, ISIS, Boko Haram, and anything related to it.

 

 

[Nymphi-DoubleDee 37]

12 minutes ago, Cyraa said:

OH.  Let me check your original post... Let's see...  slave rights... I don't see any mention of Economic Rights and Humanitarian rights.  Nice splitting hairs there to deflect from the fact that everything I said was accurate.  And Robert E Lee is still irrelevant to the discussion as the personal views and inspirations of even a leading general of the south have nothing to do with the causes of the war.  If you want to argue if he was a good or morale man or if Lincoln was that would be something else but that isn't at issue here.  To say that everyone in the south chose to fight for the exact same reason as everyone else is absurd.  But we aren't arguing personal choices we are arguing societal base line reasons for why it happened.  You are basically arguing that important Person X in the South wasn't bad and fought for X reasons not Y so no one fought for Y reason and the defining reason for why the south was fighting wasn't bad it was this persons.  That is utter nonsense.

 

As for lumping everyone under the same banner.  I never did that.  I was pointing out fundamental paradigms of the south in terms of economy and politics and showing how that led to all of this and how it is all related to the underlying slave mechanic, WHICH others where arguing it wasn't about at all or at least only as a side issue of no real import.

 

As for being liberal or a SJW or some other bullshoot.  Sorry.  Texas here.  I believe in gun rights and the death penalty and even states rights as defined under the Constitution of the United States.  I don't believe in revisionist bullshoot history where suddenly we didn't fight a war over slavery that just wound up being all the things it was dealing with.  This was a key transitional moment in history and the South was on the wrong side of it.  If the South had won that war they still wouldn't have slaves anymore today.  Political and economic pressures that would have been exerted on them to change their ways would have certainly guaranteed a change in this policy.  Evidence:  Slavery of the sort practiced by the South does not exist anywhere in the world today.  To say that the fundamental causes of the war at the time where anything else is to ignore this fundamental paradigm shift in history and its greater impact on the world at large.

 

In the end though all of this is irrelevant to the subject of the thread.  And I point you to my original posts ending that actually talks about that.  If you are arguing that symbols should only be banned because it is morally bad I would then ask you, whose morals are we using as a base?  Which is why I presented my argument that the only way to rationally do that (in my opinion) is to find that which is offensive to significant portions of the population.  I also stated that the offensive nature of the flag doesn't extend from what it represented during the Civil War necessarily but how it was used to represent what came after.  That is my key point.  Everything either of us has said about the Civil War is pointless in regards to this thread, the key point is that the flag is offensive because of what it represented AFTER the war was over and what it meant to the peoples subjected to Jim Crow and exclusionary laws with the old CSA battle flag being the ultimate expression of that to many.

You are right, on one point.

 

The Slavery that existed in the US didn't exist anywhere else.

 

Elsewhere, Slaves (African and European) were castrated.

 

And yes, my original point stands.

 

People try to claim the flag as being a symbol for slave owners wanting to keep slaves, and the North telling them they can't.

 

This is inaccurate.

 

It wasn't about Slavery as a humanitarian issue. It was denying Southern States to use their workforce to expand their own economies, while being under represented in the Senate and House.

 

It'd be like the Federal Government passing a law that a citizen can't own more than an acre of land.

[magik 184]

4 minutes ago, LAPDAlonso said:

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the confederate flag. Have people not seen the Dukes of Hazzard? 

Also there was nothing wrong with the flag until the "terrorist" group Black Lives Matter started complaining about it.   The only flags which are a problem are obvious the KKK, Black Panther, ISIS, Boko Haram, and anything related to it.

 

 

I think this is the first time I've agreed so well with Alonso...

 

Back to topic, does the flag signify hate? Yes and No, depends on who's using it, how they're using, and their intentions in using it.

 

Who: members of parties like the KKK. Your grandma in Georgia who keeps the flag in her living room probably doesn't think about hate (although depending on her age and education might be racist) Or your father who's great great grandfather served in the war, and believes in state's rights keeps a flag as a memorial, or a landmark for history. The latter two don't keep it as a sign they hate black people, or non white people.

 

How: You run around a game with the flag shouting "white power" will definitely signify hate. You make a car, or a CSA outfit with the flag on it, probably won't be hate, unless you decide to once again, run around shouting white power.

 

Reason: If you want to purposely trigger people, troll, or act like a bigot, and a hateful jerk, probably expect a ban. You act like a decent person, put it on your car or whatever because it looks cool, sure go ahead.

 

There is a difference between advertising hate, and being decent. This thread shouldn't need to be created. Use common sense. If you want to keep using the flag, don't act like a dig bick.

The reason a swastika isn't allowed, is because a country the game is released in, Germany, actually has it illegal to publicly, and in the media, display Nazi paraphernalia.

[-Rachel- 129]

4 minutes ago, Nymphi-DoubleDee said:

It wasn't about Slavery as a humanitarian issue. It was denying Southern States to use their workforce to expand their own economies, while being under represented in the Senate and House.

 

It'd be like the Federal Government passing a law that a citizen can't own more than an acre of land.

Pure sophistry. The "work force" you mentioned were unwilling slaves. They knew that if the number of slave owning states came to be outnumbered by the non-slave states, that the first thing to happen in the senate would be the abolition of slavery. Also, your analogy is a straw man, a poorly built one, these two things are not the same.

[Cyraa 2]

13 minutes ago, Nymphi-DoubleDee said:

You are right, on one point.

 

The Slavery that existed in the US didn't exist anywhere else.

 

Elsewhere, Slaves (African and European) were castrated.

 

And yes, my original point stands.

 

People try to claim the flag as being a symbol for slave owners wanting to keep slaves, and the North telling them they can't.

 

This is inaccurate.

 

It wasn't about Slavery as a humanitarian issue. It was denying Southern States to use their workforce to expand their own economies, while being under represented in the Senate and House.

 

It'd be like the Federal Government passing a law that a citizen can't own more than an acre of land.

“There’s not enough troops in the Army, to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our schools and into our homes.”

 

Yep.  Sounds like State Rights for sure.  At this point you aren't even disagreeing with me.  You're just saying that slavery wasn't bad it was just an economical model and attempting to suppress it made the North wrong oh and did you know other people did it worse so we are totes even better than them?  Also.  Castration of slaves was a common practice in the south especially as a punishment for attempting to run away.  FYI.

 

Also the acre of land argument... and this is key here so pay attention.  LAND ISN'T A PERSON.  Of course... in the south Slaves weren't people either.  They were 3/5 of a person.  The north opposed slavery in general on morale grounds not because they wanted to choke the southern economy.  Do you even know why the north won the war?  IT WAS ECONOMY.  Slavery was literally choking the southern economy dead.  You know what really killed it though?  England opening cotton plantations in Egypt and India and deciding they didn't need southern cotton at all anymore.  Slavery as an economic system is incredibly inefficient. 

 

The north opposed slavery not because they wanted to throttle the south but because they thought it was wrong to treat a person like an object.  Now they didn't necessarily want them living next door to them... baby steps.  But they did want them free.  You are basically trying to argue states rights because the south was having its slave economy throttled by the north because the north didn't want them to be successful.  Do you understand how absurd that sounds?

 

You are basically arguing that in a democracy if I don't like what the majority says... I just get to leave and start a new country instead.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Cyraa

[SelttikS 224]

That USA flag that no one seems to care about was the same flag flown at the internment camps the USA setup for its citizens 76 years ago. So why doesn't everyone on their hate wagon for the Confederate flag jump on the BANdwagon for the USA flag as well? Prison camps if you will, you know like the Nazi had because people that didn't look like them were viewed as being unworthy of basic rights? That was the USA flag and that was a lot more recent in history yet people want to forget that little war crime.

Edited May 30, 2018 by SelttikS

[Kat 27]

Hello conservative "omg everything isoffensive to somebody" snowflakes,

it is 2018 and it is not that hard to not be racist

if the question pops into your mind "is this racist?" instead ask yourself "why did I even need to ask that question in the first place?" and then don't use the thing.

 

very ez to understand, now move along

[vsb 6171]

2 minutes ago, Kat said:

Hello conservative "omg everything isoffensive to somebody" snowflakes,

it is 2018 and it is not that hard to not be racist

if the question pops into your mind "is this racist?" instead ask yourself "why did I even need to ask that question in the first place?" and then don't use the thing.

 

very ez to understand, now move along

you could ask yourself that question about nearly anything, thats a slippery logical slope

[Puffdragon 131]

9 minutes ago, Kat said:

Hello conservative "omg everything isoffensive to somebody" snowflakes,

it is 2018 and it is not that hard to not be racist

if the question pops into your mind "is this racist?" instead ask yourself "why did I even need to ask that question in the first place?" and then don't use the thing.

 

very ez to understand, now move along

I'm neither right nor left, I just understand history, symbols do not represent something racist just because they are used by racist people. Is the skull and cross bones banned because ss officers use it? Only a fool falls for right-vs-left politics. We are all government property at the end of the day.

[Kat 27]

41 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

you could ask yourself that question about nearly anything, thats a slippery logical slope

racism is not banana peels & there's nothing slippery about it logical or otherwise

 

[TheOppositePolarBear 93]

16 minutes ago, Kat said:

racism is not banana peels & there's nothing slippery about it logical or otherwise 

 

hello liberal "oh im so ethical and perfect"

 

im not american

 

but who is discussing racism?

 

from what i see in this thread, if that flag is racist or not depends on the point of view, that point of view is the thing we're discussing. please read the thread.

 

so please, get off your high horse, and if you dont have anything constructive to say, keep it to yourself. also, dont adress all of us as " conservative " or "idiots who cant not be sacists", its 2018, and as you has showed to us, its still pretty easy to generalize, presume and be toxic.

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by TheOppositePolarBear

[vsb 6171]

2 minutes ago, Kat said:

racism is not banana peels & there's nothing slippery about it logical or otherwise

 

are we really going to pretend that even having to ask the question "is this racist" somehow means something is offensive?

 

setting aside the fact that there are hundreds of actual offensive things that no one bothers to ask "is this racist" about, people have brought up valid reasons that effectively show 'unoffensive' things that could and would in fact be offensive 

 

and that is the slippery slope - where is the line drawn? where do we say "well its okay if this only offends this group" ? isnt it offensive in and of itself to say that one groups reactions are not equal to anothers?

 

its really cool and all to dismiss this all with a slick phrase but these are pretty important issues imo

[RandomCatface 16]

inb4 lock...

[SelttikS 224]

Is Fried chicken racist?

 

Chickens are enslaved by humanity. Egyptians invented fried foods and they owned slaves. Crap Fried Chicken is racist!

 

Here is the easiest way to solve all this. Is this Illegal in a country that APB sells products to? If not then who cares at this point unless someone is TRYING to be a jackhole with it.

[MattScott 15242]

Hi guys,

 

Again, I think the OP has gotten enough answers, so I am going to lock this thead.

 

But first, I'll answer this as definitively as I can.

The Code of Conduct says:

"Racial slurs, hate speech, threats, spam, and other forms of harassment will not be tolerated."

 

The Nazi symbol and the confederate flag are two different issues:

1. Displaying the Nazi symbol is illegal in some European countries where this game is sold. We are simply complying with the law when we find it used in game.
2. The confederate flag is a question of intention. If you use it to recreate the General Lee from Dukes of Hazard - go for it. If you use it to harass another player, we will enforce the Code of Conduct.

Personally I don't want to get caught up in legislating policy and making subjective decisions related to creative content. If something is reported by another player as offensive, then we're going to look at you're actions. Creating knowingly questionable content puts you at risk. If you want to take that risk, then you put the decision of your account's future in our hands and you should accept the consequences.

 

Thanks,

Matt