Topix Chitown Regulars

Since: Nov 09

Wisconsin

#93848 Nov 19, 2013
Lol, seriously?

Forgive me, but I can't muster up too much concern over a bunch of white cisdudes fretting about the image of the holy American flag always being portrayed in red and white stripes. If that's the biggest affront you face on a daily basis--instead of problems like, you know, facing nationwide discrimination and personal safety violations based on your sexuality--maybe you should count yourself lucky and not let your blood pressure rise too high.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#93849 Nov 19, 2013
Pixx wrote:
Lol, seriously?
Forgive me, but I can't muster up too much concern over a bunch of white cisdudes fretting about the image of the holy American flag always being portrayed in red and white stripes. If that's the biggest affront you face on a daily basis--instead of problems like, you know, facing nationwide discrimination and personal safety violations based on your sexuality--maybe you should count yourself lucky and not let your blood pressure rise too high.
Cisdude?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#93850 Nov 19, 2013
Disagree, First amendment does not give you the right to yell fire in a theater, a line has to be drawn somewhere. At what point does your desire to be derisive breach my rights of sensibility?
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
First amendment? <shrug>

Since: Nov 09

Wisconsin

#93851 Nov 19, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>Cisdude?
Yes, people with penises who self-identify as men. Basically what I was saying is that in light of discussing LGBTQ rights, it seems a little silly that some white, straight, cisgendered men think that a rainbow graphic of the American flag is somehow the biggest issue to take away from that discussion. It's derailing and silencing. If the American flag and all that it stands for is so important, those white/straight/cisgendered men should be up in arms at the treatment that LGBTQ people receive in this country. Debating about the image of the American flag is irrelevant and arbitrary; it's just a way to avoid and shut down the uncomfortable topic at hand.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#93852 Nov 19, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>Cisdude?
Short for "cisgender" (opposite of "transgender"), used to describe someone whose gender identity matches their anatomical gender at birth.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#93853 Nov 19, 2013
I'm sorry but to me some things are just wrong.
Just because you have the right to piss on the Vietnam memorial does not mean you should.
Just because you have the right to piss on the flag does not mean you should.

If you consider yourself an American, then I believe you are honor bound to defend and respect the flag in the colors and content under which it was created.
When you try to make the flag anything other than what it is, or is intended to be, you are not defending it, nor are you promoting any position you want to ardently profess, you are simply desecrating our national symbol of unity, and casting it as a clever to divide this nation, which already has so many fractures. The flag is the only symbol that keeps them all contained, because it is the one symbol we all agree upon.

We all have someone who died defending that flag, and as much as someone may have the right to defile that, does not mean they are right to defile it.

Call me whatever kind of ahole you like, but if you feel you the need to take my flag and do those kinds of things to it just to make your voice heard, then you have nothing to say that I want to hear, so just STFU.

So, go do whatever the constitution allows you to do, and whatever you concise says you need to do, but dont ever ask me to condone or respect it.
And I dont for a minute believe that any vet is comfortable with the stars and stripes being substituted with the rainbow colors.
I know vets too, both gay and straight and they ALL hold too much respect for our flag to see it mistreated like that.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#93854 Nov 19, 2013
Pixx wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, people with penises who self-identify as men..
self identify? People with penises ARE men. What kind of hipster vocabulary are you youths babbling these days. Cisgender?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#93855 Nov 19, 2013
It also seems to be a way for you to dismiss something that others feel very strongly about, but at the same time you ask those people to identify with something you feel strongly about.

Hey, you want me to care about your cause... then consider mine.
when you dismiss my cause, then you lose a champion for yours.

your silly gay issue is of no concequense to me. Not until you acknowledge that there is a fringe element defiling the very symbol of freedom. They are taking a national symbol and hijacking it to their own selfish ends, and by doing so they gather not a single person to their cause, instead they invite animosity and hate, which is what they wanted all along, and you Naively support and endorse it thereby supporting anarchy.
Pixx wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, people with penises who self-identify as men. Basically what I was saying is that in light of discussing LGBTQ rights, it seems a little silly that some white, straight, cisgendered men think that a rainbow graphic of the American flag is somehow the biggest issue to take away from that discussion. It's derailing and silencing. If the American flag and all that it stands for is so important, those white/straight/cisgendered men should be up in arms at the treatment that LGBTQ people receive in this country. Debating about the image of the American flag is irrelevant and arbitrary; it's just a way to avoid and shut down the uncomfortable topic at hand.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#93856 Nov 19, 2013
RACE wrote:
I'm sorry but to me some things are just wrong.
Just because you have the right to piss on the Vietnam memorial does not mean you should.
Just because you have the right to piss on the flag does not mean you should.
If you consider yourself an American, then I believe you are honor bound to defend and respect the flag in the colors and content under which it was created.
When you try to make the flag anything other than what it is, or is intended to be, you are not defending it, nor are you promoting any position you want to ardently profess, you are simply desecrating our national symbol of unity, and casting it as a clever to divide this nation, which already has so many fractures. The flag is the only symbol that keeps them all contained, because it is the one symbol we all agree upon.
We all have someone who died defending that flag, and as much as someone may have the right to defile that, does not mean they are right to defile it.
Call me whatever kind of ahole you like, but if you feel you the need to take my flag and do those kinds of things to it just to make your voice heard, then you have nothing to say that I want to hear, so just STFU.
So, go do whatever the constitution allows you to do, and whatever you concise says you need to do, but dont ever ask me to condone or respect it.
And I dont for a minute believe that any vet is comfortable with the stars and stripes being substituted with the rainbow colors.
I know vets too, both gay and straight and they ALL hold too much respect for our flag to see it mistreated like that.
I'm fine with all you have said, but I fail to see how you claim there is a difference between the flag Toj used as her avatar that started this discussion and the one she posted with the Republican elephant in place of the stars. They are both bastardizations of the US flag. They are both divisive in some way. I don't care what donkey has to say, but I would like to hear how you see these as so materially different.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#93857 Nov 19, 2013
RACE wrote:
Disagree, First amendment does not give you the right to yell fire in a theater, a line has to be drawn somewhere. At what point does your desire to be derisive breach my rights of sensibility?
<quoted text>
Well I think that if it's legal to actually burn a perfectly good (i.e. not damaged) flag, which is considered to be a first amendment thing, that changing the colors of a *picture* of the flag must also be and isn't really all that bad in the bigger scheme of things. <shrug>

Since: Nov 09

Wisconsin

#93858 Nov 19, 2013
RACE wrote:
It also seems to be a way for you to dismiss something that others feel very strongly about, but at the same time you ask those people to identify with something you feel strongly about.
Hey, you want me to care about your cause... then consider mine.
when you dismiss my cause, then you lose a champion for yours.
your silly gay issue is of no concequense to me. Not until you acknowledge that there is a fringe element defiling the very symbol of freedom. They are taking a national symbol and hijacking it to their own selfish ends, and by doing so they gather not a single person to their cause, instead they invite animosity and hate, which is what they wanted all along, and you Naively support and endorse it thereby supporting anarchy.
<quoted text>
My "silly gay issue" is my life (I'm bi). It affects how I'm treated 24/7. The image of an American flag affects your life for perhaps .5 seconds and in no way threatens your livelihood, rights, or personal safety. Like I said, if it really were the principles of the American flag that were so important to you, you'd be more worried about the fact that so many Americans face discrimination (discrimination that can often be lethal) than you would about the colors of the American flag.

Tonka: The "T" in LGBTQ stands for "trans." A lot of people are born with vaginas or penises but don't identify as women or men, respectively. Also, 1 in 100 people are born intersex, which means that they have genitalia or the genetic makeup of both male and female. It's a lot more common than you would think!:)

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#93859 Nov 19, 2013
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I think that if it's legal to actually burn a perfectly good (i.e. not damaged) flag, which is considered to be a first amendment thing, that changing the colors of a *picture* of the flag must also be and isn't really all that bad in the bigger scheme of things. <shrug>
he never claimed it was illegal. Just that it offends him.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#93860 Nov 19, 2013
Timmy

United States

#93861 Nov 19, 2013
You have no right of "sensibility". And the Supreme Court has already drawn that line and people can do whatever they want with flag in the name of free speech.
RACE wrote:
Disagree, First amendment does not give you the right to yell fire in a theater, a line has to be drawn somewhere. At what point does your desire to be derisive breach my rights of sensibility?
<quoted text>

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#93863 Nov 19, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>he never claimed it was illegal. Just that it offends him.
I get that. I was referring to whether or not it would be first amendment.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#93864 Nov 19, 2013
Sigh.

1989 US Supreme Court case of Texas v Johnson struck down the flag desecration statutes in 48 of 50 states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

Efforts were made in Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment against flag desecration. The G W Bush administration could not get enough votes i Congress to pass the amendment and send it out for ratification by the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Desecration...

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#93865 Nov 20, 2013
RACE wrote:
Hey, you want me to care about your cause... then consider mine.
when you dismiss my cause, then you lose a champion for yours.
They are taking a national symbol and hijacking it to their own selfish ends, and by doing so they gather not a single person to their cause, instead they invite animosity and hate, which is what they wanted all along
This.

If you feel a need to defile something so many find sacred to promote your cause, it's not a cause many will be willing to support. You are doing yourself and your cause no good. The LTBGQ -Q? what the hell is Q?- community can STFU for all I'm concerned.

And Pixx! Good to see you around! I'm cool with you being bi. How about a threeway?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#93866 Nov 20, 2013
Here are the columns so many men died for to give you the freedom to read them, all you America-haters!!

Amy

http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T56E5HS2II...

Abby

http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T9L8GNAF5A...

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#93867 Nov 20, 2013
RACE wrote:
Disagree, First amendment does not give you the right to yell fire in a theater, a line has to be drawn somewhere. At what point does your desire to be derisive breach my rights of sensibility?
<quoted text>
I understand what you're saying, and I can see your POV. I even agree with you in theory, but the problem with "sensibility" is that everyone is sensitive to *something(s)* and we can't curtail everyone else's rights because of the sensibility of some, whether "some" be one of a few million.

It's like the Muslims killing that cartoonist a few years ago because they didn't like the pictures of Mohammed…it offended their sensibility, so they took away his right to live. I get that they were offended, and why they were offended, but they really needed to just suck it up and understand that not everyone shares their opinion of what is offensive.

Basically the same thing with the flag which is they the SCOTUS has ruled that stuff like BURNING a flag (which *I* find way way way offensive) is legal and protected under the first amendment, ergo like I said, I can't see how changing the color of a picture of the flag could be offensive on the same level, and even if it is, it's protected.

There is a way to stop, or at least criminalize "desecration" of the flag (I used quotes because it was a picture, not an actual flag)…a constitutional amendment. I mean the dog is so rabid (dog...rabid…get it? LOL I crack myself up) about this issue perhaps he should start a grass roots campaign to get an amendment passed.

I PM'd you.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#93868 Nov 20, 2013
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what you're saying, and I can see your POV. I even agree with you in theory, but the problem with "sensibility" is that everyone is sensitive to *something(s)* and we can't curtail everyone else's rights because of the sensibility of some, whether "some" be one of a few million.
This is what makes you and your ilk hypocrites. You expect the majority to cater to the sensibilities of the few (hence the whole "war on Christmas," even gay marriage) but you refuse to cater to the sensibilities of those whose viewes you don't happen to share.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min woodtick57 1,402,734
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min Dr Guru 219,145
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 24 min Cheffie 70,813
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 42 min GEORGIA 1,783
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 43 min GEORGIA 2,838
Word (Dec '08) 44 min GEORGIA 6,541
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr SweLL GirL 9,189

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages