|
Post by princelh on Nov 17, 2006 21:50:49 GMT -5
In places like Iran, Saudi Arabia and other non-free countries, the people live under a theocracy. A theocracy is where a religious or a political leader makes the rules and the people abide by them. In a democracy, a person's freedom of speech is protected, even if it means that it is contrary to the Leaders of the Country or House of Worship. I brought my Avatar here to see if my freedom of speech would be protected. It only took one post to see it attacked and the complaints to mount. A few people took on the topic and I defended it with zeal. I have not heard a compelling argument that proves my theories wrong about what that Avatar, or Flag represented. I was contacted by one of the websites administrators, a friend of mine, who asked me to have it removed. I will do so, because he is my friend and I don't want him to listen to the complaints by the uninformed who react without researching what they are complaining about. I will not put that Avatar back on to this site, after this post, until either the Leafs win the Cup or the Leafs defeat the Habs in the playoffs. In other words, it'll be a while. If you were offended about the Avatar, or Flag, too bad. I'm not apologizing for the truth and you'll just have to get over it. PrinceLH p.s. Coca-cola ad from 1943. Stonewall Jackson and the Second Virginia. Coke was invented by a Confederate Captain.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 17, 2006 22:34:47 GMT -5
Welcome to HabsRus, a place run by Snow White (aka Spiro) and the Seven Henchman. HabsRus is a private site and we do not subscribe totaly to "freedom of speech". Before you picture us wearing white hoods, fishnet stocking, thongs and going around with hangman ropes, there is a very specific reason why we limit "free speech". As you know, the internet can be a wild place where people feel "free" to say anything behind the relative anonymity of their keyboards. Our intent is to create a community where everyone can join and enjoy discussions in a respectful and civil manner. In order to codify those restrictions and expectations, we created a Code Of Conduct. If one feels that the restriction of ones speech is "limited" because we expect and enforce respectful and civil manners, then they are free to leave our community. Having said that, read the off topic forum and you will find that we have discussed anything and everything. In fact, we do NOT limit the subject matter as long as it is done in a civil and respectful manner. If you can live with that, then welcome to our community. If you can't, then it's your decision to leave. If you do not abide by our Code Of Conduct, your posting privileges will be restricted or withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 17, 2006 22:49:38 GMT -5
You know, PrinceLH, I've basically been making the case for Quebec's separation and issues related to it on this board for several years now, and I haven't had any issues with people on here, despite my political views being fundamentally incredibly different to everyone else's.
My point ? People on here are receptive to ideas, calmy and rationally explained. If you think you have a valid point, make it, without the attitude, and maybe you'll be listened to. Or maybe not, and maybe just like me you'll be asked to change your avatar or your sig (the requests in my case weren't politically-related), and if so, just see it as the price for participating in a community where there aren't mounds of 15 years olds offering 19 spare parts for Lecavalier....
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 17, 2006 23:38:48 GMT -5
To reply or not to reply? That is a question. So . . . once. Almost. A theocracy is where a religious leader makes the rules and the people abide by them. An oligarchy is where a political leader makes the rules and the people abide by them. In theory. Central and South America and Central Africa have democratically elected governments -- but be sure that you don't disagree with them. Then again, a democratically elected government could, on behalf of the electorate and with the majority's express wishes put a limit on free speech. In fact, it does. Jim Keegstra and Ernst Zundel come to mind. Freedom of speech is not license to speak (or write) with impunity. In fact, freedom of speech encourages and welcomes discussion and debate. Which means that people can agree or disagree with statements made and opinions expressed. I have discovered that by and large the posters of this board fully support the statement (mistakenly or wrongly) attributed to Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.oh . . . fwiw, it was the pro-Leaf sig line that got to me ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 17, 2006 23:40:21 GMT -5
I came here to talk hockey. First thing I know, I'm being hassled about my Avatar because I am a Leafs fan. I use this avatar all over the internet in all differently related topic forums, from audio/video, to satellite websites to hockey related sites and all others. I've only had one other small incident on one other site a couple of years ago. They allowed it and I've had no hassles since. I am not here to preach any subversive topics, unless you think looking for converts to Leafs Nation subversive.
One other note. I have used the Confederate Battle Flag in the back window of my car for the past 5 years. Only in Canada, have I been hassled about it. Never, in the United States. The car has been all over New England, New York City, Washington D.C., Virginia and all places between here and there. In Toronto, I've had my car spat on and know nothing wanabee Canadians condemning my freedom of speech. Have we reached the point of indiscriminate political correctness in Canada? Do we yap first and not research later? If I can be a Leafs fan and debate my arch rivals in peace, then why the hassle over an avatar and signature that shouldn't have anything to do with being Canadian or Canadian history?
Anyway, the topic is closed from this side of the keyboard and I will participate in the hockey forum and joust with my adversaries about the greatest game on earth.
PrinceLH
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 18, 2006 0:02:43 GMT -5
I came here to talk hockey. First thing I know, I'm being hassled about my Avatar because I am a Leafs fan. PrinceLH I'm certain if one of the Habs' fans on this board or any new member (regardless of team loyalty) used the avatar you used, he/she would be met with the same "hassle"....or challenge. In reponse to your points from the other thread's post.... You wrote...... I don't pretend to know everything about the Civil War and the causes/reasons for it. I appreciate your info here....as I've always wanted to know more about it. I've been meaning to read: "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War" by Thomas Dilorenzo. I think it'll be on my Christmas list. Thanks for re-sparking that interest. I enjoy looking at all sides of an argument. But with slavery, there is only one. Many bluebloods (South and North) built their fortunes on that horrendous exploitation. There can be no apologies or finger-pointing at other states...or Lincoln....or Thomas Jefferson, etc. It was simply wrong in every facet, from conception to implementation. I, too, am descended from United Empire Loyalists. My great (X5) grandfather fought at Bunker Hill (Breed's Hill), 1775. That doesn't give me any more rights or make me any more special than anyone else. By the way, the first known "white"/Caucasian/European people to land in North America were the Vikings at the northern tip of what is now Newfoundland at L'Anse aux Meadows. The year, circa 1002. The Mayflower passengers arrived in 1620....preceded by visits to the continent by John Cabot, 1497; Columbus on the mainland in 1498; Jacques Cartier, 1534....so the Pilgrims were clearly not the first "white" people to land in North America. Extrapolate on this assertion please...as this is the section for it.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 18, 2006 0:14:17 GMT -5
In places like Iran, Saudi Arabia and other non-free countries, the people live under a theocracy. A theocracy is where a religious or a political leader makes the rules and the people abide by them. In a democracy, a person's freedom of speech is protected, even if it means that it is contrary to the Leaders of the Country or House of Worship. I brought my Avatar here to see if my freedom of speech would be protected. It only took one post to see it attacked and the complaints to mount. A few people took on the topic and I defended it with zeal. I have not heard a compelling argument that proves my theories wrong about what that Avatar, or Flag represented. I was contacted by one of the websites administrators, a friend of mine, who asked me to have it removed. I will do so, because he is my friend and I don't want him to listen to the complaints by the uninformed who react without researching what they are complaining about. I will not put that Avatar back on to this site, after this post, until either the Leafs win the Cup or the Leafs defeat the Habs in the playoffs. In other words, it'll be a while. If you were offended about the Avatar, or Flag, too bad. I'm not apologizing for the truth and you'll just have to get over it. PrinceLH Actually, this goes beyond an inappropriate avitar. What you're doing is outright dismissing the board Code of Conduct that all community members agree to abide by in order to participate here. You were contacted by one of the board's administrators; a friend of yours? That's true. However, you were also contacted by me as well. You chose either to ignore my welcome message to you or you haven't read it as yet. Therein was information about the board's rules and where to find them. Ignoring that? No problem. You then go onto say you removed your avitar because you have a friend who runs this board. I guess your friend's right to run the board he created in the way he wants to mean nothing to you at all. Heaven forbid that he, the board owner, should thank you for doing him a favour. However, rather than abide by those rules your friend established for this board, you're suggesting those rules don't apply to you because of your right to freedom of speech. Well, those rules do apply to you as a community member. Don't want to review or abide by them? No problem. So, whether you know it or not, you're compromising what your friend has worked so hard to develop; this board. And, again, you could care less about that all under the guise of freedom of speech. I think you should be thanking him for taking the time to contact you on this. I'm not even going to ask Clear Observer what action he feels is appropriate in this matter. I know Clear Observer personally as well. You can ask him about me anytime you want. I pride myself on being a pretty even-tempered person. However, if you continue to make a mockery of the Code of Conduct you'll reap what you sow. The choice is yours. Nite now. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 18, 2006 0:22:17 GMT -5
By the way, the first known "white"/Caucasian/European people to land in North America were the Vikings at the northern tip of what is now Newfoundland at L'Anse aux Meadows. My people. I am also a descendant of pirates, murderers, and Scots...... you know good people. ... but seriously, even in Canada our free speech and Charter of Rights are limited and can be taken away by one man ... *cough* notwithstanding clause *cough* ... can we really consider ourself a democracy with such a clause? Let's remember our current PM was elected when more than half the voting population voted against him.... not exactly a democracy. But the best of the choices available. Since 9/11 Americans (and Canadians) have civil liberties taken away for the protection of the public and the common good.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 18, 2006 1:24:04 GMT -5
Your code of conduct is somewhat vague when it comes to avatar's and only seems to suit someone else's view of what is proper and what is not. I never started this argument over the avatar, someone else did. I was commenting on hockey and next thing you know, I am being painted as a racist. I am going to defend myself, if someone insists on painting me this way. If someone is not informed about what the flag represents, I give them a history lesson. That's not attitude, but facts. I don't purport to back down on truth, to perpetuate a falsehood. You asked it to be removed, so it is removed. So why beat a dead horse? I guess people don't like those words "politically correct" affixed to their mantle. So why start a problem with someone without the facts? The Avatar is gone. They won't see it until the Leafs beat the Habs in the playoffs, or the Leafs win the Cup. If that happens, there'll be mass suicide on this site and there won't be anyone around to worry about it. LOL...
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 18, 2006 1:41:46 GMT -5
I've read, the Real Lincoln. It is an eye opener! I have also researched the War between the States at length. I've even visited Richmond, the White House Of The Confederacy and the Museum of the Confederacy. Been through the exhibits at the Smithsonian, in Washington, and even visited the Death Camp of the North, in Elmira, New York. They still fly the southern cross there, in memory for a wrong that was never righted. There are almost 3000 Confederate graves there, in Woodlawn National Cemetery. Mark Twain is buried nearby.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 18, 2006 1:58:43 GMT -5
Your code of conduct is somewhat vague when it comes to avatar's and only seems to suit someone else's view of what is proper and what is not. I never started this argument over the avatar, someone else did. I was commenting on hockey and next thing you know, I am being painted as a racist. I am going to defend myself, if someone insists on painting me this way. If someone is not informed about what the flag represents, I give them a history lesson. That's not attitude, but facts. I don't purport to back down on truth, to perpetuate a falsehood. ... You know, I could put up a swastika as an avatar, claiming that it's an ancient Native American symbol (which it is) and educate people about how it's a symbol that far predates a unified Germany, much less the Nazi regime. But fact is, rightly or wrongly, it's become a symbol of hatred and racism, and should no longer be used. Regardless of the actual issues in the US civil war, it's generally seen (perhaps falsely, but that's beside the point) as a racist, pro-slavery symbol. This is a hockey site, with a minor general-discussion aspect to it, so IMO* it's not the place to display controversial symbols, regardless of any possible explanation, no matter how historically correct it might be. *: More importantly, it appears to also be the opinion of the site moderators. We can ask, beg, rant, rave, whine and complain, but ultimately, they're the masters here.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 18, 2006 3:20:10 GMT -5
Your code of conduct is somewhat vague when it comes to avatar's and only seems to suit someone else's view of what is proper and what is not. I never started this argument over the avatar, someone else did. I was commenting on hockey and next thing you know, I am being painted as a racist. I am going to defend myself, if someone insists on painting me this way. If someone is not informed about what the flag represents, I give them a history lesson. That's not attitude, but facts. I don't purport to back down on truth, to perpetuate a falsehood. ... You know, I could put up a swastika as an avatar, claiming that it's an ancient Native American symbol (which it is) and educate people about how it's a symbol that far predates a unified Germany, much less the Nazi regime. But fact is, rightly or wrongly, it's become a symbol of hatred and racism, and should no longer be used. Regardless of the actual issues in the US civil war, it's generally seen (perhaps falsely, but that's beside the point) as a racist, pro-slavery symbol. This is a hockey site, with a minor general-discussion aspect to it, so IMO* it's not the place to display controversial symbols, regardless of any possible explanation, no matter how historically correct it might be. *: More importantly, it appears to also be the opinion of the site moderators. We can ask, beg, rant, rave, whine and complain, but ultimately, they're the masters here. I my experience, both on the web and off, when somebody does something just "to see if [their] freedom of speech would be protected," it tends to upset people, and gives that person the opportunity to claim (rightly or not) that their freedom of speech has been impinged upon. IMO, freedom of speech means being able to express your views in intelligent debate, it doesn't mean that everybody says something offensive just because they can. Deliberately provoking people is just that, it's not really an expression of free speech.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 18, 2006 11:41:07 GMT -5
I'm just happy we traded Jose and avoided becoming a Theocracy.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 18, 2006 11:58:17 GMT -5
The flag that I displayed was not the Confederate Battle Flag, but the Third National Flag of he Confederacy. Just because people are not informed, or watch too many Hollywood productions, they make a judgment on facts that they know nothing about. They see it in a movie and think, yeah, that's for real in life. The Nazi symbol statement has been used to connect the southern cross to Nazi-ism for the last 40 years. It could not be further from the truth. People say, but what about the clan?
Another history lesson may be in order.
The KKK was an organization that was invented by General Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate General in Tennessee, after the war between the States. It was a response to abuse of Confederate Veterans and their families, at the hands of Northern Carpetbaggers and disgruntled ex-slaves. The southern white people who supported the Confederacy were dis-enfranchised and were not even allowed to vote. Their land and livestock were being confiscated for back taxes and needed protection from Yankee overseers who held public office. Nathan Bedford Forrest's clan used the southern cross with the middle star removed (heart of the Confederacy star) as their flag to rally around. The original Clan only lasted five years and faded away during reconstruction.
Fast-forward to 1921 and see the Clan being reinvented. It had resurfaced in of all places, Ohio. It was not just a southern phenomenon, it was in all 50 states and every province in Canada. Most of the mayors, many congressmen, Senators and almost every corner of society were part of the Clan. They persecuted Blacks, Catholics, Jews and any creed of person that was not white and protestant. This Clan in the 20th century didn't use the southern cross but the STARS AND STRIPES! This was the clan that burned, murdered, denied civil liberties to many minorities in society, right up to the 1970's.
This is why it is wrong to blame the southern people and their southern flag for the clan that was reborn 50 years after the fact, throughout the United States.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 18, 2006 12:12:45 GMT -5
And what of this report of the origin and re-incarnatons of the "clan"? www.geocities.com/__izzy__/Dengue/kkk/history.htmLate 1800's The Ku Klux Klan was formed as a social club by a group of Confederate Army veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee around 1865. A Confederate General, Nathan Bedford Forrest, was the Klan's first leader, whose title was the Grand Wizard. The group adopted the name Ku Klux Klan from the Greek word kuklos, meaning circle, and the English word clan. White superiority was the philosophy of the Klan, and they would often use violence and terrorization of blacks as a means of exercising this philosophized superiority. The Klan detested the idea of blacks gaining any rights following the Civil War into the Reconstruction, and terrorized blacks to prevent them from voting in elections or practicing any other right. Blacks and white sympathizers were often threatened, beaten, or even murdered by Klan members in the South; the Klan used the now familiar white robes and hoods to mask their identity. The Ku Klux Klan became known as the Invisible Empire as it grew and spread rapidly. In 1871, the Force Bill was passed by Congress. This act gave the President the authority to use federal troops against the Ku Klux Klan if he deemed the action necessary. Soon after this bill was passed, the Klan all but disappeared.
Early 1900's William J. Simmons, a former Methodist preacher, organized a new Klan in Stone Mountain, Georgia in 1915 as a patriotic, Protestant fraternal society. This new Klan directed its activity against, not just blacks, but any group it considered un-American, including any immigrants, Jews, and Roman Catholics. The Ku Klux Klan grew rapidly from here and had more than 2 million members throughout the country by the mid-1920's. Although the Klan still reverted at times to violence of previous years, burning crosses, torturing and murdering those who they opposed, most of the Klan acted through peaceful means. The KKK instead became a more powerful political force as it elected many public officials throughout the nation. However, eventually the organization became weakened by disagreements among the leadership and because of public criticism of Klan violence. By 1944 the Ku Klux Klan had faded out again.
Mid-1900's The Klan was revived again in 1946 by an Atlanta physician, Samuel Green. However, shortly after Green's death in 1949, the Klan split into many smaller groups. During the 1960's, the Civil Rights movement began and a new wave of violence by the Ku Klux Klan was brought about. In Mississippi, three civil rights leaders were killed; in Birmingham, Alabama a church was bombed, killing four black girls. President Lyndon B. Johnson used the Federal Bureau of Investigation to probe the Ku Klux Klan and sent some Klan members to prison. Following this, Klan member ship fell to about 5,000 by the early 1970's.
Something's been "reconstructed"......will we ever know the truth? Defenders, apologists, finger-pointers, outright deniers.....from all sides of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Nov 18, 2006 12:26:08 GMT -5
Bottom line here.... ...you're all guests in my house...within my house there are rules....in order to continue to be guests in my house, those rules must be abided. It's fairly simple, and it works marvelously. CO
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 18, 2006 12:48:03 GMT -5
Thank you for changing your avatar. Your code of conduct is somewhat vague when it comes to avatar's and only seems to suit someone else's view of what is proper and what is not. No it's not vague at all. It clearly addresses political issues. And if the Code of Conduct was created by the board developer, administrator and owner, what's wrong with that? You obviously could care less about someone else's right to provide a service and then regulate the way they want. This issue isn't about your avatar as much as it is about you and your rights. And on that premise those personal rights are above the Code of Conduct, which is a code everyone here at HabsRus abides by. You took your chances with a Confederate flag regardless of the pattern, edition, whatever. Again, thank you for removing it. However, you generated this entire thread using variations of Confederate flags in your initial post. You knew how the moderators and many felt about the avatar in question, but chose to include several variations of the Confederate flag in your initial post. By intiating another discussion like this, you clearly have an agenda and you shouldn't be deferring it onto others by accusing them of "flogging a dead horse." Doesn't wash. The agenda is now closed and this thread locked.
|
|