The Confederate flag has been widely controversial for many, many years. A whole lot of the people calling it into question didn't have a voice until the 1960s, and apparently are still victimized by people brandishing it.
Just because a lot of people did something wildly offensive for decades without ever really being forced to think about it doesn't mean it wasn't offensive and shouldn't possibly be revised.
Just because a lot of people did something wildly offensive for decades without ever really being forced to think about it doesn't mean it wasn't offensive and shouldn't possibly be revised.
You're right, not per se. But if your government uses a flag for decades and is allowed to do so, it's clearly widely accepted - as long as your're living in a democracy and >50% is considered widely.
As I said, banning a flag will only upset the majority against a minority and that's not the best idea. Anyway, anybody is allowed to make his own mistakes.
But one crazy person was justification to wipe the Confederate Flag from the face of the earth then?
The tipping points of history are often a single individual's action.
There is no longer support or tolerance for use of the Confederate Battle Flag in any American governmental institution, other than in a narrow historical context that the state governments do no meet.
I respect that you and others here have a Libertarian viewpoint, but in the real world, it doesn't really have all that much application in governance other than privacy issues, although "freedom" seems to be the preferred term. Perhaps the world is just too complex and chaotic for Libertarianism to function in governance.
Well, this is one step backward from the bizarre, highly emotional and reactionary decision to pull these apps in the first place.
I'd really like to get a definition from Apple of what is "mean spirited" now. These rules are seemingly becoming more arbitrary and ridiculous.
There's nothing surprising about this. Many predicted that Apple would reinstate any titles shown to contain confederate flags in a non-offensive manner.
Also, the term "reactionary" doesn't mean what you think it does. Please consult a dictionary (or a mirror).
Just ban the flag and all racists will stop being racist. They won't see their own point of view reaffirmed.
No one is "banning" flags. Anyone is free to own or display a flag on their person or property. The App Store is Apple's private property and they're well within their rights to exclude anything they wish.
Also, no one is claiming that removal of confederate flags will cure society of racism. What it will do is reduce the public display of a prominent reminder of slavery and racism that black people are continuously confronted with in some southern states. It also sends the message that public display of racist symbols is not socially acceptable in the US.
No one is "banning" flags. Anyone is free to own or display a flag on their person or property. The App Store is Apple's private property and they're well within their rights to exclude anything they wish.
Also, no one is claiming that removal of confederate flags will cure society of racism. What it will do is reduce the public display of a prominent reminder of slavery and racism that black people are continuously confronted with in some southern states. It also sends the message that public display of racist symbols is not socially acceptable in the US.
Yes the app store is Apples property, but it's a monopoly for iphone apps. And people have invested a lot of time and money in an app. So it should be clear what's allowed and what isn't in first place.
Anyway, I wasn't only talking about the App store only. Clearly this flag has been used for centuries and if somebody feels offended by it it's his problem, not the problem of the flag. It doesn't only stand for slavery. Most nations have had slavery btw. in Africa it was more common than anywhere else. And most nations have fought wars, so somebody could feel offended by it. As long as there are nations and flags and people somebody will always feel offended by something.
It would be better to fight the problems than surrogates.
Yes the app store is Apples property, but it's a monopoly for iphone apps. And people have invested a lot of time and money in an app. So it should be clear what's allowed and what isn't in first place.
Anyway, I wasn't only talking about the App store only. Clearly this flag has been used for centuries and if somebody feels offended by it it's his problem, not the problem of the flag. It doesn't only stand for slavery. Most nations have had slavery btw. in Africa it was more common than anywhere else. And most nations have fought wars, so somebody could feel offended by it. As long as there are nations and flags and people somebody will always feel offended by something.
It would be better to fight the problems than surrogates.
As of March, Apple's share of the US smartphone market was 36.5%. There's no such thing as a monopoly for a specific product line. If you don't like Apple's policies you're free to purchase or develop software for a different smartphone.
The range of content available on the App Store is vast and continuously changing. Many unscrupulous developers routinely attempt to sneak in apps that either flaunt App Store policies or exploit obscure loopholes therein. It's perfectly understandable that Apple's app store policies are always subject to revision. Developers are no more vulnerable to change in Apple's policies than business owners are vulnerable to changes in local, state, and federal laws.
It's ludicrous to suggest that Apple (or the United States) should lower its standards for acceptable conduct to that of the lowest common denominators of global human rights violators. The confederate flag is and always has been primarily a symbol of institutional racism - from slavery, to segregation, to voter ID laws.
Yes the app store is Apples property, but it's a monopoly for iphone apps. And people have invested a lot of time and money in an app. So it should be clear what's allowed and what isn't in first place.
Anyway, I wasn't only talking about the App store only. Clearly this flag has been used for centuries and if somebody feels offended by it it's his problem, not the problem of the flag. It doesn't only stand for slavery. Most nations have had slavery btw. in Africa it was more common than anywhere else. And most nations have fought wars, so somebody could feel offended by it. As long as there are nations and flags and people somebody will always feel offended by something.
It would be better to fight the problems than surrogates.
As of March, Apple's share of the US smartphone market was 36.5%. There's no such thing as a monopoly for a specific product line. If you don't like Apple's policies you're free to purchase or develop software for a different smartphone.
The range of content available on the App Store is vast and continuously changing. Many unscrupulous developers routinely attempt to sneak in apps that either flaunt App Store policies or exploit obscure loopholes therein. It's perfectly understandable that Apple's app store policies are always subject to revision. Developers are no more vulnerable to change in Apple's policies than business owners are vulnerable to changes in local, state, and federal laws.
It's ludicrous to suggest that Apple (or the United States) should lower its standards for acceptable conduct to that of the lowest common denominators of global human rights violators. The confederate flag is and always has been primarily a symbol of institutional racism - from slavery, to segregation, to voter ID laws.
You misunderstood the OP. The App Store is the only place one can get iOS apps, and that's the 'monopoly' he/she is referring to.
You misunderstood the OP. The App Store is the only place one can get iOS apps, and that's the 'monopoly' he/she is referring to.
No, I understood the OP, but he was misusing the word "monopoly", which is a legal term. A company who has an actual monopoly in the US is subject to a variety of anti-trust laws that restrict certain business practices. Apple is not subject to any such restrictions.
Now, you can make a case for the fact that many developers have a disproportionate financial dependence on Apple's app store and that any vagueness or ambiguity in their app submission rules presents a business challenge. That's fair and Apple should be encouraged to do a better job of communicating those rules. But this entire discussion has been more about Apple's stance towards confederate flags rather than their app curation practices.
We'll remove all apps that display the Confederate flag, and we'll add them back IF the developers can justify its use in the app as a non-offensive, essential element.
Totally fair. Good call.
Agree. Enough of the "sky is falling" responses.
The problem is not the Confederate flag. The problem is the fetishization of that flag. After the Civil War it should have been taken down, folded up, and put away. In most cases it was. But it crept back in the hands of dead-enders like the Klan, and well-meaning "patriotic" groups of Confederate descendants. Its continued presence gave it a kind of legitimacy--we got used to seeing it around for both benign and evil intent. It's reappearance as an official emblem occurred in the middle of the last century as a ****-you to the Civil Rights movement by those unreconciled to the final decision rendered by the Civil War.
The outrage about games being taken down is misplaced. It should be reserved for own tolerance of a symbol that exists in public primarily as a symbol for retrograde and thoroughly debunked social agendas. Don't take your anger out on those who are trying to sort through the mess we've allowed to accumulate. Apple, and society, will figure out the best way to put this flag back into its proper place. It may seem a silly exercise to some, but so did figuring out how to deal with generations of unfairness to blacks.
The kid killed nine people under the banner of that battle flag...
First, this cowardly, racist, murderous redneck was 21 years old, so let's top calling him a kid.
Second, stop posting his photos or even citing his name. This is the sort of infamy he was seeking. Let's deny it to him and anyone else who might consider following in his footsteps.
You meant to say "overreacting" not "over-reactionary". You might also use impulsive, hasty, rash, reckless, or ill-considered.
Normally this would just look silly, but in this case, you're using a word to describe Apple that actually describes those who defend the confederate flag and even a racist terrorist who killed innocent people in a church.
On a similar note because of one person's insane actions, the Joker has been removed from all Batman movies, comics, video games, and novels. In fact, the PC Police just broke down my door and ripped out all the pages from my old comic books that had the Joker. Sorry, I guess I should be a little more...serious.
Perhaps we should also remove all references to anyone with the names xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Aren't we taking things just a little too far when we're changing video games and history because of one nutcase?
How many people have been killed, harassed, or discriminated against based on the symbolism of a video game character? Multiple studies have shown that violent movies and video games do not inspire violence in real life, and in some cases may even reduce it.
Comments
Symbols are their own thing, once they've been co-opted.
If you wear a swastika t-shirt here in Germany, you'll get into trouble, even if you argue til the cows come home that it's a Buddhist peace symbol.
You'll get into trouble. Since 1945. But it hasn't been wildly accepted for 200 years and all of a sudden it gets banned because of one idiot.
The Confederate flag has been widely controversial for many, many years. A whole lot of the people calling it into question didn't have a voice until the 1960s, and apparently are still victimized by people brandishing it.
Just because a lot of people did something wildly offensive for decades without ever really being forced to think about it doesn't mean it wasn't offensive and shouldn't possibly be revised.
Just because a lot of people did something wildly offensive for decades without ever really being forced to think about it doesn't mean it wasn't offensive and shouldn't possibly be revised.
You're right, not per se. But if your government uses a flag for decades and is allowed to do so, it's clearly widely accepted - as long as your're living in a democracy and >50% is considered widely.
As I said, banning a flag will only upset the majority against a minority and that's not the best idea. Anyway, anybody is allowed to make his own mistakes.
Cripes. It's like explaining up and down to superstitious fools who don't believe in gravity.
But one crazy person was justification to wipe the Confederate Flag from the face of the earth then?
The tipping points of history are often a single individual's action.
There is no longer support or tolerance for use of the Confederate Battle Flag in any American governmental institution, other than in a narrow historical context that the state governments do no meet.
edit:
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/
I respect that you and others here have a Libertarian viewpoint, but in the real world, it doesn't really have all that much application in governance other than privacy issues, although "freedom" seems to be the preferred term. Perhaps the world is just too complex and chaotic for Libertarianism to function in governance.
Apple really needs to take a deep breath and think it through before making kneejerk decisions in reaction to recent events.
Well, this is one step backward from the bizarre, highly emotional and reactionary decision to pull these apps in the first place.
I'd really like to get a definition from Apple of what is "mean spirited" now. These rules are seemingly becoming more arbitrary and ridiculous.
There's nothing surprising about this. Many predicted that Apple would reinstate any titles shown to contain confederate flags in a non-offensive manner.
Also, the term "reactionary" doesn't mean what you think it does. Please consult a dictionary (or a mirror).
Just ban the flag and all racists will stop being racist. They won't see their own point of view reaffirmed.
Just ban the flag and all racists will stop being racist. They won't see their own point of view reaffirmed.
No one is "banning" flags. Anyone is free to own or display a flag on their person or property. The App Store is Apple's private property and they're well within their rights to exclude anything they wish.
Also, no one is claiming that removal of confederate flags will cure society of racism. What it will do is reduce the public display of a prominent reminder of slavery and racism that black people are continuously confronted with in some southern states. It also sends the message that public display of racist symbols is not socially acceptable in the US.
Yes, guilty until proven innocent is definitely a good idea. /s
"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to criminal law, not to content decisions on a privately owned app store.
No one is "banning" flags. Anyone is free to own or display a flag on their person or property. The App Store is Apple's private property and they're well within their rights to exclude anything they wish.
Also, no one is claiming that removal of confederate flags will cure society of racism. What it will do is reduce the public display of a prominent reminder of slavery and racism that black people are continuously confronted with in some southern states. It also sends the message that public display of racist symbols is not socially acceptable in the US.
Yes the app store is Apples property, but it's a monopoly for iphone apps. And people have invested a lot of time and money in an app. So it should be clear what's allowed and what isn't in first place.
Anyway, I wasn't only talking about the App store only. Clearly this flag has been used for centuries and if somebody feels offended by it it's his problem, not the problem of the flag. It doesn't only stand for slavery. Most nations have had slavery btw. in Africa it was more common than anywhere else. And most nations have fought wars, so somebody could feel offended by it. As long as there are nations and flags and people somebody will always feel offended by something.
It would be better to fight the problems than surrogates.
Yes the app store is Apples property, but it's a monopoly for iphone apps. And people have invested a lot of time and money in an app. So it should be clear what's allowed and what isn't in first place.
Anyway, I wasn't only talking about the App store only. Clearly this flag has been used for centuries and if somebody feels offended by it it's his problem, not the problem of the flag. It doesn't only stand for slavery. Most nations have had slavery btw. in Africa it was more common than anywhere else. And most nations have fought wars, so somebody could feel offended by it. As long as there are nations and flags and people somebody will always feel offended by something.
It would be better to fight the problems than surrogates.
As of March, Apple's share of the US smartphone market was 36.5%. There's no such thing as a monopoly for a specific product line. If you don't like Apple's policies you're free to purchase or develop software for a different smartphone.
The range of content available on the App Store is vast and continuously changing. Many unscrupulous developers routinely attempt to sneak in apps that either flaunt App Store policies or exploit obscure loopholes therein. It's perfectly understandable that Apple's app store policies are always subject to revision. Developers are no more vulnerable to change in Apple's policies than business owners are vulnerable to changes in local, state, and federal laws.
It's ludicrous to suggest that Apple (or the United States) should lower its standards for acceptable conduct to that of the lowest common denominators of global human rights violators. The confederate flag is and always has been primarily a symbol of institutional racism - from slavery, to segregation, to voter ID laws.
You misunderstood the OP. The App Store is the only place one can get iOS apps, and that's the 'monopoly' he/she is referring to.
You misunderstood the OP. The App Store is the only place one can get iOS apps, and that's the 'monopoly' he/she is referring to.
No, I understood the OP, but he was misusing the word "monopoly", which is a legal term. A company who has an actual monopoly in the US is subject to a variety of anti-trust laws that restrict certain business practices. Apple is not subject to any such restrictions.
Now, you can make a case for the fact that many developers have a disproportionate financial dependence on Apple's app store and that any vagueness or ambiguity in their app submission rules presents a business challenge. That's fair and Apple should be encouraged to do a better job of communicating those rules. But this entire discussion has been more about Apple's stance towards confederate flags rather than their app curation practices.
To deny the truth is perhaps the greatest mistake a populace can make. Using your logic the flag of the United States should be banded in England.
Wut?
When exactly were British citizens enslaved, lynched, segregated, or discriminated against in their own country under the shadow of an American flag?
Agree. Enough of the "sky is falling" responses.
The problem is not the Confederate flag. The problem is the fetishization of that flag. After the Civil War it should have been taken down, folded up, and put away. In most cases it was. But it crept back in the hands of dead-enders like the Klan, and well-meaning "patriotic" groups of Confederate descendants. Its continued presence gave it a kind of legitimacy--we got used to seeing it around for both benign and evil intent. It's reappearance as an official emblem occurred in the middle of the last century as a ****-you to the Civil Rights movement by those unreconciled to the final decision rendered by the Civil War.
The outrage about games being taken down is misplaced. It should be reserved for own tolerance of a symbol that exists in public primarily as a symbol for retrograde and thoroughly debunked social agendas. Don't take your anger out on those who are trying to sort through the mess we've allowed to accumulate. Apple, and society, will figure out the best way to put this flag back into its proper place. It may seem a silly exercise to some, but so did figuring out how to deal with generations of unfairness to blacks.
The kid killed nine people under the banner of that battle flag...
First, this cowardly, racist, murderous redneck was 21 years old, so let's top calling him a kid.
Second, stop posting his photos or even citing his name. This is the sort of infamy he was seeking. Let's deny it to him and anyone else who might consider following in his footsteps.
It's justified, if over-reactionary.
Can we please stop using this word incorrectly?
You meant to say "overreacting" not "over-reactionary". You might also use impulsive, hasty, rash, reckless, or ill-considered.
Normally this would just look silly, but in this case, you're using a word to describe Apple that actually describes those who defend the confederate flag and even a racist terrorist who killed innocent people in a church.
Since you don't know me, you should have no reaction. Is murder over an image of Muhammad a new thing? Pretty sure that dates back several centuries.
On a similar note because of one person's insane actions, the Joker has been removed from all Batman movies, comics, video games, and novels. In fact, the PC Police just broke down my door and ripped out all the pages from my old comic books that had the Joker. Sorry, I guess I should be a little more...serious.
Perhaps we should also remove all references to anyone with the names xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Aren't we taking things just a little too far when we're changing video games and history because of one nutcase?
How many people have been killed, harassed, or discriminated against based on the symbolism of a video game character? Multiple studies have shown that violent movies and video games do not inspire violence in real life, and in some cases may even reduce it.
http://nerdist.com/the-most-objective-study-yet-finds-no-link-between-video-games-and-violence/
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13718
As far as your second paragraph goes, we should not give these cowardly murderers any fame by continuing to publish their names and photos.
Here's a link to a relevant article on a gun-friendly site, to make it more palatable for you right-wingers:
http://concealednation.org/2015/06/here-is-why-our-policy-is-to-never-publish-the-names-or-photos-of-mass-shooters/