The term "PC" should be renamed

[Gandalf]

That was a very good quote. Surely I don't need to break it down for you.

[walrus]

That was a very good quote. Surely I don't need to break it down for you.

That actually was a good quote, I didn't even notice it until it was in bold. Also, your theory is worthy of being on one of those conspiracy docs.

[Beanz]

That was a very good quote. Surely I don't need to break it down for you.

[TitoFan]

Nazi flags should be displayed in museums and shown in documentaries.
Other than that it has no practical, constructive use whatsoever.
Its being deployed in public places or private property where it can be seen by others and deemed offensive should be prohibited.
My opinion and I'll continue to stand by it.

Have a nice day.

[El Kabong]

Nazi flags should be displayed in museums and shown in documentaries.
Other than that it has no practical, constructive use whatsoever.
Its being deployed in public places or private property where it can be seen by others and deemed offensive should be prohibited.
My opinion and I'll continue to stand by it.

Have a nice day.

Alright well that leads me (just playing Devil's Advocate here) to ask....

"How much offense does something have to cause in order for it to be grounds for removal?"

....is there a way to quantify offense? Or is it qualitative and it's simply a matter of how many folks find it offensive?

Anyway, the Supreme Court precedent in 'The National Socialist Party of America vs Skokie, Illinois' flies in the face of your beliefs. I mean I would like for people to abide by the Golden Rule, but some folks are just assholes for no other reason than they want to be and they like everyone else in this country are allowed to express themselves.

Free Speech is something I just figure that people know and accept, but apparently that concept is more difficult than I thought....it does involve lots of patience, mental clarity, and a great deal of restraint.

[Beanz]

Nazi flags should be displayed in museums and shown in documentaries.
Other than that it has no practical, constructive use whatsoever.
Its being deployed in public places or private property where it can be seen by others and deemed offensive should be prohibited.
My opinion and I'll continue to stand by it.

Have a nice day.

Alright well that leads me (just playing Devil's Advocate here) to ask....

"How much offense does something have to cause in order for it to be grounds for removal?"

....is there a way to quantify offense? Or is it qualitative and it's simply a matter of how many folks find it offensive?

Anyway, the Supreme Court precedent in 'The National Socialist Party of America vs Skokie, Illinois' flies in the face of your beliefs. I mean I would like for people to abide by the Golden Rule, but some folks are just assholes for no other reason than they want to be and they like everyone else in this country are allowed to express themselves.

Free Speech is something I just figure that people know and accept, but apparently that concept is more difficult than I thought....it does involve lots of patience, mental clarity, and a great deal of restraint.

It's no good banning anything. Know your enemy. Far right groups have threatened to March all over Europe in places heavily populated by Jewish Holocaust survivors like Golders Green in London and usually they do not turn up or a group of thirty or so are met by hundreds of counter demonstrators. In my younger days I marched with the anti-nazi league in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Milan, etc and it was important to stand up to bully boys ( even if that meant throwing a few punches if they tried to intimidate and attack, pacifism rarely works) and to show that when they attack minorities that the underdogs will stick together in solidarity. When Mosely and the British Union of Facists marched in 1936 the Police allowed it but the few thousand that turned up in the battle of Cable street in the East End were met not just by the large Jewish Community there, but also the Irish, Trade Unionists, Working class dockers and even housewives. About 100,000 people it is estimated, all united and turned over trucks etc and all though the Police surrounded and protected Mosely and the fascists to protect their right to march, Irish Catholic housewives emptied chamber pots and bowls of old vegetables onto them.

[brocktonblockbust]

LET THEM SKINHEAD FUCKERS WITH THEIR nAZI FLAGS march like nitwits and Heil Hitler---
they are their own judge, jury and executioner.
give cunts enough rope and they hang themselves.

[TitoFan]

Nazi flags should be displayed in museums and shown in documentaries.
Other than that it has no practical, constructive use whatsoever.
Its being deployed in public places or private property where it can be seen by others and deemed offensive should be prohibited.
My opinion and I'll continue to stand by it.

Have a nice day.

Alright well that leads me (just playing Devil's Advocate here) to ask....

"How much offense does something have to cause in order for it to be grounds for removal?"

....is there a way to quantify offense? Or is it qualitative and it's simply a matter of how many folks find it offensive?

Anyway, the Supreme Court precedent in 'The National Socialist Party of America vs Skokie, Illinois' flies in the face of your beliefs. I mean I would like for people to abide by the Golden Rule, but some folks are just assholes for no other reason than they want to be and they like everyone else in this country are allowed to express themselves.

Free Speech is something I just figure that people know and accept, but apparently that concept is more difficult than I thought....it does involve lots of patience, mental clarity, and a great deal of restraint.

It's no good banning anything. Know your enemy. Far right groups have threatened to March all over Europe in places heavily populated by Jewish Holocaust survivors like Golders Green in London and usually they do not turn up or a group of thirty or so are met by hundreds of counter demonstrators. In my younger days I marched with the anti-nazi league in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Milan, etc and it was important to stand up to bully boys ( even if that meant throwing a few punches if they tried to intimidate and attack, pacifism rarely works) and to show that when they attack minorities that the underdogs will stick together in solidarity. When Mosely and the British Union of Facists marched in 1936 the Police allowed it but the few thousand that turned up in the battle of Cable street in the East End were met not just by the large Jewish Community there, but also the Irish, Trade Unionists, Working class dockers and even housewives. About 100,000 people it is estimated, all united and turned over trucks etc and all though the Police surrounded and protected Mosely and the fascists to protect their right to march, Irish Catholic housewives emptied chamber pots and bowls of old vegetables onto them.

Both your points are well taken. However, let's construct an entirely hypothetical situation:

A man murders the whole family of someone away at work, and is convicted. He serves his prison term, maybe getting out a little early through good conduct or other such B.S. He then decides to move next door to the murdered family's father, and for the hell of it has a flag made with the pictures of each of the victims, each with a big red "X" through their faces. He then decides to fly this flag in his own front yard, in plain view of his neighbor and the other neighbors.

How do we quantify that offense? Other than the victim's father/husband, his friends and family, who else will find it offensive enough to warrant authorities to demand the murderer take it down? What about the murderer's right to Free Speech and expression? How is this any different to someone flying the Nazi flag when there's millions of Jews who were touched either personally or very closely by this tragic holocaust?

Why is it necessary that decisions have a numeric criteria attached to them? As much as we've progressed in the field of computers and artificial intelligence... we still cannot completely program the complexities of human emotions, nor can we expect to have a perfect playbook for every decision that must be made.

People will always try to push the envelope. If you've ever been a parent, you know how children will constantly push that envelope to test just how far they can get away with stuff. Then they'll do it again... just to make sure the response (and limits) are repeatable.

As ludicrous as my example of the murderer may sound, what is so different between that and the Nazi flag? I've already asked (and not received a good answer) what possible useful purpose flying a Nazi flag has. None. Miles, of course, goes off on his tangents trying to comically equate that flag with the country flag of Japan. Thus, no real argument there. But back to my question.... what useful purpose does flying this flag have? We can't just run and hide behind the 1st Amendment every time a controversial issue pops up. Someone's got to exhibit a good set of "cojones" and say... you know what... screw what the Amendment says. You're not interpreting it the right way and therefore you cannot do that. Period.

[El Kabong]

Both your points are well taken. However, let's construct an entirely hypothetical situation:

A man murders the whole family of someone away at work, and is convicted. He serves his prison term, maybe getting out a little early through good conduct or other such B.S. He then decides to move next door to the murdered family's father, and for the hell of it has a flag made with the pictures of each of the victims, each with a big red "X" through their faces. He then decides to fly this flag in his own front yard, in plain view of his neighbor and the other neighbors.

How do we quantify that offense? Other than the victim's father/husband, his friends and family, who else will find it offensive enough to warrant authorities to demand the murderer take it down? What about the murderer's right to Free Speech and expression? How is this any different to someone flying the Nazi flag when there's millions of Jews who were touched either personally or very closely by this tragic holocaust?

Why is it necessary that decisions have a numeric criteria attached to them? As much as we've progressed in the field of computers and artificial intelligence... we still cannot completely program the complexities of human emotions, nor can we expect to have a perfect playbook for every decision that must be made.

People will always try to push the envelope. If you've ever been a parent, you know how children will constantly push that envelope to test just how far they can get away with stuff. Then they'll do it again... just to make sure the response (and limits) are repeatable.

As ludicrous as my example of the murderer may sound, what is so different between that and the Nazi flag? I've already asked (and not received a good answer) what possible useful purpose flying a Nazi flag has. None. Miles, of course, goes off on his tangents trying to comically equate that flag with the country flag of Japan. Thus, no real argument there. But back to my question.... what useful purpose does flying this flag have? We can't just run and hide behind the 1st Amendment every time a controversial issue pops up. Someone's got to exhibit a good set of "cojones" and say... you know what... screw what the Amendment says. You're not interpreting it the right way and therefore you cannot do that. Period.

Well see your example can be classified as "harassment" and of course could be remedied with say a restraining order and the father would have just cause to fear for his own life seeing how that hypothetical person killed his family members.



Comically equate with the flag of Japan Dude, Japan wasted 22,000,000 Chinese in the Second Sino-Japanese War which included 17,000,000 civilians. And that was JUST China. I don't mind Japanese folks waving that flag if they want to...now Chinese people probably don't much care for it, but it's the same flag that ships flew during the attack on Pearl Harbor....still not offended by the flag, the actions yes, the flag no.


I don't much care for illegal immigrants showing up to immigration rallies waving Mexican flags....because it's stupid AND it's counterproductive. They're free to do it, but they're stupid for doing it. If they want to be Americans wave the American flag....it'll endear more people to your cause....and if they don't want to be American then they are free to leave or remain here lawfully until their Visa expires and go back to where they want to be.

I REALLY despise lefties waving Communist flags all the time, but hey, they can do what they want because banning those flags would be exactly what a Communist would do to anyone waving an American flag...the liberty offered by this nation should be stronger than anything attempting to attack it. I'm free to be offended, I'm free to NOT be offended, I have the personal choice, I can turn my back, I can avert my gaze, I can embrace something, or I can fight back with my own views....It is my liberty to do so.