The last word ... by Bob Nelson
This article was written for one purpose: to troll the trolls who didn’t like my avatar.
Let’s look at that for a second. As Perrie has said in several comments in other places, I have a right to express myself through my avatar. Freedom of expression. The avatar is going to stay. And some trolls on here who want to put it to a vote in the next CoC revision need to remember that they themselves have a history of using controversial avatars at times.
Some would say that the issue is the ability to criticize someone’s avatar. No one is saying you can’t. But you must do it in the proper setting. Such as this article. And you cannot do so with personal attacks.
Bob, if you had tried to debate me from the beginning about my avatar, this may have turned out differently. But you didn’t. Instead, you came out of the gate with personal insults and attacks by calling me a slaver. Once you attack, debate is not an option. You can’t go back and expect someone to engage you in discussion when you have insulted them.
You started this with your personal attacks. You dug yourself a hole, and had your comments edited and deleted. You lost. You got mad about it. And you tried to pin it on Perrie and the CoC. You lost there as well.
...
But we cannot scream for Bob’s pictures to come down when we are championing the right to post an avatar of our choice. Freedom of Expression applies to all sides.
Bruce Tarleton, Friday Night Special Edition Meme Roundup: Southern Style!
As Perrie has said in several comments in other places, I have a right to express myself through my avatar. Freedom of expression.
I don't speak for anyone else, but I have never challenged your right to use whatever avatar you wish... no matter how vile. My previous article , A Statement , said this:
It seems impossible to set any rule concerning what may or may not be put in an avatar. An offender would immediately begin the stupid game of skirting the limits. On the other hand, I think we could put an end to abuse of avatars by considering them to always be part of "the topic".
For example, a "guideline" for creating an avatar:
It is preferable to create an avatar that no one will find offensive.
A controversial symbol in your avatar will leave you open to incessant comments on your avatar,
regardless of the topic of your seed/article .
I suggested a means for avoiding abuse of avatars. Quite a few members -- including Perrie, I am very sorry to say -- ignored the actual content of my article, reacting as though it called for censorship... which it most certainly did not .
This article was written for one purpose: to troll the trolls who didn’t like my avatar.
No. That was not the purpose. This is sleight-of-hand: you "show us your motive"... in order to hide your true motive.
Some would say that the issue is the ability to criticize someone’s avatar. No one is saying you can’t. But you must do it in the proper setting.
This was the real purpose of your article: You wanted to establish two things:
- Using any symbolism in an avatar, no matter how offensive
- Preventing others from reacting to that symbolism
Since no one ever contested your right to use any symbol whatsoever, you knew before your article went up that that was not really the subject. The real subject was the second objective: shutting down others' right of response.
You started this with your personal attacks.
Bullpuckey! My "attacks" came in response to your using a vile, offensive, in-your-face symbol as your avatar! You started this! You chose to use a vile, offensive, in-your-face symbol as your avatar.
You're a clever fellow, Bruce. You don't ever fight fair. You don't ever "debate fair". Your first action is to frame the debate: you attempt to set conditions so that the conclusion of the debate must be whatever you want. In this instance, you are trying to get everyone -- particularly Perrie, of course -- to forget that everything I have done came after you began using a vile, offensive, in-your-face symbol as your avatar. You started this! But you don't want anyone to notice.
But we cannot scream for Bob’s pictures to come down when we are championing the right to post an avatar of our choice. Freedom of Expression applies to all sides.
Again, Bruce... you're trying to frame the debate. You want everyone to accept that you are "championing" something! But you are not championing anything at all. No one has said you should not be allowed to use your vile, offensive, in-your-face symbol as your avatar. You are not championing anything at all.
On the contrary. You want to shut down others' freedom of speech.
You want to interpret the CoC to allow you to do as you please, while others may not respond.
Shutting down your article is another excellent example of your attempts to frame the debate. You post, one last time, the arguments you want readers to retain... and then you shut down others' right to respond.
Manipulation , pure and simple.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [sandy-2021492]
Who is online
348 visitors
Orwell would be proud of such newspeak .
The last word; something those on the left feel they have a divine right to.
Ah, my dear, dear XX...
The last word; something those on the left feel they have a divine right to.
Your seeds always fantasize about "what liberals think"... and even when you comment, like here, you have no ideas of your own. Only your imaginary leftist boogeyman...
Kinda sad, in a way...
and XX
You are both WRONG......Women get the last word no matter whether it's from the left or right. And men tend to let us have the last word because they know we will continue to argue our point until you finally concede and realize we're going.....(pause for effect) to get the last word. The Avatar issue is closed. No one is going to change their position or perception. You both should drop it or I'm going to rally the women on NT to haunt your home pages!
Women get the last word
Yes, Ma'am!!
Your friends on the left have referred us on the
Bruce has used occasionally used various iterations of confederate flag imagery in his avatars throughout the years of Newstalkers. I think he may have previously used the middle finger one also, although I don't specifically remember when that might have been. No one complained too much about it before.
But , that doesn't make the current complaint either right or wrong. The flag was in the news a lot last year after Dylan Roof was selfied holding it in one hand and the pistol he used to kill 8 black people in the other.
Some people associate the flag with the "Dukes of Hazard" mentality, good ol boys tearing ass around the countryside having fun , and with picnics, football games, parades, and other traditional activities of community. And of course it is associated with southern martial manhood and opposition to governmental authority.
The pro flag people want these aspects to over ride the association of the flag with slavery, racial oppression, white supremacy , treason, and hate.
A good compromise would be people flying the flag if they wish in private, and not flying it in public where people from the second , non approving viewpoint would inevitably be present.
"...as a political symbol, the flag was revived when northern Democrats began to press for an end to the South’s system of racial oppression. In 1948, the Dixiecrats revolted against President Harry Truman—who had desegregated the armed forces and supported anti-lynching bills. The movement began in Mississippi in February of 1948, with thousands of activists “shouting rebel yells and waving the Confederate flag,” as the Associated Press reported at the time. Some actually removed old, mothballed flags from the trunks where they had until then been gathering dust.
At the Democratic convention that July, nine southern states backed Georgia’s Senator Richard Russell over Truman, parading around the floor behind a waving Confederate flag to the strains of Dixie. The Dixiecrats reconvened in Birmingham, nominating South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond for the presidency. Sales of Confederate flags, long moribund, exploded. Stores could not keep them in stock. The battle flag became the symbol of segregation.
The flag soon spread. It fluttered from the radio antennas of cars and motorcycles, festooned towels and trinkets, and was exhibited on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Some displayed it as a curiosity, a general symbol of rebellion against authority, or an emblem of regional pride. The United Daughters of the Confederacy were split on how to respond, some pleased to see young people showing interest, others calling the proliferation of flags a “desecration.” Newspapers tried to explain the craze, citing explanations from football fans to historically themed balls.
The black press did not find the phenomena quite so baffling. “In a large measure,” wrote the Chicago Defender in 1951, “the rebel craze is an ugly reaction to the remarkable progress of our group.” That was true in the North, as well as the South.
Over the next two decades, the flag was waved at Klan rallies, at White Citizens’ Council meetings, and by those committing horrifying acts of violence. And despite the growing range of its meanings in pop culture, as a political symbol, it offered little ambiguity.
Georgia inserted the battle flag into its state flag in 1956. Two years later, South Carolina made it a crime to desecrate the Confederate flag. And then, on the centennial of the day South Carolina opened fire on Fort Sumter came in 1961 , it hoisted the battle flag above its Capitol.
It was a symbol of heritage—but that heritage was hateful. Two state delegations, in Charleston to mark that 1961 centennial, found themselves barred from the hotel where the ceremony was to take place because they included black members. President Kennedy had to issue an executive order moving the commemoration to the Charleston Navy Base. And when the centennial ended, the flag stayed, proclaiming that South Carolina might have lost the war, but that it was determined not to surrender its opposition to racial equality.
But the courage and sacrifices of the civil-rights movement dragged a reluctant nation forward. In 2000, following protests and boycotts, the flag came down from atop the dome, installed instead at a Confederate memorial on the grounds of the Capitol. Governor Nikki Haley now protests that her hands are tied by the legislation enacting that compromise, which dictates precisely how it must be displayed:
This history is not seriously contested. It has been documented in scholarly books , articles , and official reports . The flag was created by an army raised to kill in defense of slavery, revived by a movement that killed in defense of segregation, and now flaunted by a man who killed nine innocents in defense of white supremacy."
I would like the people who support Bruce's position on this issue to respond to this article excerpt I just posted.
And those who are "neutral" about it, for that matter, also.
I would like the people who support Bruce's position on this issue to respond...
Their silence is deafening, isn't it?
One might almost think that "someone" has given instructions to let the conversation die. One might almost think that "someone" doesn't want any discussion of a "freedom of speech" that forbids speech...
Their silence here is in very sharp contrast to the curiously constant positions taken previously. One might almost think that instructions were given then, too...
The flag stands for more than just slavery it stands for freedom. Those what want to strip you of your freedom are in the wrong. If it ever gets to the point that they strip you of your rights to free speech and ban the flag than it is even more reason to raise the flag and arms along with it.
The confederate flag represents the first country in world history (CSA) to literally declare white supremacy as it's founding principle.
You have it ass backwards Dean.
You can see what you want in it and others can see things differently. When I see the flag slavery is not the first thing that comes to my mind. You and I both know it is their right to fly the flag and we should respect their right to freedom. When I see a biker with a Nazi tattoo or a skinhead I might not agree with it but it is their right. I don't infringe on that right. You have a very myopic view of the flag others see it in a broader sense.
I have no problem with people flying flags and their right is protected by the constitution. The Nazi flag is not banned here nor is the Jap flag. Those that try to tell others what to do are in the wrong. They can F off we might not like the flags but we should fight for their right to fly them. In my eyes it's just another form of free speech. There are people that want to limit your freedom of speech because they are authoritarian dicks the same ones that claim a white man can't say nigger or a straight man homo.
Umm.... Dean? No one has suggested any form of censure.
And... Didn't you get the memo about not posting here?
I only received one memo today. It reads warning narcissistic injury detected. Fragile ego damaged butt hurt triggered. Expect fit of narcissistic rage over next few days with major man tantrums and psychotic behavior.
Bob,
This issue is not about who is trying to play who for me. It is about the function of the site.
I told you the little story about avatars which you seem to have ignored. And while you acknowledge that this isn't about censorship, the end result (if things ran the way you say) is that while you say you are free to use an avatar, that every discussion could degrade into discussions about that avatar, and that just doesn't work. You also ignored that I acknowledged we could vote on the issue of avatars during the next updating of the CoC. But the bottom line is this. The site doesn't work if we go off topic about a member's avatar on every article. You may use the avatar to filter your reactions to an individual, but you can't continue to attack that avatar, as the discussion breaks down.
Last night was a lose/ lose for me. I had numbers complaints about the pictures you were posting on Bruce's article. And in fact, I supported your posting of them. Bruce supported the posting of them, too, hence why he never tried to get me or posted an "off topic" warning. I am not sure if people were really outraged or not at your photos. Frankly, if they were, they were wrong. Freedom of speech goes both ways. They claimed it was ugly. Well, life is ugly. History is ugly. After WWII, every paper carried pictures of the death camps. During Vietnam, we saw naked children running for their lives. There is no such thing as too ugly for news. So long as your photos were not meant to incite, (and they didn't) or promote hate (and they didn't), they didn't break the CoC or the TOS.
Bob, you and Bruce are both valuable members because both of you are very intelligent. But no matter how I feel about either of you, I must address each issue according to the tools that I have. I can't invent new ones, as it would subvert the whole reason that I started this site. At this point, I am done with this subject until the next updating of the CoC.
I would like the people who complained about the lynching photos to state their names and give their reasons for objecting to the photos. Maybe that would help.
I would like to understand why people think it is okay to promote the confederate flag, as Bruce does, but not show why that might be wrong.
It's time for people to "speak their minds" where all can see.
Perrie,
I did not react to your avatar story because I didn't see the point.
... while you acknowledge that this isn't about censorship, the end result (if things ran the way you say) is that while you say you are free to use an avatar, that every discussion could degrade into discussions about that avatar, and that just doesn't work.
No. As far as I recall, there has been no previous kerfuffle about any avatars. But the Confederate flag is different, a vile symbol of White dominion over Black people. It is an aggression against decency. Using such a symbol is not an innocent choice.
A person who wears a Confederate armband while shopping at Walmart is making a statement. Aggressively. They are daring everyone to challenge them about it. And it would be perfectly legitimate to do so. A non-controversial armband might raise an eyebrow, but nothing more.
But the bottom line is this. The site doesn't work if we go off topic about a member's avatar on every article.
Someone shouts "Blacks should be our slaves" every few feet, while walking the street. Your rule is that no one may react. Seriously?
Once again I must repeat: the use of a vile and controversial avatar is a choice. The online equivalent of shouting "Blacks should be our slaves!" Your rule is that no one may react? Seriously?
Why do you allow the initial provocation, and then forbid any reaction? Do you tell a child that it is OK to hit first, but not to retaliate?
I had numerous complaints about the pictures..
Oh, please! Are you really so naive as to imagine that the Usual Suspects act spontaneously? Did you observe the dance today? Total silence... until I underscored the fact... and then a barrage. You know how this works. Don't pretend that you imagined for one second that those "numerous complaints" were "independent and spontaneous" You need to decide if you want to hand the keys over right now, or keep pretending a while.
You said that the CoC does not treat avatars... so it's not too late. As for voting... That will be just as "independent and spontaneous" as those "numerous complaints".
But the Confederate flag is different, a vile symbol of White dominion over Black people. It is an aggression against decency. Using such a symbol is not an innocent choice.
Someone shouts "Blacks should be our slaves" every few feet, while walking the street. Your rule is that no one may react. Seriously?
Once again I must repeat: the use of a vile and controversial avatar is a choice. The online equivalent of shouting "Blacks should be our slaves!" Your rule is that no one may react? Seriously?
Why do you allow the initial provocation, and then forbid any reaction? Do you tell a child that it is OK to hit first, but not to retaliate?
Absolutely 100% correct. Avatars are a choice. Avatars, in cases like this, are a statement. In cases like this avatars are speech and commentary and a position of who you are and what you believe.
BF,
Anyone with half a brain (and you have more than that and I find what you are trying to do to the site below the person I know you to be), could just look at the site and see the context in which they are. The site isn't going to flagged as anything, since there is no commentary to those pics and no one is having sex with them. But hey, thanks a bunch for your support.
Oh and BTW I did google the site, and nothing comes up with those photos. So nice try.
Maklumat privasi dan undang-undang!!!!
Is there some secret reason why you resurrected an 8 year old article in order to post a Malay phrase that is translated to "Privacy and legal information", for which I find no real relevance? Did you get the idea from seeing that a spammer dragged back to the Front (Home) Page a two year old seed I had posted?
Many points in this seed but it appears there haven't been any defections when it comes to changing personal perspectives on this issue. I'm probably pointing out the obvious but this is the longest "last word" I've come across.
Why are you people letting Bob pull your chains so friggin' easily? Why do you allow him to violate the CoC for intentionally egging you into arguments with his rampant denigrations of others/cultures???
Your friends on the left have referred us on the right as all sorts of terrible things. It's as if you all wish we weren't here.
Your friends on the left have referred us on the right as all sorts of terrible things.
You are not qualified to identify my friends.
As for "terrible things"... I myself have said repeatedly that you personally, and several others on NT, appear to be incapable of thinking in terms of policy. ("Appear", because I can only judge by your online presence.) I think I can easily justify that assertion: You post several articles every day, most of which are on the order of "Why liberals believe..." and none of which present conservative ideas for actually running the country.
Spewing so much... (fill in a word that is very negative but not prohibited by the CoC) while never being constructive... is indeed a "terrible thing". But it is what you do...
An article from back in the day - nothing and no one who is still around has changed much as I read the comments
Stability is good (I guess)
I saw some names and avatars I haven't seen in a while
I remember this article from when it was new, was not interested in the subject then and still am not.
Your consistency may indicate a closed mind.
Locking, as there is no reason to rehash an old call-out article.