489 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

It can't. There are two important differences. The first is that Apple doesn't control the whole forum for discussion. It's possible to disseminate your product elsewhere. Two - even if Apple did hold that monopoly - it can't be said to owe a duty to anyone anyone to provide access to that forum.

The government is different. And if you do think that Apple does owe a duty not to keep that kind of information out of public consumption, then you're essentially asking for the gov't to come in and regulate speech.

 

I'm not saying Apple is legally bound to allow whatever they do or don't want in their house of business.

 

But it is STILL censorship even if they are legally entitled to block said content. All forms of media censor things like nudity and profanity at their discretion and are perfectly legal and entitled when they do so... that doesn't somehow make it NOT censorship. Its just not illegal censorship.

[In Exile]

[Double]

[In Exile]

More importantly, why do you even care if you're not american?

I appreciate that American is insular, but the rest of the world takes an interest in notable public issues that happen elsewhere. And when it concerns one of the international symbols of racism - and outside of the US it absolutely is solely associated with local white supremacist groups - it's not difficult to have an opinion.

You'll note I haven't said much else in this thread beyond the fact that the Confederate States were as racist as the Nazis in terms of the ideology they represented. That's more or less a historical fact as Han shows. Now it may well be that most people who fought for the south were not really in favour of this view - they were for he most part poor whites whose only benefit from slavery was that they weren't the bottom of the social hierarchy. But the actual country's founding and its symbols are thoroughly racist.

[In Exile]

I'm not saying Apple is legally bound to allow whatever they do or don't want in their house of business.

But it is STILL censorship even if they are legally entitled to block said content. All forms of media censor things like nudity and profanity at their discretion and are perfectly legal and entitled when they do so... that doesn't somehow make it NOT censorship. Its just not illegal censorship.

I'm saying something different. I'm saying that a critical element if censorship is the type of power that the government exerts. Because the government can shut you out of the forum. In my view it can't be censorship until you get an equivalent action.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm saying something different. I'm saying that a critical element if censorship is the type of power that the government exerts. Because the government can shut you out of the forum. In my view it can't be censorship until you get an equivalent action.

So when a privately owned television station puts up black bars on nudity or other objects, black bars called Censor Bars, that's not censorship?

You're claiming that just because the government isn't controlling it, it's not censorship. That's an outlandish notion.

[o Ventus]

I'm saying something different. I'm saying that a critical element if censorship is the type of power that the government exerts. Because the government can shut you out of the forum. In my view it can't be censorship until you get an equivalent action.

Just typing "censorship" into Google really quick...

 

Censorship (noun): the process of officially examining books, movies, etc, and suppressing unacceptable parts.

 

Dictionary.com's definition - Censorship (n): the act or practice of censoring.

 

Merriam-Webster says the same thing as the quick Google definition. With all of these in mind, how is it *not* censorship? You can say "in my view" all you want, that doesn't make it right. This isn't even a topic of opinion anymore, you are outright wrong. I can say "the grass is blue" and I would be verifiably, objectively, factually wrong because we have a concrete and solid understanding of what "blue" is and why grass is not blue. This is the same case. It IS censorship, regardless of whatever you say your point of view is. Your opinion is actually wrong. We have a solid and concrete understanding of what censorship is, and Apple's actions fit the bill to a T.

[Han Shot First]

History was actually one of my stronger subjects throughout my years in school, thanks for reminding me. Also, I think it's stupendously ironic that you say "drop the snark", right after calling me "sport" and saying "it's called history, go learn some". It's almost like you have no sense of self awareness.

 

 

I was well aware that my reply was snarky. It would have been more civil if you replied to the points I raised in a civil manner.

 

 

Did you read those same excerpts of text that you copy/pasted, or did you just copy/paste them thinking they would make your point for you? Of the 3, only the Texas secession letter could justifiably be called "white supremacist" or racist. The first is a lament that the federal government is limiting and making efforts to remove their right to own slaves (which itself is not a racist idea, however sh***y it is). The second is a more general complaint about the federal government being too involved with things in the states as a whole, not just slavery. Neither of those are in any way racist or white supremacist.

 

I've read them many times. 

 

The argument that the war was over state's rights versus the rights of the Federal government misses that the states rights the Confederate leadership was trying to protect, was the 'right' for states to determine whether or not its citizens could buy, own, and sell slaves, without federal interference. It was also feared that any new states added to the Union would be free rather than slave, increasing the power shift away from the Southern planter class and ensuring an end to the institution of slavery.

 

Slavery was far and away the primary cause of the American Civil War, and had been the most divisive issue in the country for decades leading up to it. 

 

 

... Unless you're suggesting that the reason black people were used as slaves was because of racism (which I'm assuming is the case, since that seems to be the most popular statement I've seen). The problem with that is that it isn't even related to the Confederacy anymore when you go down that road, considering the history of slavery in the United States (and the colonies before they were united).

 

Unrelated, but why does nobody ever talk about the Egyptians or Romans when discussing slaves? It's always about the United States and the Confederacy. The Confederacy was a joke of a government not even recognized by the rest of the United States and lasted all of 4 years, whereas Egypt and Rome (both the Roman Republic and the Empire) were practically built by slaves, lasted absurdly long, and controlled massive portions of the continents they stemmed from (and in both of these particular empires, massive portions of other continents). And since people have mentioned the Nazis, what about the slave labor they left to the people detained in labor camps, or the forced labor of the "enemies of the state" in Soviet labor camps and gulags?

 

Racism was certainly used to justify African slavery once it existed. Read Alexander Stephens' cornerstone speech for an example. It was a common argument in defense of slavery in that era that nature (or God) had positioned one race as master and the other slave. The language used in that speech and in Texas' declaration of secession was common at that time.

 

People don't talk about Roman slavery because it is so far removed from the modern world that we aren't experiencing the repercussions of it. That isn't the case with African slavery and the American Civil War, both of which the modern world is still feeling the ripple effects from. It also quite frankly isn't relevant to a discussion on the Confederate flag or Apple's decision to ban it from their app store, while discussion of the American Civil War, African Slavery, or the Jim Crow era are.

[Jaison1986]

I appreciate that American is insular, but the rest of the world takes an interest in notable public issues that happen elsewhere. And when it concerns one of the international symbols of racism - and outside of the US it absolutely is solely associated with local white supremacist groups - it's not difficult to have an opinion.

You'll note I haven't said much else in this thread beyond the fact that the Confederate States were as racist as the Nazis in terms of the ideology they represented. That's more or less a historical fact as Han shows. Now it may well be that most people who fought for the south were not really in favour of this view - they were for he most part poor whites whose only benefit from slavery was that they weren't the bottom of the social hierarchy. But the actual country's founding and its symbols are thoroughly racist.

 

It's simply because I (an person not from north america) don't really see much reason to feel concerned about it. I mean, I could feel very strongly about it if I wanted, but that wouldn't change anything. If they want to have this flag removed, by all means, that wouldn't change anything for me. But I just find it foolish that they want to censor every single game that happens to have such flag. And most of the times it's in an non offensive way. It's usually just part of the scenario during a level. Not like there are games were we see confederate soldiers proudly waving their flag as an sign of victory. It's not too diferent then wanting to censor call of duty because an nazi flag happens to be part of the scenario.

[SlottsMachine]

I know plenty of people that see the flag as a sign of redneck pride, not saying I agree with it but they don't seem to be hurting anyone. 

[o Ventus]

I was well aware that my reply was snarky. It would have been more civil if you replied to the points I raised in a civil manner.

 

In what way was I not civil? I didn't start out my post by unleashing a flurry of insults. Literally all I said was "wut".

 

I've read them many times. 

 

The argument that the war was over state's rights versus the rights of the Federal government misses that the states rights the Confederate leadership was trying to protect, was the 'right' for states to determine whether or not its citizens could buy, own, and sell slaves, without federal interference. It was also feared that any new states added to the Union would be free rather than slave, increasing the power shift away from the Southern planter class and ensuring an end to the institution of slavery.

 

And at the time they actually had a point, considering the southern economy was almost entirely based on agriculture, and that the south as a whole was very, very poor. Slaves made up around 5% of the total population of the nation in 1860, and people who could actually afford slaves were few and far between. Slaves were for the wealthy and people of status. There were just as many people lobbying for secession who worked for pay on plantations, because those plantations still relied on the slave labor. Without slaves, they would be out of work (and the people in the south are already poor, so they would likely end up starving to death).

 

Slavery was far and away the primary cause of the American Civil War, and had been the most divisive issue in the country for decades leading up to it.

 

Yeah, and again, how does this make the Confederacy's doctrine born of white supremacy? Slavery =/= racism.

 

Racism was certainly used to justify African slavery once it existed. Read Alexander Stephens' cornerstone speech for an example. It was a common argument in defense of slavery in that era that nature (or God) had positioned one race as master and the other slave. The language used in that speech and in Texas' declaration of secession was common at that time.

 

Was used =/= was the common use. Texas was always a special brand of bats**t insane, and still is today. I hate to throw away a potential source based on that merit, but I think it's valid here. Their state government has been legitimately crazy for a LOOOOOOOOONG time.

 

People don't talk about Roman slavery because it is so far removed from the modern world that we aren't experiencing the repercussions of it. That isn't the case with African slavery and the American Civil War, both of which the modern world is still feeling the ripple effects from. It also quite frankly isn't relevant to a discussion on the Confederate flag or Apple's decision to ban it from their app store, while discussion of the American Civil War, African Slavery, or the Jim Crow era are.

 

Which is why, in that very same paragraph, the first word I typed was "Unrelated..."

 

Also, this discussion between you and me is about the Confederacy and white supremacy, as per my original point. Jim Crow wasn't a thing until well after the Confederacy had been dissolved.

[Han Shot First]

That's nonsense. It would be like using the Nazi flag to celebrate "German Pride". To pick a symbol so strongly associated with hate - and to continue to use it - absolutely opens you to condemnation. It's no defence to say that proudly displaying that offence racist symbol doesn't make you a racist because you're displaying it for another reason.

This isn't targeted at you so much as this view that there's some cultural merit to waiving this symbol of racism around. Rallying around it doesn't make it better - it makes the people who do it twits for picking a symbol of racism to represent their cultrue.

 

I agree that it is a poor choice as an expression of Southern pride. The problem is mainly that while the Union won the American Civil War, the war is a bizarre example of the loser getting to write its history. For almost a hundred years a great number of the histories being written were of the Lost Cause variety, erecting a romanticized Gone with the Wind version of the Old South that never actually existed, and minimizing the role slavery played as the war's central cause. In recent decades there has been a shift away from that and history is being taught rather than romanticism, but to some extent it hasn't yet fully filtered down to the general populace. There are still a lot of people who truly believe the war wasn't about slavery and that it was only a tangential issue. They aren't necessarily racists, just not well educated.

[Fast Jimmy]

Yeah, and again, how does this make the Confederacy's doctrine born of white supremacy? Slavery =/= racism.

[The Hierophant]

Hate to be that guy, but what will happen to the Ghetto Gaggers franchise?

[Han Shot First]

 

And at the time they actually had a point, considering the southern economy was almost entirely based on agriculture, and that the south as a whole was very, very poor. Slaves made up around 5% of the total population of the nation in 1860, and people who could actually afford slaves were few and far between. Slaves were for the wealthy and people of status. There were just as many people lobbying for secession who worked for pay on plantations, because those plantations still relied on the slave labor. Without slaves, they would be out of work (and the people in the south are already poor, so they would likely end up starving to death).

 

Slavery was actually responsible for the average southern farmer being poorer than northern farmers. Southern states had less yeomen farmers and more subsistence farming than northern states in large part because the best available land was gobbled up by large plantations worked by slaves. In short, the poor farmers simply couldn't compete. That the southern planter elite, who also happened to be the ruling class, were doing well enough with slave-worked plantations also played a role in the Southern states being much slower to embrace the industrial revolution than the north, where slavery had all but disappeared. That in turn led to lower prosperity. One of the great ironies of the American Civil War is that the average Confederate soldier was fighting for a cause that if successful, would have resulted in the continuance of a system that kept him poor.

 

In an earlier post you had mentioned Roman slavery...it would actually be relevant here. Slavery being responsible for the lower prosperity of southern farmers mirrors the decline of the Roman yeoman farmers as huge slave-worked latifundia owned by aristocrats gradually gobbled up all the best land.

 

 

Yeah, and again, how does this make the Confederacy's doctrine born of white supremacy? Slavery =/= racism.

 

 

Once the Africans were enslaved racist ideology was used frequently to justify their enslavement. You can see that not just in Texas' declaration of secession, but in some of others as well, and in Alexander Stephens' cornerstone speech. 

 

Mississippi's Declaration of Secession is a good example:

 

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

 

Confederate States of America - Mississippi Declaration

 

 

 

 

Also, this discussion between you and me is about the Confederacy and white supremacy, as per my original point. Jim Crow wasn't a thing until well after the Confederacy had been dissolved.

 

 

Jim Crow would be relevant in any discussion about whether or not the rebel flag is offensive, since it was embraced in the 1950s an 1960s as a symbol of opposition to desegregation and the civil right's movement. Georgia's state flag was even changed during that era to include the Confederate battle flag, specifically as a symbol of opposition to desegregation. (it was changed again in 2001)

[Bayonet Hipshot]

George Santayana :- “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

[Fast Jimmy]

This is what thinking Dragon Ball GT is canon leads to.

On the flip side, I think Dragon Ball Super has got some good potential.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I'd probably lose respect for someone who flies the Confederate flag. It's close to impossible to separate the flag from the terrible institution of slavery. At the same time, what Apple is doing to a developer that prides itself on historical accuracy is plain wrong.

The recent actions of major companies in suppressing visibility and sales of anything to do with the flag is only going to cause more tension in the long run.

[In Exile]

So when a privately owned television station puts up black bars on nudity or other objects, black bars called Censor Bars, that's not censorship?

You're claiming that just because the government isn't controlling it, it's not censorship. That's an outlandish notion.

Let's run with the television example, though. HBO is well known for its softcore nudity (in at least some shows). This is different from cable TV. When the gov't bans a form of expression, that's it - the field is covered and there's no way to express that view. Typically it's penalised with fines or jail time. That's quite different from one forum refusing to spread your message. If you want to describe each as censorship you're losing something essential about the way gov't can negatively impact expression.

I'm not opposed to calling it censorship. But I think this more radical form of restriction on speech has to be kept distinct.

[Draining Dragon]

Let's run with the television example, though. HBO is well known for its softcore nudity (in at least some shows). This is different from cable TV. When the gov't bans a form of expression, that's it - the field is covered and there's no way to express that view. Typically it's penalised with fines or jail time. That's quite different from one forum refusing to spread your message. If you want to describe each as censorship you're losing something essential about the way gov't can negatively impact expression.

I'm not opposed to calling it censorship. But I think this more radical form of restriction on speech has to be kept distinct.

Nobody is saying private censorship is the same as government censorship. They're just pointing out that the word "censorship" refers to more than just a government silencing free speech.

[ObserverStatus]

Meh, oh well. StarCraft I wouldn't have worked well on iOS anyway.