Six Flags Removes Confederate Flags From Its Parks

extremecoasterdad said:
I am not going to rehash the conversation about how it all came to be that they told me it was ok to use that word. It's not like I asked to do so. I even put the word permission in quotes as that was the best word I could think of at that moment.

Here's the thing. Kudos to you for helping another person, more so for four years.

But ... putting permission in quotes suggests you were trying to, well, fudge the meaning of the word. Either you had permission or you didn't. "Permission" suggests otherwise.

It was probably a poor choice of words is all. It was just a casual conversation really. I just wasn't sure how to word that. I just chose not to say that word as for me, it just feels derogatory, even if someone else says it's ok

There is *so* much I want to respond to, but I'll limit myself for brevity's sake.

@Gonch - I get that you err on the side of 'it's the individual's job to avoid offensive content.' So how does one go about it? Avoid people and places that hold such content right? Okay, that's cool. What about when the content seeps into your regular places? Does the individual have to retreat, or can they push back? If your favorite radio station to listen to with your kids starts playing music with a bunch of cursing (assume, in this case, that you *dont* want to hear cursing), do you *just* change the station? Or can you also express your displeasure?

The way I see it, people are saying that there are things they dont want to see/support. In a democracy (democratic republic) this is expressed through support of leadership. In a capitalist society, this is expressed through financial support. It is up to the leaders (public or private) to react to the expressed 'will of the masses'. How they react will lead to consequences and that's fine. In the past, the 'status quo' was seen as the 'safe' route. It appears that is no longer the case. Maybe in the future, there will be a big movement to expand Confederate symbols.

Re "Traitor" and where does it end? - I'm cool with it ending with removing traitors to the United States. Keep Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Woodrow Wilson. Lose Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Benedict Arnold. Additionally, if England/Great Britain does not want to name high schools after John Hancock and Paul Revere, I'm okay with that too.

To the Civil War reenactors, that's unfortunate that you are being "judged" by other people because of what you have in your home. However, that is a choice you have made and must deal with the consequences. If you choose to display those symbols in your home and then invite people in, you must be prepared for any reaction. If one of my kids' friends home was decorated thusly, I'd be inclined to not have my sons over there. You make your choice, I make mine. I cant make you take yours down, you cant make me feel good about it. We can think each other close-minded even. As long as we treat each other with respect, I really dont care what one thinks of me.

And yes, one can be racist and still have "friends" of a different race. It is not at all hard to like an individual but not care a lick about the group they belong to. You can have "racial preferences", you can support policies that seek to specifically hurt a race yet be even married to a person of that race. It happens. It's documented. I dont know any here well enough to specifically call them a "racist", but simply having "friends" isnt enough.

I think I'll stop here (that wasnt *brief* at all..sorry :))
lata, jeremy

It's been awhile. You should hang out here more.

2Hostyl said:

Does the individual have to retreat, or can they push back? If your favorite radio station to listen to with your kids starts playing music with a bunch of cursing (assume, in this case, that you *dont* want to hear cursing), do you *just* change the station? Or can you also express your displeasure?

Depends.

In the case of the radio station, I can't in a million years imagine why you'd bother. Traditionally, media has used the complainers as fodder for new material. (at least the media I tend to enjoy has)

It's such a foreign idea to me to contact a radio station to express displeasure with their format change. That's just not the world I personally live in. I'd find another station.

Incedentally, I feel like entertainment is absolutely off limits. Censorship and so forth.

Now, strangely enough (or maybe not, really), I'd probably say the opposite about the statues, but exactly for the reasons you lay out (and I think my comments about "live and let live" were pulled a little more in this direction than I intended). This is goverment/community stuff. The whole point is everyone has a say. We collectively decide how we'd like to live and expect our leaders to act accordingly. However, it's still a two-way street and if the community decides they want the statue, then fine. It's no skin off my ass if Mudstump, SC decides to remove their daddy's pride in front of the courthouse. Don't really care if they keep it either.

And you could make the argument that it's still my (yours? our?) county/state/country/continent/world and that gives us say into how we choose to live. But I think that's going further than the spirit of my comments and much more complicated.

If entertainment is art and statues are community then the flags at Six Flags are commerce. In that case, it's up to the business to do what they think is best. In this case, they either felt that having that flag above the entrance would hurt business or, more likely, that removing it would be good PR and provide a boost in goodwill. Do you have the right to complain if you do or don't like the flag flying? Sure, but again, I can't imagine why you'd bother. The best action is with your wallet. Hell, I'd argue that voting with your wallet under the umbrella of capitalism is even more effective than voting at the polls under the umbrella of democracy.

And this idea applies in a secondary way to the original radio station example. If enough people quit listening, that station's format is going to go back to kiddie tunes pretty quick. The station itself is commerce. The songs being played fall under art.

I cant make you take yours down, you cant make me feel good about it. We can think each other close-minded even. As long as we treat each other with respect, I really dont care what one thinks of me.

This is where I wish I didn't hold back sometimes. I had a post all typed up at one point in the conversation that included a whole paragraph about the idea that "I don't have to like you. I just don't. And you don't have to like me. That's okay. We just have to coexist civilly." but I didn't think it best to post at the time.

I agree 100% on this. And this is the spirit of my comments. Err on the side of individual responsibility. Paisley can display these items. You can not like them. You can even have less than glowing opinions of each other because of it. I feel like those couple of lines you posted express exactly what I was saying.

2Hostyl said:

And yes, one can be racist and still have "friends" of a different race. It is not at all hard to like an individual but not care a lick about the group they belong to. You can have "racial preferences", you can support policies that seek to specifically hurt a race yet be even married to a person of that race. It happens. It's documented. I dont know any here well enough to specifically call them a "racist", but simply having "friends" isnt enough.

I think I'll stop here (that wasnt *brief* at all..sorry :))
lata, jeremy

This, I will not disagree with. However, my roommate was so much more than a friend. He was a brother to me. I would've laid my life on the line for him and a lot of other friends (of any race) that I made over the years. I'm not trying to be insensitive towards the issue of statues being removed at all and I get where you are coming from with get rid of these, but not those. However, I am of an inclination that it will not end with Civil War statues and based on what I have seen so far, my concerns are being confirmed. Have the others been removed yet? No, but I, for one, will not be at all surprised when they are.

But Jeremy's point still stands: How you think of a specific individual can be completely at odds with how you think of a group (or even that you think of that particular group as a group and an individual as a representative of it). Again, I'm not saying you do or don't. Just that one does not preclude the other.

What other statues do you fear may be removed?

Why do you care about any statues?

Lord Gonchar said:

However, it's still a two-way street and if the community decides they want the statue, then fine. It's no skin off my ass if Mudstump, SC decides to remove their daddy's pride in front of the courthouse. Don't really care if they keep it either.

But isn't there something to defending the minority from the majority? I don't know exactly where the line is, but there is a responsibility for the government to do what's right, not what's popular.

How does government determine what is right?

ApolloAndy said:

I don't know exactly where the line is, but there is a responsibility for the government to do what's right, not what's popular.

I don't know either, but if the government is at odds with the people it governs, there's problems. The government should merely represent - and that, admittedly, could be for better or worse.

I don't see the government as authority, I see it as representation.

GoBucks89 said:

How does government determine what is right?

I don't have a great answer to that question, but I feel like "majority rule" isn't the correct answer, especially in this era of lobbying, voter suppression, and gerrymandering.

But perhaps more to the point of this specific case, the federal government has the authority to supersede local governments at times if it deems that the local government is not doing it right. I realize this is circular reasoning, "Who watches the watchmen?", "It's turtles all the way down" etc.

From a legal perspective, its majority rule subject to the rights of the minority. Majority doesn't need rights because they do what they want. No doubt there are issues with majority rules in a representative government when reps do not represent the interests of their constituents (such as with gerrymandering, lobbying ,etc.). Its often tough to figure out how well majority rules is working.

To me the issue is neither party is representative of anything much other than themselves. Unfortunately, majority of the country only thinks I am half right.

GoBucks89 said:
How does government determine what is right?

If you believe democracy works, then don't the people decide? Government says murder and theft is bad. It says Ponzi schemes and insider trading are bad.

Here's where I take issue with the whole "it doesn't affect me" thing, or general indifference toward these issues. It's too easy to just opt out and not stand for anything. There's no risk if you don't get involved. I'm not saying everyone needs to pick a cause and march on Washington, but advocating for people seems like the right thing to do, whether it's to oppose racism, call for clean water, educate poor children, etc.

I asked the question about how the government determines what is right in the context of a statement that the government has a responsibility to do what's right not what's popular. Saying the people decide doesn't distinguish between what is right and what is popular.

Agreed. Thats why we have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy; so that what may be popular at any given time doesn't dictate how are government acts. Is it a perfect system of government? No. But it's better than all the other choices.

I'm guessing that Six Flags removed Confederate flags from the two parks that were actually, once, theme parks that included a Confederate section in light of recent events. They wanted to be ahead of the curve.

Are any of us old enough to remember when schools were integrated...the "majority" was clearly against it. Yet the government (big, bad, feds) came in and enforced the law regardless...

Sometimes, what's "right" isn't always popular. But is does tend to be what's "American"...IMO.

Tekwardo said:

What other statues do you fear may be removed?

Why do you care about any statues?

It's not about statues. I care not about which ones are removed. What I care about goes well beyond that. It's about this and that group deciding that something is offensive, whether it is or not, being banned, or removed or what have you.

Apollo Andy, I get what you are saying and I was not trying to defend what is in other people's hearts and minds, only what is in my own.

What evidence do you see of other things being deemed offensive and being removed that you don't agree with? You said you're starting to see it.

The majority in government were in favor of school segregation at that time. Had they not been they could have desegregated schools legislatively. It was a small number of judges who did that. Now had the other two branches of government ignored the courts, those judges would have been irrelevant. Ohio Supreme Court has found Ohio's method of funding schools to be unconstitutional at least 3 times but nothing has changed.

When you have representative government, you avoid the issues of the masses/popular ruling the day. Though you now have a smaller group of people determining what is right.

I am not suggesting we need a different form of government. Just pointing out that when you say that the government should do what's right rather than what is popular you haven't necessarily accomplished much because someone needs to determine what is right and in the process sort it from what's popular if applicable. Much easier to state than accomplish.