Six Flags Removes Confederate Flags From Its Parks

@Jeff: You're right. I should. I read fairly often, just dont post.

extremecoasterdad said:

To add to what you are saying Sirloin, if there would have been any time in history where it would have seemed to be appropriate to begin removing Confederate statues, it would have been during the Obama administration. Yet not even once did he or anyone else call for their removal. I would also like to know how this will improve race relations. Wanna make a real difference? Get citizens together in a reasonable forum to discuss how we can begin to do so. I call this a nice gesture and that's about it.

I do want to play educator here specifically. This is *not* a new 'desire', it's simply now being put into action. I'm 41 and removal of Confederate symbols has been on (certain) peoples' adgendas literally my entire adult life - including the "Obama Years." A sampling.

2015
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/us/2-charged-in-confederate-flag...pitol.html

2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/us/15mascot.html

2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/us/georgia-s-new-governor-is-pres...-flag.html

1994
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/naacp/towards-a-new-century.html#obj9

It may not have been significant enough to some to even notice it, but it's been happening.

@Gonch - I picked radio as a benign example. I could have replaced it with (left issue) Intelligent Design in public school science classes or (right issue) same sex relationships in public school health classes. In either case, you have the option of private school or home schooling to avoid it. However, you could just the same express displeasure to the school board, advocating for members that agree with your take, trying to sway the opinion of others. As a society, there is *some* aspect of 'mob rule'. We do have to abide by the same set of rules, but we are free to try and change the rules at any time. Messy. Imperfect. But probably better than any thing else. I think we can all agree though that

Stuff is hard...and stuff.

I don't think there is a suggestion that people cannot or shouldn't call the radio station to complain. Or boycott the radio station, its advertisers/sponsors or picket outside the station. You can also call schools to voice concerns over ID or same sex sex ed. Or go to school board meetings and voice concerns or run for school board and make changes. Just that there isn't an expectation or obligation to do so. And no judgment for not doing so. There are literally thousands of such issues we encounter every day. You can't fight all of them. And that is without looking at everything else going on in someone's life. if freedom means anything it should mean not getting involved is that is your choice.

I would expect the decision to get involved would be based at least in part on how significant the impact is on you, how easy it is to change/avoid and how likely success is. In the radio example, changing the channel is very easy (something I typically do repeatedly during a drive anyway -- assuming I am not listening to my own music) and its not necessarily likely that a change happens. Presumably the station did its homework and knows what its listeners want. Moving to another station is easy.

School issue is more involved. Private schools cost money. Changing to another public school requires moving houses which involves money too. Seems more likely people would fight that one. Some schools give students the option to stay home when ID/same sex sex ed is covered. Though I have only seen that in terms of same sex sex ed (couple kids in my kids' classes stayed home for a day or two when it was covered). No experience with schools teaching ID but it seems to me the same approach could work.

Another issue you have with the school issue is time. By the time you win your fight, your kids may well be through the objectionable class.

Jeremy is back!

(Just noting that my Snoopy "happy dance" may be slower, but is still functional).

Re: Having black friends,

Yes, I get that you can count people of a different race as close friends and still harbor some kind of attitude toward that group that falls somewhere between mild prejudice and virulent racism. Here's what I was trying to get at: once someone thinks you are racist, there's probably not much you can say to convince them otherwise. In that regard, "some of my best friends are ______" is at worst a neutral argument, and if reworded to something along the lines of "I treat every person with kindness and respect, regardless of race, gender, ..." is about the best you can do if your only means of defense against charges of being a bigot is to try to explain yourself. Is the "friend" argument that much different than the "treat everyone with respect" argument? Maybe, but I think they're both on the same side of the scale. It doesn't acquit you of any prejudicial or racist feelings you might have, but I also don't think it convicts you of them either.

Someone awhile back said that most of the time they hear that argument, it's coming from someone who's being racist (or something like that). Okay fine, but it has become way too easy to label someone as a racist these days. In many cases, simply observing facts about different groups in regards to crime, poverty, education level, etc. can bring accusations of racism, so much so that otherwise decent and well-meaning people are afraid to talk about these issues. That isn't progress.

I think there is too much effort being dedicated to arguing hypotheticals that aren't really comparable.

GoBucks89 said:

if freedom means anything it should mean not getting involved is that is your choice.

This again. Tacking on to what I said previously, freedom is not without responsibility.

2Hostyl said:

However, you could just the same express displeasure to the school board, advocating for members that agree with your take, trying to sway the opinion of others. As a society, there is *some* aspect of 'mob rule'. We do have to abide by the same set of rules, but we are free to try and change the rules at any time. Messy. Imperfect. But probably better than any thing else. I think we can all agree though that

Absolutely. And again, your example (schools) falls under "community" based on what I was saying in my last reply. So yes, we still agree. I mean, I said:

Lord Gonchar said:

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.

(again, I think you guys are trying to pull my "live and let live" comments to a place where I wasn't applying them necessarily.)

This applies to the school too. If the community decides they want the school to do something, those chosen to lead should do it. If the community decides they don't then that sould be the course the leaders take.

Interestingly, this also ties into the idea that leadership do what's "right" vs what the people want. And it's a little funny to me personally because I find myself pushing against both you on one side and Andy on the other.

I think what's "right" is what the people want.

Jeff said:

Tacking on to what I said previously, freedom is not without responsibility.

Speaking in a fully philosophical sense, you're not truly free if you have responsibility. (insert smart-ass, being-a-dick grin)

Seriously though, I know this irks you and the perceived apathy drives you nuts. I see it more as choosing your battles...and in the sense we're talking, I mostly find that the battles aren't worth choosing for a number of reasons.

Jeff said:

This again. Tacking on to what I said previously, freedom is not without responsibility.

The statement of mine you quoted above this statement was in response to your earlier statement. That you are doubling down doesn't change my view. Putting aside the fact that you have no way of defining "responsibility" or whether it has been satisfied in any given situation, there is no enforcement mechanism assuming you could define those things. As such, though it sounds good and may provide some people some comfort (makes a good bumper sticker too I suppose), it doesn't have any meaningful significance in practice or reality.

Lord Gonchar said:(again, I think you guys are trying to pull my "live and let live" comments to a place where I wasn't applying them necessarily.)

This applies to the school too. If the community decides they want the school to do something, those chosen to lead should do it. If the community decides they don't then that sould be the course the leaders take.

Interestingly, this also ties into the idea that leadership do what's "right" vs what the people want. And it's a little funny to me personally because I find myself pushing against both you on one side and Andy on the other.

I think what's "right" is what the people want.

I dont actually think you *need* to be pushing against me as I generally agree with the sentiment "You do you. I'll do me. If those dont match, agree to disagree." However, there *are* some battle I wish to fight. There *are* some hills I am willing to die on. Specifically on the Confederate icons, I dont spend much time thinking about them. I'm not marching for them to be taken down. On the flip side, I dont see why there are some so adamant about holding on to them. And *yes* I *do* judge people *for* holding on to them. I have yet to hear a persuasive argument about what "heritage" is being remembered other than slave owners and traitors to the USA. (Royal) You wants to honor those people? Go ahead. I'll just think you're a jackass for doing so,

And yeah, what's "right" for the government is what the people want. If leadership doesnt do what the public thinks it wants and that leader isnt able to convince them that what they want is "wrong", then that leader will be replaced. That's how it works. I totally agree.

Jeff said:

Tacking on to what I said previously, freedom is not without responsibility.

Speaking in a fully philosophical sense, you're not truly free if you have responsibility. (insert smart-ass, being-a-dick grin)

Seriously though, I know this irks you and the perceived apathy drives you nuts. I see it more as choosing your battles...and in the sense we're talking, I mostly find that the battles aren't worth choosing for a number of reasons.

It irks me too, simply for the selfish reason that some of the BS I would rather avoid, I realize it's simply not possible for me and my kids. I can follow the "Golden Rule" all I want, but in order to live in this country, I know there is a level of non-golden-rule-ness that I'll have to deal with. It pisses me off that there are those that just let things run off their backs that I cant. That they have that choice, that I dont, and that they *make* that choice, chaps my azz a bit. Not going to be disrespectful or anything like that, but yeah, I hold them in lower esteem.

It might chap their azz a little that you are so easily azz chapped though probably not as stuff tends not to chap those folks azzes. :)

2Hostyl said:

It irks me too, simply for the selfish reason that some of the BS I would rather avoid, I realize it's simply not possible for me and my kids. I can follow the "Golden Rule" all I want, but in order to live in this country, I know there is a level of non-golden-rule-ness that I'll have to deal with. It pisses me off that there are those that just let things run off their backs that I cant. That they have that choice, that I dont, and that they *make* that choice, chaps my azz a bit.

In the long run, I suspect we do agree more than the discuss would seem to indicate. However, I'm not nearly intelligent, knowledgeable or skillful enough to try to take a conversational angle on this. I'm not sure anyone here could without coming off poorly.

All I know is so much use of "ass" and "chaps" inevitably leads my mind here:

GoBucks89 said:
Putting aside the fact that you have no way of defining "responsibility" or whether it has been satisfied in any given situation, there is no enforcement mechanism assuming you could define those things. As such, though it sounds good and may provide some people some comfort (makes a good bumper sticker too I suppose), it doesn't have any meaningful significance in practice or reality.

I think that's a total cop out. You know the difference between right and wrong, and unless you live in a bunker, you'd help someone out in a time of need just as you would hope they'd do the same for you. That should extend to issues of discrimination and hate, for example.

This entire issue about symbols intended to intimidate groups of people is not some abstract philosophical issue. Participating in a functioning society, and especially a democracy, ironically may mean you're free to stand on the sidelines and not get involved. That doesn't make it the moral thing to do. I don't want to live in a world where people are assholes toward each other because of race, and I definitely don't want my kid to inherit that world. There's no chance of him ever being black, but he could certainly marry a black woman. He could be gay or trans, even. It's not even that I should take a stand for his sake... I think I owe it to all people. Our responsibilities are not legal in nature, they're moral.

Jeff said:

I think that's a total cop out.

Probably not a surprise that I disagree. In your world no doubt you are definitely right. I will at least acknowledge there can be differing views.

You know the difference between right and wrong

I think you are being overly simplistic here.

and unless you live in a bunker, you'd help someone out in a time of need just as you would hope they'd do the same for you.

Also overly simplistic. There are numerous people who are in need because of their own dumb choices. I feel no reason to help them. And I don't live in a bunker. Do you give money to every homeless person you pass? Give to every charity ad that you see? Why not? You said somewhere you are buying a new house. Is it less expensive to allow you to give more to charity? The vast majority of us here have more than we truly need. Why aren't we morally wrong for not giving more to those in need?

That should extend to issues of discrimination and hate, for example.

if we asked people to note incidences of discrimination and hate, the list would no doubt number in the thousands. Do we need to stand up against all of them? A certain number of them? At least one of them? Did you march in Charlottesville? How about BLA rallies/marches?

This entire issue about symbols intended to intimidate groups of people is not some abstract philosophical issue.

Its also not the most pressing issue in the country and certainly not in the world. Not to mention this discussion has gone beyond that subject.

Participating in a functioning society, and especially a democracy, ironically may mean you're free to stand on the sidelines and not get involved.

There is nothing ironic about it; it was intentional as a tenant of freedom (that you don't like it notwithstanding). And there is no "may" about it (again that you don't like it notwithstanding].

That doesn't make it the moral thing to do.

What do I need to do to satisfy this moral obligation? Write a letter to 6 Flags thanking them for removing the flag? Take an unplanned trip to the park to show my appreciation? Do I need to attend rallies against confederate statues? Just one or all of them? Write a letter to how many politicians? Or is it enough to just post on a coaster board that I think they should be removed?

I don't want to live in a world where people are assholes toward each other because of race, and I definitely don't want my kid to inherit that world.

And so people who disagree with you or pick other battles do want to live in such a world?

There's no chance of him ever being black, but he could certainly marry a black woman. He could be gay or trans, even. It's not even that I should take a stand for his sake... I think I owe it to all people.

Sounds like you should be a missionary. Though even if you won't admit it, you pick your battles too. There are just too many to fight.

Our responsibilities are not legal in nature, they're moral.

Moral obligations are even less enforceable than legal ones and harder to define as well.

Btw, when did slavery become wrong?

But we're not talking about people making dumb choices, that's another strawman argument. I'm not sure what your argument even is with regard to the removal of racist symbolism, but if it's just, "I don't give a damn about this issue," then great. I'd find that unfortunate, probably think less of you, and move on. As Jeremy pointed out with regard to the display of those symbols, regardless of intent, so goes the adoption (or disregard) of a stance on them. Like I said, being a part of society comes with responsibility, and frankly consequences. None of us lives in a bubble.

There was John Travolta in that horrible 1976 movie, The Boy In The Bubble...

Slavery never became wrong, it's always been wrong.

Satisfying "this moral obligation" isn't a checklist. It's doing what you think is right, supporting causes you believe in, and everyone will have different priorities.

I'm going to let you all into an inner portion of my psyche. Normally, this reaction just goes on in my head and I keep it moving, but I'm feeling in a "sharing" mood, so here goes:

GoBucks89 said:

Btw, when did slavery become wrong?

{Nope. Changed my mind. Typed it all up, saved it even. Just decided it wasnt worth hitting send. Freedom eh Gonch? ;)}

That's what I say in my head normally. Outwardly, I'd usually just say. Really? Okay.

Jeff -- You brought up people in need. I just responded to it. If its a strawman that's on you not me.

My position on confederate statues was stated in a post several pages back. Although part of that discussion is still ongoing, I moved on to the other broader conversation that is also taking place. Whether my view on that or anything else for that matter makes you think less of me is of no concern to me.

I never said that being part of society doesn't come with responsibilities or have consequences. I just don't think its anywhere near as broad as you. I think you have the right to remain on the sidelines or to move on rather than take a stand. That things might be better if such right didn't exist or some people think it shouldn't exist doesn't make it so.

If slavery was always wrong (a position with which I agree), the idea that government determines which is right goes out the window. That was the point of my question. If that is too nuanced for your inner psyche 2Hostyl, I apologize.

slithernoggin said:

Satisfying "this moral obligation" isn't a checklist. It's doing what you think is right, supporting causes you believe in, and everyone will have different priorities.

I agree with this. And sometimes you may think its right to move along. Or you move on because you have more pressing priorities. Or are doing something else to address the issue. Some here apparently view that as failing to meet a moral obligation and thus disagree with the above statement.

If there's one thing that anyone owes to society, it's raising their damn kids properly.