Free Speech

Salt Lake City Major League Soccer Team Bans Betsy Ross Flag

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Fox 13 Salt Lake City (Lauren Steinbrecher) reports that fans displaying the "Betsy Ross" flag (the American flag with 13 stars) were told they had to take it down or leave.

Team management apparently confirmed that this was team policy:

"At Real Salt Lake it is our mission to unify our community through soccer and we promote inclusion, diversity and acceptance. It is important that everyone in the community not only feel welcome at our stadiums, but appreciated, respected and valued. Rio Tinto Stadium is reflective of that on match day and we encourage a unifying and welcoming environment to all fans at all of our RSL and Utah Royals FC matches. To be permitted to bring a flag into any of our stadiums is a privilege. Recently, and very controversially as well as surprising to us, the Colonial flag has been adopted as a symbol for hate groups. Any controversial flags or other similar banners or signs with symbols of hatred, divisiveness and/or intolerance whether intentional or otherwise will not be permitted in our stadiums. Period."

– Andy Carroll, Chief Business Officer, Real Salt Lake

Because nothing says "inclusion, diversity and acceptance" like telling people that symbols of their country—historical symbols that have long been used simply as representing the nation, and that only a small fraction of the population uses for their own more specific ideological messaging—are unwelcome. Makes me wish I liked going to soccer games, so I could honestly say I was boycotting that stadium ….

Advertisement

NEXT: Uber and Lyft Offer Drivers a $21 Minimum Wage. California Lawmakers Say It's Not Enough.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I feel the same way. How can I boycott a sport I never had any interest in?

    I guess there’s nothing left to do but go get a Betsy Ross flag bumper sticker for my car.

    1. Isn’t a bit perverse to engage in actions only because you think someone you don’t like or agree with dislikes it?

      1. Owning the libs in one’s own mind is totally worth looking like a bigot.

        1. Only someone with a single-digit IQ would say that flying the Betsy Ross flag makes one a bigot. Why do you hate women like Betsy Ross, hater?

          1. You were being sarcastic and I was being dumb. Never mind.

            1. “the Colonial flag has been adopted as a symbol for hate groups. ”

              No, that was an accusation by a bigoted racist washed up football player.

      2. You answered the “are you an idiot?” question with a quickness.

        1. You think it’s normal and healthy to go do something you had no intention of doing until you found out it would make someone else (hopefully!?) upset? Good on ya.

          1. But you’re doing the same thing.

            You didn’t initially ask Mr. Hook this question: isn’t a bit perverse to engage in actions only because you think someone you don’t like or agree with dislikes it? because you were genuinely curious about his reasoning. No, you thought Mr. Hook’s initiative (getting a Betsy Ross bumper sticker to annoy SJWs) was stupid. So, you took the ‘action’ of asking him a passive-aggressive rhetorical question for the sole reason that you ‘don’t like’ the fact the Mr. Hook ‘dislikes’ SJW disdain of Betsy Ross.

            At least Mr. Hook isn’t annoyingly passive aggressive with his intentions. So, like you (also) said, Queen Amalthea– ‘Good on ya,’ Mr. Hook!

            1. A tiny fringe “adopting” it is stupid and un-noticible and ignorable.

              A large group buying into that crap, disasterbation-style, wrecking an iconic symbol, is indeed an attack on freedom, so to hell with them. The mere suggestion defending this flag is because you are a bigot on the side of the tiny Nazi f4inge group is also an outrageous insult. Of the “let’s step outside, pal” variety.

            2. So when George, who was planning to break up with his girlfriend, now says he’s not going to because one of his friends expects him too and he wants to spite that friend, Jerry pointing out that’s odd and unhealthy is doing the ‘same thing?’

              Yeah, that logic totally checks out.

            3. The same thing would be Queen getting a bumper sticker that says Brett Bellmore is an idiot. Which of course you would agree is fucking stupid. So stupid that Brett is not, in fact, going to get a Betsy Ross bumper sticker, either. Just acknowledge that gratuitously being a dickhead is unhealthy, and move on.

              Also Mr. Hook isn’t the one who Queen was responding to, initially. And if you read the room correctly, you’d see that Mr. Hook is in fact making fun of people who would get the bumper sticker.

      3. “If they give your ruled paper, write the other way.”
        by Juan Ramón Jiménez used as a motto by Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451

        It’s called protest.

        1. But no one is ‘giving’ anyone ruled paper, they’re saying they didn’t care and were’nt involved in the first place, but now would like to be just out of, well, some kind of spite.

          1. Like my wife buying a copy of Rusdie’s Satanic Verses over the fatwah?

            1. Je suis Charlie?

      4. Pushing back against authoritarian insanity with gestures that take little to no effort or time to implement is never a waste of time or effort.

      5. I understand your point. Why go out of your way to offend someone? However, maybe it is justified if the likely “offendees” are using their “taking offense” as a means of controlling others. We can’t keep limiting our behavior just to keep someone from taking unreasonable offense. Because in the long run you are rewarding them for being hyper sensitive and they will keep looking for things to get offended about. I can’t wear a red Ohio State Buckeyes cap when I am outside of Columbus because someone across the street may think it is a red MAGA cap.

        1. – “Why go out of your way to offend someone?”

          Well, if they’re going so far out of *their* way to *be* offended, it seems only polite to help them out a little.

      6. Yes. This is called progressive politics.

    2. So here is an idea:

      Have organizations like the Proud Boys start flying the flags of Nike and Real Salt Lake at their events.

      Since all the right-thinking people know that Proud Boys are Nazis, the flags of Nike and similar organizations will automatically become Nazi symbols.

      Billions of dollars worth of branding destroyed in one afternoon…

      1. I believe you have identified the magic bullet that will enable right-wingers to reverse the half-century tide of the culture war and stop being stomped by the elitist liberal-libertarian mainstream in the battle to shape American progress.

        1. Why would we want to reverse the half century of the culture war?

          In the last half century we’ve gone from 7 states with shall issue or constitutional carry laws, to 42 states now, including 16 with constitutional carry. That’s what winning looks like.

        2. You haven’t won jack. If not for the third world Hispanics your people have flooded America with, America is still a conservative nation with traditional values.

      2. Surely no one will realize the ruse.

        1. They aren’t recognizing the ruse of a tiny group adopting this flag so a larger group can play outrage theater.

          1. So you think the racists are being insincere. Evidence?

            If anything, your plot will just make for more marketing wokeness from the targeted companies, and therefore more sincere but impotent outrage from the right.

            1. You want it to be impotent? I’m sure many conservatives would love to respond with force

              1. I’d listen to him. There’s no greater authority on insincerity here than Sarcastr0.

                1. Your siding with RWH’s pathetic threats, Wuz, or just so eager to get a weak shot at me you don’t bother to read what you’re defending?

                  1. Wuz sounds like he might be among the ‘one of these days, you elites are going to go to far and guys like me are going to grab our guns’ clingers.

                  2. – “Your siding with RWH’s pathetic threats”

                    I didn’t side with anything.

                    Or was that just a tongue-in-cheek attempt to prove me right?

      3. LMAO.
        Similar to the way gangs used the Oakland Raiders “colors”?

        1. What color has not been used by some gang somewhere?

      4. Excellent stratagem. They should wave the Nike banner and chant, “No domestic terrorism! Just do it!”
        And that should, indeed, do it.

      5. Nike has a flag?

        1. It’s 4 swooshes connected in a fan-like pattern. Very similar to the mid-century German flag.

          1. Wow. Do they have nuclear capability, too?

  2. George orwell – 1984 “double Speak”

    Definition – Diversity and inclusion of all – Only the Opinions and thought of progressives are allowed

    1. Did you know Orwell was, well, a ‘progressive’ (heck, he was worse, he was a full blown SOCIALIST!)?

        1. Well, to use an analogy, a conservative Baptist railing against Episcopalians using a quote by an avowed atheist attacking Episcopalians seems a bit odd, doesn’t it?

          1. Not if it’s a good quote. Some people prefer to focus on the ideas themselves rather than the identity of the person making the argument.

            1. Because that’s what progressive socialists do.

              1. I use quotes when someone else expressed an idea better than I could. Then, attribution is appropriate so that you don’t give the false impression that you are so well spoken.

            2. If it’s just the idea expressed then why bother with quoting anyone? Just say it yourself, or if you can’t say it as well no need to attribute it. No, clearly the quoter is trying to ‘trade’ on the quoted to some degree.

              1. Or maybe it’s because attributing quotes is generally considered to be polite.

                Attributing quotes also required in many disciplines (including academics and the law – two disciplines especially well represented here) which makes it a good habit for some.

                1. “Attributing quotes also required in many disciplines (including academics and the law – two disciplines especially well represented here) which makes it a good habit for some.”

                  This is true, but it’s also often an “appeal to authority” fallacy, which is something to be avoided in debate.

              2. “Just say it yourself, or if you can’t say it as well no need to attribute it.”

                As Rossami has pointed out, it’s generally considered poor form to use someone’s quotes without attribution.

      1. And so is Tulsi Gabbard, but you wouldn’t know it from her coverage.

      2. Orwell was a “liberal” (i.e., a “liberty-loving person,” new concept for today’s woke) who believed in freedom of expression. He had very little in common with today’s left.

        1. That’s where I draw the line between liberals and leftists. Liberals will stand up for freedom of speech, leftists want to shut down any speech they disagree with.

          1. Liberals are good people who are misguided. Leftists are evil totalitarians who should be gassed to preserve the West

            1. As Real Salt Lake is a small-market team, one of the team’s biggest challenges is bringing in enough revenue to remain competitive. Opening Rio Tinto Stadium in October 2008 provided a significant revenue boost to the soccer team soccer team. Real Salt Lake went from 4,000 season-ticket holders before October 2008, to 8,750 in 2012, 10,000 in 2013, and 15,000+ in 2016.

      3. George Orwell was a critic of the excesses of socialism, too.

        When he was involved in the Spanish Civil War as an English Socialist against Franco’s Fascists (he was wounded by actual fascists), he found he was targeted by the Sovet-backed Communists.

        He made IngSoc (a corruption of English Socialism) the party of Big Brother for a reason.

      4. So what? He made some good points against people like you. Can we ban atheists from using any quotes or arguments made earlier by any thinker who happened to be religious?

  3. Banning flags is all the rage in the MLS. MLS has also banned Portland Timbers and Seattle Sounders fans from waving Iron Front (some kind of hipster antifa symbol) flags.

    1. What I find amusing about the Iron Front flag is that the Iron Front fought against Antifa (as well as against the Nazis).

      The Brown Shirts… we know them.
      Iron Front… more central than the others.
      Antifa… the paramilitary wing of the Communist party.

  4. symbols of their country—historical symbols that have long been used simply as representing the nation, and that only a small fraction of the population uses for their own more specific ideological messaging—are unwelcome.

    I’d like to see some numbers on this.

    I don’t recall seeing the Betsy Ross flag broadly used as a general symbol of the country.

    1. “I don’t recall seeing the Betsy Ross flag broadly used as a general symbol of the country.”

      Were you not paying attention in 1777?

    2. Certainly not in circles that were more into treading on flags than “Don’t tread on me!”.

    3. Really? You didn’t learn about this in elementary school? You’ve never been to any historical reenactment or museum? You’ve never gone to a single flag ceremony that included historical flags? I’ve gone to hundreds of such events with groups as diverse as the Boy Scouts, Elks Clubs, Rotaries, a wide variety of veterans organizations, Revolutionary-era reenactors all up and down the east coast and museums from Washington DC to Buffalo. I am sure there are many more – those are just my personal experience.

      How about some numbers the other way? Can you point to any real “hate groups” that have adopted the Betsy Ross flag as their emblem? (Without, that is, redefining “hate group” as merely “anyone who disagrees with me”.) How many actual people are in that group?

      1. Are you arguing with Colin Kaepernick?

        1. Citing Kaepernick, who was blackballed for his speech, in an outrage pile about a flag banned, is the chef’s kiss.

          1. Colin Kaepernick wasn’t blackballed. That’s why he accepted a nuisance payment to settle his lawsuit.

            He’s just not good enough as a quarterback to be worth the controversy.

            1. That’s laughable, we’re talking about a league that still employs Nathan Peterman for goodness sakes.

              As a football fan you obviously are knowledgeable about golf!

              1. “That’s laughable, we’re talking about a league that still employs Nathan Peterman for goodness sakes.”

                What controversies has Nathan Peterman been a part of?

                1. Wait a minute, I could have sworn you just said Kaepernick wasn’t blacklisted based on an assessment of his quarterback talent (or lack thereof). [checks record]. Hmm, yep, you did! So, when I point out that there are hired NFL quarterbacks of obviously less talent you’d like to shift the topic back to…controversy (which is what I said in the first place got Kaepernick blackballed)? Awesome sauce.

                  1. My position has never changed. Allow me to quote myself. “He’s just not good enough as a quarterback to be worth the controversy.” That’s not being blackballed.

                    Not that he was very good by 2016. He couldn’t beat out Blaine Gabbert, Blaine Gabbert, for the starting spot in training camp, and that was before he started “protesting.”

                    1. He was better than Blaine Gabbert in 2016. He is better than Blaine Gabbert, today. His entire career he’s been better than Blaine Gabbert, in Blaine Gabbert’s entire career. Coepernick’s worst season is better than Gabbert’s best season. And he played very well in 2016, when he started.

                      Stat lines:

                      60.2 completion percentage, 2.3 interception %, 6.9 yards per attempt

                      59.2 completion percentage, 1.2 interception %, 6.8 yards per attempt

                      59.8 completion percentage, 5.1 interception %, 6.8 yards per attempt

                      One of these is Colin Kaepernick in 2016. The other two are Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Off the top of your head, can you tell me which ones?

                    2. GOD I CANNOT SPELL THIS MAN’S NAME.

                    3. “And he played very well in 2016, when he started.”

                      Did he now? Seems like we need to compare his numbers in 2016 to Tom Brady’s and Peyton Manning’s numbers in 2016 if we are going to evaluate his performance rather than comparing single season numbers to career numbers. That will be a little difficult for Peyton Manning, seeing as how he didn’t play in 2016, so I guess we’re stuck with Tom Brady.

                      67.4 completion percentage (to Kaepernick’s 59.2), 2 interceptions (to Kaepernick’s 4) in the same number of games, 8.2 yards per attempt (to Kaepernick’s 6.8).

                      No Kaepernick clearly isn’t Tom Brady. And, with all the changes to the modern game, a 60 percent completion percentage is pretty much the minimum acceptable.

                      “He was better than Blaine Gabbert in 2016.”

                      Not according to ESPN’s QBR. Gabbert beat him out 53.7 to 49.5. Neither is good. ESPN ranked him as the 23rd (out of 30 qualifying QBs) that season, behind the likes of Trevor Seimian and Brock Osweiler.

                  2. Colin K – talented or not talented enough at this point in his career to play, his attitude and behavior tends to destroy team chemistry –
                    Team chemistry on a team sport is kinda important.

                    He is not the first player to get cut because he makes everyone else on the team worse.

                    1. The issues were more with the customers than his teammates.

                      But lest we forget, Kaepernick voluntarily opted out of his contract with the 49ers in search of a better deal.

                    2. his attitude and behavior tends to destroy team chemistry

                      And you know this how?

                    3. “The issues were more with the customers than his teammates.”

                      So when you said he wan’t ‘good enough of a quarterback’ you meant he wasn’t good at, what, the PR tasks of quarterbacking? Sure, that makes sense….

                    4. “So when you said he wan’t ‘good enough of a quarterback’ you meant he wasn’t good at, what, the PR tasks of quarterbacking? Sure, that makes sense….’

                      Yes, it actually does. Because the reason they play the games is to make money, and the PR tasks of quarterbacking are an important part of that. You do realize that PR is an official part of the job description, right?

                      But that’s not what I siad, and that’s not the only way he was a not very good quarterback. He also was a not very good quarterback on the field. Thus, not being able to beat out Blaine Gabbert in training camp before beginning his “protest.”

                      So when you take a QB who’s not good at the PR aspects of the job, not particularly good at the on-field aspects of the job, opted out of his contract, and is looking for a big contract, it’s not at all surprising that he didn’t find any suitors.

                    5. “He also was a not very good quarterback on the field.”

                      How many conference championship games did you play in?

                    6. Colin Kaepernick and I played in the same number of conference championship games after the 2016 season.

                    7. Were you blackballed, too?

                    8. Much like with Colin Kaepernick, NFL teams don’t think my salary demands are commiserate with my expected contributions.

                  3. Before he lost his starting job Kaepernick had a record that season of ONE win and TEN losses.

                    Doesn’t matter how much talent you have if you’re a LOSER.

                    1. according to Kèo bóng đá, In many democratic countries, the same thing is banned

                  4. 23rd best makes him better than any quarterback on at least 8 teams.

                2. “we’re talking about a league that still employs Nathan Peterman”

                  If he was willing to pay for Nathan Peterman’s salary, he probably would be.

                  Every report I have read he wants star QB money, after all he opted out of a 14.5 million year with the 49ers.

              2. Peterman is a backup. Kaepernick has explicitly refused to be signed as a backup, and will only accept a starting position. That’s why he’s not in the league. The whole controversy with him started when he was sitting on the bench during the anthem because he was having a little temper tantrum about losing the starting job. It was only when he was called out for his immaturity that he said that no, he wasn’t being a temperamental little bitch, he was actually sitting “in protest.”

          2. Don’t forget Colin Kaepernick had a contract for 14 million a year and opted out of his contract to pursue unemployment. That was after losing his starting position to Blaine Gabbert.

      2. I’m not talking about museum displays or history books or the like.

        I’m talking about public displays by individuals, the way people wave the flag at rallies or on the Fourth of July, etc.

        How about some numbers the other way? Can you point to any real “hate groups” that have adopted the Betsy Ross flag as their emblem?

        I have no idea what the numbers are. Apparently some hate groups – not “hate groups,” there are real ones – use it. EV’s came is that they are a very small fraction of those who display the flag, so since he is the one making the claim I ask him back it up.

        That’s the way these things usually work – you state something as a fact it’s legitimate for me to ask for evidence, rather than just accepting it, without providing countervailing evidence.

        1. Well, I can say that I’ve been seeing it around since at least the late 70’s. Of course, I grew up in rural Michigan, like I said above, more “Don’t tread on me!” circles than “trample on the flag” circles.

          Have you considered that maybe you haven’t been seeing it because you don’t associate with people who are into American flags as something other than floor mats?

        2. Prove that some hate groups use it. I roll to disbelieve.

        3. If the Betsy Ross Flag had any connotation of White Supremacy why would Obama prominently display 2 huge Betsy Ross flags in the backdrop to his second inauguration?

          Let’s put it this way, it was commonly used enough for Nike to want to put it on their sneakers, and any racist connotation was so obscure the marketing department had no inkling, and Obama’s inauguration committee thought it would look great on National TV while Obama was celebrating the beginning of his second term.

          The truth is that it’s a bogus controversy like the OK/”White Power” sign ginned up by people that want to see racism everywhere so they make up racist associations to commonly seen things so they can say “see racists are everywhere”, even at Obama’s inauguration.

          1. “If the Betsy Ross Flag had any connotation of White Supremacy why would Obama prominently display 2 huge Betsy Ross flags in the backdrop to his second inauguration?”

            Hold on. Are you claiming that Obama was omniscient, or that he was a member of white supremacist groups? If not, the answer to your question is fairly obvious… he didn’t know.

            1. No, the answer is that no one knew because it was not anything but a quaint historic symbol.

              1. Maybe.

                Not worth getting emotional over, that’s for sure.

          2. Because Barack Obama; who you’ll remember did not nationalize the healthcare industry, confiscate all personally owned firearms, ban the production of carbon dioxide, or execute all of his political opponents; was, by current standards, a white supremacist.

    4. “I don’t recall seeing the Betsy Ross flag broadly used as a general symbol of the country.”

      Obama flew the flag at his inauguration.

      Anyone who complains the flag is racist is a hypocritical, partisan hack.

      https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/07/04/opinion/04stephensWeb1/merlin_157437693_733d5f03-742e-400f-b307-ef17e64620e0-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

      1. The complete idiocy and ignorance of Bernard11 have been exposed by this picture, and I hope that he will retire from commenting for a decent interval. We’ll see.

        1. Nothing has been exposed, you moron. Can you read?

          I said I hadn’t seen it broadly used. I still haven’t, that picture of a formal display of historical flags notwithstanding.

          1. Neonazis using it is hardly “broadly used”, either. Nobody even heard of this, or cared because it was so small.

            However, disasterbating leftists shitting all over it as if it were, is a deliberate broad use, and for political reasons.

    5. I do, but I’m old enough to remember the bicentennial. I’ve seen it since in local celebrations of, for example, the battle of Lexington and Concord, though I haven’t been recently. It used to be prominent among the souvenirs sold by American History Museums, too.

      My personal bet is that this can all be traced back to some anti-Leftist troll who sold the idea that the Betsy Ross flag was being used by White Supremacists as a joke, without realizing that neither the Progressive Left nor the White Supremacists have a sense of humor.

      1. One has to wonder if this neonazi “resurgence” is anything of the sort, given it is used as rallying point by the left in an attempt to paint everyone who doesn’t vote for the democrat as one.

        I assume it will die down once Trump is out of office. But maybe not, if it continues with a modicum of success.

        1. Yes, they are all deep state crisis actors, especially the ones that kill people.

    6. Guess you missed President Obama’s inaugurations.
      Two big Betsy Ross flags along with other USA flags.

    7. Bernard,
      You live in a bubble. It was quite common in New England.
      The religious bigots that populate SLC are rather crazy.

      1. He’s not religious. He’s a reform “Jew” who thinks showing up to shul twice a year and hosting a Seder the one non treif meal a year he eats makes him religious. These liberal Jews are leftists first, America haters second, and Jews third

        1. I had a talk with an Orthodox Rabbi yesterday whosaid something similar.

          1. He accused American reform Jews of being anti-American?

    8. Are presidential inaugurations enough? Because there’s traditionally a couple of Betsy Ross flags hanging in the background during presidential inaugurations.

      1. I was curious so I did google and duckduckgo image searches for e.g. ‘carter inauguration speech’. It does indeed seem to be a tradition, albeit maybe a recent one. I found photos of the B.R. flag for inaugurations of one or the other of the Bushes, Obama, Reagan, and Clinton.

        I found suitable[1] photos for Taft, T. Roosevelt, Cleveland, Garfield, and Eisenhower that didn’t seem to have the B.R. flag featured, although some of those were cropped a bit at the edges.

        As an aside, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen pics of the Aryan Nations types displaying the modern U.S. flag even more often than the B.R. flag – obviously we should forbid displaying the U.S. flag altogether.

        [1]By suitable, I mean a photo of the lectern wide enough to likely show whatever ornamentation was in the background. Most photos are zoomed in on the speaker, so you can’t see the background.

        1. “It does indeed seem to be a tradition, albeit maybe a recent one.”

          If it goes all the way back to Carter, I’m not sure it qualifies as a recent tradition anymore.

  5. “Because nothing says “inclusion, diversity and acceptance” like telling people that symbols of their country—historical symbols that have long been used simply as representing the nation, and that only a small fraction of the population uses for their own more specific ideological messaging—are unwelcome. ”

    Well said.

    1. Indeed, Kate Smiths rendition of God Bless America banned; Betsy Ross Flag banned. The hatred of our country by the Press and the Left is disgusting.

      1. “Kate Smiths rendition of God Bless America banned; Betsy Ross Flag banned. The hatred of our country by the Press[…]”

        The Press banned Kate Smith? Where? When?

        1. Do you honestly think the Press banned her rendition? Try again, reading comprehension is a positive thing. After all, back in the 1920’s , something, something. I realize the New York Yankees are a minor league club in a small town somewhere but, are you that unaware? https://sports.yahoo.com/yankees-stopped-playing-kate-smiths-god-bless-america-after-investigating-racist-song-lyrics-183637203.html

          1. “Do you honestly think the Press banned her rendition?”

            No, hence the incredulity, and the not believing your claim otherwise.

            “I realize the New York Yankees are a minor league club in a small town somewhere”

            They don’t play football at all, so who cares what they do?

        2. After all, Joe Biden; the Leading contender for the Democrat nomination said this in 2008. BTW, it’s not a gaffe; it’s Joe’s world-view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDNbC-MzzLw

  6. Is there some epidemic of Utah sports fans flying this flag? Heck, Utah wasn’t even a state when that flag was in use.

    “Virtue signaling” is an overused term, but this is a soccer team engaging in virtue signaling.

    1. Does anything speak more of ‘virtue signaling’ than posting about the practices of a sporting league you don’t follow and then stating ‘Makes me wish I liked going to [that sporting league events], so I could honestly say I was boycotting th[em]!’

    2. Sorry, Dilan.

      The very term “virtue signaling” is silly. It presumes to read the mind of the “signaler” and determine that they are not doing whatever it is for the stated reason.

      Of course people do that, often, but the charge needs support. Do you even know anyone in the management of the team?

      1. – “The very term “virtue signaling” is silly. It presumes to read the mind of the “signaler” and determine that they are not doing whatever it is for the stated reason.”

        One does not need to read minds in order to make a reasonable assessment of likely intent. One need only not have just fallen of the proverbial turnip truck.

    3. “Virtue signaling” is indeed overused. But don’t listen to the terrible people trying to police your speech. Use whatever term you want for that sort of shallow, ignorant cowardice.

    4. “’Virtue signaling’ is an overused term, but this is a soccer team engaging in virtue signaling.”

      Possibly. Or they really, REALLY don’t want to be dragged into claims that they support or welcome support from white supremacists (I’m guessing the stadium isn’t exactly filled with diverse faces.)

  7. The stadium was built on land owned by an agency of the State of Utah, and most likely was built with public funds at least in part. Might this affect the analysis of their right to prohibit signs?

    1. No, see Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982). A private entity’s decisions aren’t covered by the First Amendment just because that entity has received government subsidies.

      1. Thanks. I will point that out the next time a leftist says that a catholic charity should be forced to adopt children out to gay “married” couples

        1. Catholic charities are getting children from… where, exactly?

          1. Well, since last time I looked the government wasn’t manufacturing children, I’d assume from private individuals.

            1. They’re stealing kids????

    2. ” Might this affect the analysis of their right to prohibit signs?”

      The team pays rent on game days. American football teams were subsidized by the government (from the military recruiting budget) but I don’t think they subsidize MLS. (though I could be wrong.)

  8. This is what happens when “Progressives” are granted power.

    1. Who granted them power, in this instance?

    2. But it’s OK when conservatives do it?

      1. When have conservatives banned American flags?

        1. This rule came to you from Salt Lake City, not San Francisco.

          1. You mean that city that allows home delivers of marijuana but bans US Postal delivery of vaping products?

    3. You meant to write ‘when private owners of property establish rules for conduct on said property’ no doubt?

      1. Are you attempting to make the argument that the people responsible for this decision aren’t progressives or that they don’t have power?

        1. They don’t have any power over anyone who isn’t trying to enter the soccer stadium on game day.

    4. They reveal they were totalitarians all along.

    5. They’re evil people who, if not eradicated, will kill us

      1. Or laugh at you. Definitely one or the other.

  9. The Betsy Ross flag racist? Yeah, sure. OK.

    1. Aren’t you late for the “White Lives Matter (Although We’re Colorblind)” rally?

      1. It’s the “All lives matter” rally, dude. Get it right.

        What?!? Saying, “All lives matter” is racist?!? Yeah, OK.

      2. Aren’t you late to get a lobotomy? Oh wait, that was last month.

    2. “The Betsy Ross flag racist?”

      The actual claim is that it is used by racist people to signal to other racist people. Not quite the same.

      1. Claim, no, accusation by race-baiters.

        1. Whatever. Either way, it’s a debate a soccer team might reasonably want to keep outside their stadium, at the risk of alienating fans of obsolete American flags.

  10. This is an outrage. It’s the slippery slope of the radical, liberal progressives attempting to tear down and erase everything patriotic. Next it will be to remove the US flag from schools.

    By the way, the so-called Betsy Ross flag with a fouled anchor in the center of the stars is the U.S. Yacht Ensign.

    “This flag was established by Congress in 1848 as a signal to be used by all licensed yachts. It is a variant of the U.S. Navy “small boat flag” which used 13 stars because of the relatively small size of the flag. The Navy used this 13 star flag until 1916, but the Yacht Ensign with the anchor continues in use today. ”

    I fly one on my sail boat.

    1. Yes, this is an outrage. Without the flag, how could we be patriotic?

      1. Sarco,
        The point is that small minded religious bigots in SLC have let a fringe group set their agenda.

        1. Which is relevant to the 8000 or so people in the stadium, and, for some reason, a bunch of random people on the Internet.

        2. Doesn’t make ThePublius’s drama about muh patriotic any less laughable.

    2. So, you’re outraged because they won’t let you sail your sailboat into the stadium in Salt Lake City?

    3. Sarcastr0 and James Pollock – missing the point, or deliberately obtuse? Hard to tell. But then, no one cares.

      1. Just take the flag off your boat before you sail to the stadium, and you’ll be waved right in.

  11. I doubt most Americans are in the market for pointers of “inclusion, diversity, and acceptance” from clingers offering cherry-picked, partisan swipes.

    1. “I doubt most Americans are in the market for pointers of “inclusion, diversity, and acceptance” from clingers offering cherry-picked, partisan swipes.”

      You are correct – few people are interest in hearing from clingers demanding inclusion from groups that practice bigotry and are anti – inclusion and who require group think – which is pretty much the entire progressive movement.

    2. “I doubt most Americans are in the market for pointers of “inclusion, diversity, and acceptance” from clingers offering cherry-picked, partisan swipes.”

      No, all decent people get their pointers of “inclusion, diversity, and acceptance” from Major League Soccer, of course.

      Yeah, OK.

    3. crawl back in your bigotted hole….

      1. Get an education. Start with standard English, focusing on spelling. Avoid Trump capitalization and Tea Party grammar.

  12. “the Colonial flag has been adopted as a symbol for hate groups.”

    I don’t know what flag they’re referring to. The flag supposedly sewn by Betsy Ross, and flown in the War of Independence, certainly shouldn’t be called a *Colonial* flag.

    1. Just because it was adopted by the Colonies as their flag…

      1. The British and the Loyalists were the colonialists, or so I would have thought, but please feel free to use whatever terminology you please.

        1. It says here that the so-called Betsy Ross flag “was used from 14 June 1777 to 1 May 1795.”

          Let’s see, the United States ceased to be colonies on July 4, 1776, so that would mean it’s not a colonial flag.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_flags_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Flag_of_the_United_States_(1777-1795).svg

          1. “Let’s see, the United States ceased to be colonies on July 4, 1776”

            Come back when you pass history class, and know when the War of Independence ended.

            1. I actually predicted that, faced with a choice between agreeing with me or adopting the loyalist Tory position, you’d do the latter.

              It seems I was correct.

              1. “It seems I was correct.”

                It always seems like that in your head, but the other way outside it. Curious.

                1. Nailing your colors to the mast, eh?

                  Checking the Constitution, I find:

                  “done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth”

                  Instead of waiting for you to do the math, which might take some time, I’ll just cut to the chase – this clause makes 1776 the year the United States became independent. Not 1783 as you risibly assert.

                  Apparently you think your very manhood depends on your sticking to your ridiculous position, but why don’t you save yourself further embarrassment and find some other way to compensate for your inadequacies.

                  1. “you think your very manhood depends on your sticking to your ridiculous position”

                    I can’t match this level of psychological projection.

                    Any other insecurities you’d like to project onto me?

                    1. No, *you’re* projecting!

                      See how easy that is?

                      If you’re secure in your manhood, why do you persist in defending this absurd position – although to be fair in your last several posts you haven’t even attempted to do so. It seems you’re aware by now that, apart from Tory loyalists, nobody considers the U. S. after 1776 as a collection of colonies.

                      If you have evidence for your position, or some explanation for your error other than anxiety over the size of your junk, then you haven’t given any.

                    2. “See how easy that is?”

                      I figured it had to be easy, since it’s so big a piece of your debate toolkit.

                    3. I can’t help notice that you’ve stopped defending the proposition you set out to defend – namely, that the early U. S. flag known as the “Betsy Ross flag” was also a colonial flag.

                      It’s almost as if you realize you’ve been completely refuted, so you’re reduced to changing the subject.

  13. One of twelve historic flags on the back of this t-shirt I wore yesterday:
    https://gadsdenandculpeper.com/collections/made-in-usa-shirts-apparel/products/copy-of-history-of-defiance-t-shirt-black
    I have one in green, another in black. Purchased and worn for the sole purpose of triggering SJWs.

    1. Stars and bars was also defiance, but not so fashionable today.

  14. Hypocrisy/Short Memory/??. There were oversized “Betsy Ross Flags” as the backdrop for the Obama inauguration podium events. Has the flag changed in such a short period of time or is this the latest social media craze that is historically inaccurate and vapid?

    1. Colin Kaepernick says it, the cadres follow. To do otherwise would be racist.

      1. If your conspiracy theory has somehow come up with Colin Kaepernick at the top of the pyramid calling the shots, it needs some rejiggering.

  15. The OP and 53 comments to date, by quick glance (sorry if I missed someone), don’t seem to get the point. Soccer, worldwide, has a problem of teams being adopted by fans for racist, xenophobic, and other sectarian purposes in an ugly way: think Red Star Belgrade, Beitar Jerusalem, Glasgow Rangers for example. So the discussion really needs to be whether a club like Real Salt Lake City is justified to be concerned about having its brand cooped for divisive sectarian purposes? We don’t have such a tradition in major league sports. Probably best to maintain a non-sectarian tradition in MLS as well. [In part, it’s what the backlash to the “take a knee” movement was all about.]

    1. Thank God you’re here, man. This Utah couple are obviously “the tip of the iceberg,” the beginning of a “slippery slope “ into fascism. Lucky you spotted them in time, before America turned into Croatia or something.

      1. Thank goodness Republicans seem to be going all-in on riding their bigotry and backwardness to political irrelevance in a nation whose electorate becomes less hospitable to right-wing ignorance and intolerance — less white, less rural, less bigoted, less religious — each day.

        1. Your language towards others defines yourself as a bigoted racist clinger. Those who feel a certain way always attribute that to others, to feel superior. Racists call others racist to cover for their own thoughts and behavior. BTW, are you impersonating a cleric for presumed moral authority?

          1. “Racists call others racist to cover for their own thoughts and behavior.”

            So, in calling Kirkland a racist, you’re saying you’re a racist, too?

          2. When it became clear that limitless privilege for religious claims was becoming a popular position, I associated with the Congregation Of Exalted Reason to promote equal opportunity.

            “Racists call others racist”

            I gather you claim immunity from that otherwise unqualified assessment?

            1. Why do you hate the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you hater?

              1. You have to concede it seems kind of made-up.

        2. Why are liberal Democrat cities so dangerous and oppressive to minorities? The same Progressives who accuse their political opponents of racism for wanting a regulated immigration system have no problem abusing immigrants in their Deep Blue cities.

          Liberal Democrat New York City’s Taxi and Limousine Commission Wrongly Accused Hundreds of Being Illegal Cabbies in Past Year

          Quote:
          In the past year and a half, hundreds of people going about their daily routines had their cars seized because TLC inspectors suspected they were unlicensed cabbies. … Of those, 176 drivers had their cases dismissed after proving that their passengers were family members, friends or neighbors.

          They included a retired MTA worker dropping off his girlfriend at her job at the Queens racino, an Astoria dad taking his teenage daughter and her friend to school and a Brooklyn retiree who volunteers at a convent giving nuns a lift to JFK Airport in his minivan.

          While the drivers proved their innocence, they still had their vehicles temporarily seized and either went without a car for weeks while they awaited their hearing at the tribunal in Long Island City or shelled out hefty sums to get it back from the impound lot.

          Last month, a black car salesman and his wife, who is biracial, sued the TLC for wrongfully seizing their car. They also accused TLC inspectors of racial profiling.

          “When I went to court, 95 percent of the people there were immigrants and minorities, just hardworking people trying to make a living,” Brunson said.

          “I wasn’t surprised. Knowing the way this system works, it didn’t surprise me.”

          1. Notably, Liberal Democrat is modifying New York City…Cute, but not everyone in New York City is super liberal.

    2. Aren’t Americans supposed to imitate those sophisticated Europeans? If Europeans have racist soccer hooliganism, shouldn’t America have it too?

      /sarc

      1. All advanced democracies except the US have racist soccer hooliganism. When are we going to catch up?

    3. ” Soccer, worldwide, has a problem of teams being adopted by fans for racist, xenophobic, and other sectarian purposes in an ugly way”

      Gangs in California took to wearing Raiders gear, when the Raiders were in L.A.

      1. They’ll do so again when the tRaiders move to Vegas

  16. Nothing says tolerance like liberal intolerance!

  17. Andy Carroll’s virtue signal is stuck on left turn.

    At an anti-Trump rally, antifa beat an anti-Trump protester for carrying an American flag.

    To hell with these self-righteous pukes.

  18. I’d like you to defend a veteran who walks into the stadium wearing his grandfather’s uniform from the 45th Infantry Division from 1937. . . Go ahead, look it up. This post is that tone-deaf.

  19. Seems peculiar that EV, an avowed anti-prescriptivist on language use, turns into a prescriptivist on flag use. Why would EV not understand that symbols, including flags, can at times (like words) take on whatever meanings those who adopt the symbols intend to express with them. If the flag in this case is being deliberately used to signal hate or racism by hateful racists, then congratulations to Andy Carroll for being astute enough to recognize it and put a stop to it.

    By the way, how much of the outrage expressed here is motivated by discontent that some folks mobilize to oppose hate and racism? Why be against that?

    1. Nobody says that’s not the case. This is an issue of “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.”

      The correct answer is to deny this Betsy Ross flag is a symbol of evil because some idiotic fringe neonazis say so, rather than play idiotic disasterbation games that buy into it, accepting it out of hand.

      1. If the people who want to display the Betsy Ross flag do so in defiance of the racists who have claimed it for themselves—to take it back from the bigots—good on them. But the vast majority seem more outraged by those critical of the racists and their co-option of the flag. They’re not angry at the racists, but at the liberals for … opposing racists and their symbols? If a person now adores this flag and wants to defiantly fly it because it’ll piss off the liberals, not because it’ll deny racists a claim on an American flag, they’ve made a seriously weird preference for bigots.

        1. “the racists who have claimed it for themselves—to take it back from the bigots”

          Is there any actual evidence that the racists have claimed it for themselves to the extent that someone needs to take it back? Nike was just about to sell a shoe with the Betsy Ross flag, which somehow went all the way through design, production, and distribution without anyone realizing it was a racists symbol (except for Colin Kaepernick, of course). That just seems unlikely to me.

          1. The racists certainly seek to do it, and why it should be resisted. Why give the assholes a claim on an American symbol? Which is the point here when people decide to champion it, not to deny the racists’ aim, but to own the libs. It says the racists’ claim is legitimate while the criticism isn’t.

            1. Except there AREN’T any “racists” using it as a symbol, fuckwit.

            2. “The racists certainly seek to do it”

              Where?

              1. Sigh. If you’re going to play ignorant, don’t expect me to play along.

                1. I’m not playing ignorant. I’ve never seen any racists flying the Betsy Ross flag. And, even if there are, how a minuscule fraction of the country uses the flag doesn’t change its meaning.

                  1. Then banning it from a soccer stadium doesn’t change its meaning, either.

                    Everybody wins!

                    1. Nobody said banning it from a soccer stadium changed its meaning. They said it was stupid.

                    2. ” They said it was stupid.”

                      And got REALLY emotional about it.

                    3. Well yeah, because conservatives re being told we can’t have our symbols, our heroes, our history or culture. We have to submit to the pro-homosexual, anti-white Zeitgeist, or else. If you expect us to not be upset by that, you’re either stupid or evil.

                    4. “conservatives re being told we can’t have our symbols, our heroes, our history or culture.”

                      Boooo-hoooo!

                      ” We have to submit to the pro-homosexual, anti-white Zeitgeist”

                      Yeah. That’s what Salt Lake City is known for, all right.

        2. Speaking of racism, bigotry and symbolism, why are liberal Democrat cities so dangerous and oppressive to minorities?

          Chicago, which has not had a Republican mayor since 1931:

          NBC News: ‘Crook County’ Author: Judicial System Stacked Against Blacks, Latinos

          Quote:
          Van Cleve documents how minority defendants in Chicago were referred to as “Mopes,” a term with the same derogatory intent as the N-word. Fabricated police reports were overlooked.

          Rather than a case of rogue officers and “a few bad apples,” Van Cleve presents a searing picture of systemic and deeply entrenched racism – including among defense attorneys. Those within the system who try to fight its defects often risk retaliation and isolation.

          Minority defendants, she writes, were often viewed as objects with no humanity. Van Cleve shows how even members of the public, such as defendants’ family members, were routinely disrespected and subjected to humiliation and abuse.

    2. Not so peculiar to those familiar with the Volokh Conspiracy’s established approach to attempting to promote movement conservatism.

    3. This is an excellent point, and well made.

      Lament what the flag used to symbolize; realize what it’s coming to symbolize. That’s the disease; this is a symptom.

      1. So you’re saying you have the poison *and* the remedy?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mej5wS7viw

    4. Because that organizing principle is false, a false accusation used to advance their true agenda of totalitarian control.

    5. Stephen, You’ve got it exactly backwards.

      “If the flag in this case is being deliberately used to signal hate or racism”

      It’s not. From the article:

      “”He asked me—he’s like, ‘So what’s the purpose of the flag?'” Randolf recounted. “I was like, ‘Well ’cause, we love America.'””

      Yours is the prescriptivist position. Leftists are dictating to people what various symbols mean, and declaring them unacceptable and taking away the rights of people to use the symbols, even though the meaning the leftists are dictating is totally contrary to the meaning those people actually intend. The Confederate flag, the US flag, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Mt Rushmore, etc etc. Quite a dramatic 180 degree turn from the ACLU defending free speech at Skokie.

      1. M L, one thing movement conservatives may have to get used to is opponents who refuse to buy the, “My actions are fine, because my motives are pure,” argument. Racism is not some invisible defect of the heart. An invisible defect of the heart may turn out to be bigotry. But bigotry kept private is, at worst, a private sin. There are virtuous bigots, believe it or not, who know they are bigoted, don’t believe they can help it, and try not to act on it. My hat is off to them. We need more such conscientious citizens as those.

        But racism is different, and to remain socially relevant, movement conservatism will have to learn the difference. Racism is about the “ism” on the end of the word. That “ism” signifies systematizing publicly what would otherwise be private bigotry.

        One implication? Racists don’t get to say, “My heart is pure, you can’t judge me,” because anti-racists are not judging racists for inner qualities that can’t be measured. They are judging racists for the public systematization of bigotry they can see the racists practicing, even while their blessed racist hearts are pure as snow, and purged of all bigotry.

        Anti-racists have a right to do that. It is a public virtue to do it, because racism is always a public vice. Even racism in pursuit of noble motives, and practiced by racists with the public interest uppermost in mind, is a public vice.

        Maybe movement conservatives could get used to being judged on that basis, and accept it without complaining. The effort of doing it would at least help any anti-racists among movement conservatives notice that they have a problem with some of the others.

        1. “They are judging racists for the public systematization of bigotry they can see the racists practicing”

          What public systematization of bigotry was the Randolf family practicing by bringing the Betsy Ross flag to a soccer game?

        2. I assure you we movement conservatives are already used to people like you saying, in effect, “I get to decide what your motives are, so stop trying to correct me about them.”

          1. Brett, is that a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said, or have you missed the point. I said your motives don’t count, and I don’t care what they are (admittedly not quite as succinctly). Racism is not about motives, it is about venturing into public life to build, or at least advocate, malign systems which work to disadvantage disfavored groups. Screw the motives. Don’t build or advocate those systems, and nobody can call you a racist.

            1. What public systematization of bigotry was the Randolf family practicing by bringing the Betsy Ross flag to a soccer game?

              1. “What public systematization of bigotry was the Randolf family practicing by bringing the Betsy Ross flag to a soccer game?”

                Blocking the view of people seated behind them?

            2. “Racism is not about motives, it is about venturing into public life to build, or at least advocate, malign systems which work to disadvantage disfavored groups. Screw the motives. Don’t build or advocate those systems, and nobody can call you a racist.”

              So, it’s more a matter of, “Fall in line or I’m calling you a racist, and I don’t care what’s in your heart, just that you obey me.”?

              1. Sure Brett, if what you are doing or advocating is racism—meaning organizing society to disadvantage disfavored groups. Of course I have no power to compel obedience. I just have a hope that if enough folks shun you and correct you, you will get the message.

                1. “organizing society to disadvantage disfavored groups”

                  Racists are disfavorrd. So working against racists is racist.

                  Remarkable twisted reasoning.

                2. What public systematization of bigotry was the Randolf family practicing by bringing the Betsy Ross flag to a soccer game?

        3. Stephen Lathrop,

          Yes, I’m very familiar with the position, if I’m understanding you correctly, that any viewpoint, policy preference or attitude can be condemned as racist, if one can reasonably assume it is the same view that would be held by one of those elusive backwoods Klansmen who are outnumbered by New York Times pieces profiling them. Example: the proposition that immigration should be limited to a number reasonably calculated to bring the greatest benefit to the average citizen. That’s exactly the kind of thing that one of those dozens of Nazis might think, so it must be wrong and open borders it is.

          You may have to get used to us disagreeing with you on this.

          1. M L, that is not at all what Klansmen would think. They would think that any number of non-white, non-Christian immigrants is unacceptable. They want a white, Christian society, structured to exclude others, which is racist. If you join them in advocating that, or take actions selected to further that aim, then you are a racist.

            I suggest Trump has shown by sufficient proofs that he acts as a racist on immigration. The actual proof of his racism, however, is not to be found so much in his border policies, as it is in his use of expressed racial hostility to organize the electorate. Do you agree with me that Trump is a racist?

            1. “I suggest Trump has shown by sufficient proofs that he acts as a racist on immigration.”

              Stephen, please cite one thing that supports this allegation, that is not one of Sarcastro’s Mother Jones made-up quotes.

              Wanting to limit immigrants to those whose skills and habits are likely to enhance the well-being of the country is not racist. Wanting secure borders is not racist. Calling MS13 gang members “animals” is not racist. Being willing to call Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists is not racist. His statements in Charlottesville were not racist.

              1. I love watching our vestigial bigots declare that are they not bigots, that their political playmates are not bigots, that they are colorblind, and that bigotry has been conquered. These cowards don’t want to be known as bigots anymore. They know they have lost. That’s substantial progress in 50 or 60 years.

                1. You don’t even have a fake Mother Jones quote for me? How disappointing.

            2. “that is not at all what Klansmen would think. They would think that any number of non-white, non-Christian immigrants is unacceptable. They want a white, Christian society, structured to exclude others, which is racist. If you join them in advocating that, or take actions selected to further that aim, then you are a racist.”

              Of course I don’t advocate for that. Is this even a genuine comment? You probably know what I mean but are playing dumb. Any sort of rational view on immigration, for example, is maligned as racist in a calculated political ploy, because as a relative matter compared to the open borders pushers, the average low information person may accept that the one side of the issue is the “racist” side and so be manipulated into false guilt and so on (white racist only that is, forget the other 80% or whatever of people in the world). The US is the least racist country in the world, and the most generous and open in every respect. It’s the only one where we’re all just Americans, regardless of skin color or whatever.

              In point of fact though you’re correct these actual racist Klansmen, who through the entire country could probably fit on a single bus or two, are not anywhere near the likes of Trump, the President who calls for immigrants to come here “in the largest numbers ever” in addition to a merit-based system and other immigration reforms.

          2. ” I’m very familiar with the position, if I’m understanding you correctly, that any viewpoint, policy preference or attitude can be condemned as racist[…]”

            If being called a racist bothers you, stop doing and saying racist things. If you want to continue doing and saying racist things, being known publicly as a racist is the price of doing so. (Yes, it is possible that, even if you DO stop saying racist things, someone may dredge up the racist things you said in the past, and sometimes that sucks, and some people will continue to condemn you for them long after your tune has changed. Bummer. But something something your own bed, something something sleep in it.)

            1. “If being called a racist bothers you, stop doing and saying racist things. If you want to continue doing and saying racist things,”

              No, this is far too high a price. It’s too high a price, because “doing and saying racist things” in this context means nothing more than “obeying the left and parroting the left’s talking points”. It has nothing to do with actual racism.

              You issue arbitrary commands, and call anybody who doesn’t obey them “racist”, and expect people to care.

              1. Brett, I think you begin to catch the point. Yup, the left says make the test of racism be public action or advocacy to organize society to disadvantage disfavored groups. I suppose, if you did not mind seeming obtuse, you could call that arbitrary, in the way any definition is arbitrary.

                But note, there is nothing at all capricious about that definition. It is the most sensible definition available, and adds the virtue of not seeking to punish mere thoughts. Note also, that making the definition do any work requires notably more social consensus than is available merely from what you call, “the left.” So for both of us, you on the right, and me wherever I am, the question of whether the definition works to improve society depends on a pretty broad segment of society agreeing that it is an improvement, and acting accordingly.

                There is nothing new, noteworthy, or bad, about majority social pressure taking on a mildly compulsory edge. With racist advocacy, it is better it be constrained by social compulsion than by legal prohibition. That means you will remain as free as you want to be to act and speak as a racist, right up to the limit of your tolerance for being shunned.

                As a remedy for an evil as virulent as racism, that is a remarkable policy, at once fair, wise, and modest.

                1. The “shunning” will be carried out by a hypocritical, lying left whose mask of good faith has slipped and those shunned will have no trouble ignoring it. Well, no trouble unless they are hoping to continue to operate in some institution controlled by the left. The pace of the blacklisting will likely pick up speed until the great majority, your Sovereign, decides it has had enough.

                2. “Yup, the left says make the test of racism be public action or advocacy to organize society to disadvantage disfavored groups. ”

                  You know, like putting your thumb and finger together, and claiming it means “OK”, or showing a historical flag of the US. Everyone understands how those organize society to the disadvantage of disfavored groups. [/sarc]

                  I categorically reject your definition of racism. First, because it allows you to declare things utterly unrelated to racism to be expressions of solidarity with racists.

                  But, most of all, because it is a definition designed to only identify a specific subset of racism, while immunizing other racism from attack. It makes it categorically be impossible to be racist toward any group you decline to identify as “disfavored”.

                  So, somebody can publicly shout, “Whitey should die!” and they’re not ‘racist’, because whites aren’t an officially approved ‘disfavored group’. While somebody can say, “We should treat other people without regard to their race, taking no consideration of race into account.” and THEY get labeled racist, because you think it’s disadvantageous to your favorite “disfavored” groups to have to succeed or fail entirely on their own merit.

                  No, I totally reject your definition of “racism”.

                  1. Your definition of racism will die as its proponents are replaced by better Americans.

                  2. Brett, your sense of being aggrieved because of how white males are treated seems to be getting in the way of your ability to evaluate racism. I suggest you ought to treat them as different phenomena, because they are.

                    I join you this far. I think the ideologies and methods of ameliorating racism have been badly mismanaged, much to the detriment of, especially, lower-status white males. I think you and many others have a valid beef with that. I think the nation would be better off if those grievances were redressed too. Which they could be, without in the least backing down from anti-racism.

                    Where you make a mistake is in equating mismanagement of anti-racism with the practice of historical racism. They are not the same practice. They do not spring from the same root. They do not seek like effects. To equate them and call them the same is preposterous—and people who do it inevitably find themselves, at best, teetering along the line which divides useful criticism from virulent racism.

                    Instead, see what happens if you try to keep your grievances about the treatment of white males free of any critique of anti-racism. I suggest that if you think of the problem that way, you will discover that you can find constructive ways to speak to both problems, even if they are not the same ways for each.

                    1. “They are not the same practice.”

                      They’re not necessarily the same practice.

                      “They do not spring from the same root.”

                      Actually, they DO spring from the same root: Thinking that it’s legitimate to treat individuals as mere instances of a group, rather than individuals. That’s the same root whether you’re lynching a black guy without any reason to think he’s guilty except his skin color, or you’re making a white guy the fall guy to help the black guy out. Either way you think you know what you need to know once you’ve seen the guy’s skin, and whether he was personally responsible for anything is irrelevant.

                      That’s the evil behind racism: Treating individuals as instances of a group, not their own individual selves. It’s an evil the civil rights movement has enthusiastically embraced. In fact, people who refuse to commit it today get accused of “racism” by people like you.

                    2. Brett, your radical individualism denies that individuals are at once independent beings and members of diverse groups. It goes farther. It takes the “ism” right off the end of racism, making impossible the notion that racism is something practiced systematically, which seems to be your intent.

                      Your radical individualism even stops time, turning everything into an instantaneous snapshot of the treatment of one individual at one moment. In short, you are defining racism right out of existence. Under your definition, NOTHING qualifies as racism.

                      By denying the notion of disfavored groups, you assert that racism is impossible now, and never existed ever.

                    3. I don’t deny that there are, (Context dependent!) “disfavored groups”. I deny that membership or non-membership in one ought to dictate how you treat specific individuals.

                      A dirt farmer in Appalachia is no more favored by virtue of pale skin, than Kanye West is disfavored by virtue of dark skin. People are individuals, with individual life histories, virtues and wrongs. I didn’t direct Rosa Parks to the back of the bus, Barak Obama has more recent slave owning ancestors than I do.

                      If you think it’s right to disadvantage somebody just because their skin is pale, in order to hand some advantage to somebody else just because their skin isn’t, you’re a racist. And that’s so no matter how good you feel about your motives. Because racism isn’t about whether you feel good about your discrimination. It’s about the discrimination itself.

                    4. And by the way, Brett, you seem to want to take a pass on my challenge to consider what you think of as anti-white racism as being instead something else—namely mismanagement of policies intended to ameliorate racism. Isn’t it clear to you, for instance, that the notion of “diversity,” got far out of hand, to the disadvantage of low-status white males in particular? But you don’t seem to want to take that up. Why? Would conceding that too much undermine your arguments that the left are the real racists?

                    5. Why should I think of it as something other than what it is, just because you want to feel good about doing it? You’re using a tendentious definition of “racism” to spare your own side being identified for what they are.

                      The left aren’t “the” real racists, because there are racists who aren’t on the left. But they’re the racists today who get to enforce their racism with government coercion. And that IS an important difference.

                3. “organize society to disadvantage disfavored groups”

                  Pedophiles are disfavored.
                  Murderers are disfavored.
                  Rapists are disfavored.

                  Society should disadvantage them.

                  Terrible arbitrary definition.

                  1. BigT, signing in to join in a chorus of pretend stupidity from movement conservatives? Got any examples of folks suggesting opposition to pedophiles, etc., is racist? Why be obtuse on purpose?

              2. Mind pointing to where I said anything about “obeying the left” or “parroting the left’s talking points”? I don’t recall saying anything about these, and you didn’t quote me saying anything about these, so it appears that these are details supplied by you.

                “You […] call anybody who doesn’t obey them ‘racist’”

                Exactly, except for the minor detail that I didn’t call anybody a racist. I do, however, reserve the right to call racists “racist”.

                1. I really don’t believe you’re this stupid, James. It’s a pose.

                  The left is always telling people what they can say and do.

                  Don’t wave that flag.
                  Pretend that guy is a girl.
                  Censor what we censor, or we’ll get your IT services cut off.
                  Don’t use the words we object to. Read our minds for the complete list.
                  Don’t research topics where we don’t want answers.
                  Forget we said that.
                  Pretend everybody there is a Nazi, or you’re a Nazi.

                  Don’t disagree, don’t disobey, or you’re a monster, and we hunt monsters. We’ll dox you, we’ll get you fired, get you deplatformed, hit you with a cement ‘milkshake’, sue you into poverty.

                  You’re all about it, too. Telling people what they can say, what they can do, or they get cast out of polite society, like somebody put you in charge of that decision.

                  You just keep pushing, and think it’s an outrage anybody pushes back.

                  1. “I really don’t believe you’re this stupid, James. It’s a pose.”

                    Whereas, I do believe you truly believe the stupid things you write.

                    “The left is always telling people what they can say and do. ”

                    That’s their problem.

                    “You’re all about it, too. Telling people what they can say, what they can do, or they get cast out of polite society, like somebody put you in charge of that decision.”

                    You… may be inserting just a skoche of this, really just the tiniest amount, entirely on your own. Which is YOUR problem.

        4. Seems to me so-called “anti-racists” are some of the biggest racists out there.

        5. Stephen

          “one thing movement conservatives may have to get used to is opponents who refuse to buy the, “My actions are fine, because my motives are pure,” argument. ”

          Exactly like I just said, the actions of the ACLU in 1978 are now deemed racist by today’s leftists.

      2. “I was like, ‘Well ’cause, we love America.’”

        Yeah? Then why not fly the American flag rather than a defunct flag that solely represents the original 13 colonies/states? Is there something wrong with the actual American flag that this 242 year old version is preferred by Totally Not Racists everywhere?

    6. Lathrop: By the way, how much of the outrage expressed here is motivated by discontent that some folks mobilize to oppose hate and racism? Why be against that?

      Ferguson, Missouri, an overwhelmingly black and Democratic city:

      Washington Post: Ferguson shows how a police force can turn into a plundering ‘collection agency’

      Quote:
      The amount of revenue siphoned through citations rose 56 percent between 2011 and 2014 — from $1.4 million to $2.3 million — which netted the city a tidy tribute. So when the chief of police reported that his team had “beat our next biggest month in the last four years” in revenue collection, the city manager had one reaction.

      “Wonderful!” he said.

      1. How are you so bad at this?

  20. I don’t think MLS should be doing anything to limit the people who come to watch their games.

    1. The people who DO care about MLS seem to care a great deal.

  21. Buy out the stadium for one game, and give out the tickets free to everyone who brings a Betsy Ross flag.

  22. This reminds me of right-wing defenses of the Confederate flag.

    Still wondering why modern, educated, decent America has been moving away from conservative preferences throughout our lifetimes?

    1. Noble and principled defence by conservatives of a symbol embraced by racists? Check.

      Angry retorts of “no, you’re the racist” to critics of racists and their conservative defenders? Check.

      Embrace of the symbol by self-professed non-racist conservatives so as to … preserve the republic from the liberal conspiracy or something? Check.

      1. Liberal Democrat NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio Continues the Marijuana Arrests He Called ‘Unjust and Wrong’

        Quote:
        Low-level marijuana possession arrests have disastrous consequences for individuals and their families. These arrests limit one’s ability to qualify for student financial aid and undermine one’s ability to find stable housing and good jobs. What’s more, recent studies demonstrate clear racial bias in arrests for low‐level possession—despite roughly equal usage rates. This policy is unjust and wrong.

        Yet that unjust policy continues under De Blasio, and its burdens continue to fall overwhelmingly on blacks and Latinos, who accounted for 86 percent of arrestees in the first eight months of this year.

      1. Try to await your replacement with some dignity.

    2. The Confederate flag is attacked not because of anything to do with racism, but because it stands for the right to self-government, secession, and independence — the very antithesis of the object of the globalist totalitarians.

      1. Self-government?

        You really are deluded.

        Did you know that slaves were the majority of the population in both MS and SC in 1860, and were upwards of 40% in some of the other states?

        Where was their self-government, their “consent of the government?”

        Your comment is ridiculous.

        1. But what does that have to do with the colonial flag flown by many in the original colonies on the 4th of July.?

          1. Take it up with M.L., who’s the one who dragged the Confederate flag into this.

              1. True enough, didn’t scroll up enough to find it.

                But you could have left it lying there, and chose to pick it up.

                Is this a good time to point out that the flag of the Confederacy isn’t recognized as such by most people? Or is that too far off-track?

                1. You’re right about that. People are generally clueless that there are differences between the various Confederate flags, the CFB, the B&S, etc

        2. “Where was their self-government, their “consent of the government?”

          Well, they were barred from voting, or even being a citizen, by a decision of the United States Supreme Court so I’m not sure you can blame the Confederacy for that one.

          1. You can blame the Confederacy for having a Constitution that was more restrictive to self-government and independence than the Union one, as it’s main departure was that it barred its states from banning slavery.

            Point is, ML is Lost Causing and deserves all the mockery for trying to hide white supremacy under a bushel.

            1. I don’t think I would fully agree with “Lost Cause” as you style it but the nuanced truth is very much hidden today. I’ve nothing whatever to do with “white supremacy” and if you knew me you would know that, but that’s irrelevant because this disgusting allegation is almost never used in good faith, it’s just a political cudgel.

              1. So long as you argue the Confederate Flag stands for independence, you’re protestations will ring pretty hollow.

                1. “So long as you argue the Confederate Flag stands for independence, you’re protestations will ring pretty hollow.”

                  Sarcastro, are you a prescriptivist or a descriptivist?

                  1. I’m not a prescriptivist. But that doesn’t let you off the hook for the ahistorical case you’re trying to make.

                    1. Well, if you’re not a prescriptivist, then you are going to have to admit that the Confederate Flag stands for the spirit of independence, merely because that’s how it is understood and intended by most who use it today.

                      Of course, you can ALSO say that the Confederate Flag stands for racism, and I will NOT disagree with you, because all this means is that some people perceive it that way.

                      The 19th century history of the matter is technically a separate issue but it is related and informative. And on this issue, I’m not making any ahistorical case at all. Go ahead and try to argue it.

                    2. It’s a case one can make. Doesn’t mean you made it. Certainly your mixing it with Lost Cause rhetoric isn’t doing you any favors.

                      Like the Dukes of Hazard legit didn’t mean no harm. But nowadays that wouldn’t fly. It’s a smaller nation than it once was, idiosyncratic local denotations are harder to come by. If you use the flag now, at best you know who you’re offending and you don’t care.

                    3. “Certainly your mixing it with Lost Cause rhetoric isn’t doing you any favors.”

                      See, this is exactly the sort of mentally deficient thought process that I am talking about in this entire discussion. You are claiming the ability to totally condemn, without any reason, anything that “sounds like” or uses similar “rhetoric” to your chosen target of disapproval.

                      An analogy to this would be dismissing any argument in favor of “socialism” solely because the Nazis and Hitler embraced that label. Or dismissing concern about white racism because that’s the same “rhetoric” of some violent black supremacists. It’s nonsense.

                      The truth about this history is more nuanced and in the middle, but you’re unable to entertain that nuance because of your extremism which dictates that any deviation from full Lincolnian nationalism must be the enemy.

                      “Like the Dukes of Hazard legit didn’t mean no harm. But nowadays that wouldn’t fly.”

                      Right. That’s my point. Ideological agitators with ulterior purposes and affinity for thought and speech control are trying to dictate what “won’t fly,” and their useful idiots go along by adopting the perceptions they are told to adopt. And so they disregard subjective good intentions in favor of authoritarian prescriptivism and acrimonious condemnation, and disregard historical nuance and truth in favor of ideological revisionism. Both sides can do this. But the fact that “idiosyncratic local denotations are harder to come by” isn’t the cause of or reason behind this, it’s the goal! Because the fundamental doctrine behind it is this: centralization.

                    4. Your dang near quoting out of the textbook, I don’t need to do any work since others well before me already have better than I could. I posted a link.

                      If you want engagement on your Confederacy whitewashing-while-you-claim-it’s-just-Union-truthtelling, stick with the safe space specific to you, Brett, RWH, m_k, and maybe that angry jimmy guy.

                      Many things are in the middle. The Confederacy isn’t, despite the attempts by many with agendas to make it so.

                      The Dukes of Hazard have become problematic not because of agitators but because of the Internet making more voices heard.

                      BTW, ‘Ideological agitators with ulterior purposes and affinity for thought and speech control’ is right out of the segregationists’ playbook: https://www.crmvet.org/nars/peter1.htm

                      The Internet bringing subgroups out into the open isn’t a leftist plot, it’s social reaction to new media.

                    5. ” then you are going to have to admit that the Confederate Flag stands for the spirit of independence, merely because that’s how it is understood and intended by most who use it today.”

                      That’s a non-sequitur.
                      Symbols are interpreted differently by different people.

                    6. “Symbols are interpreted differently by different people.”

                      Exactly my point . . . .

            2. The truth is the Confederacy left the Union because of slavery.

              The truth is also that they got dragged back in, not because of slavery, but to establish that the US was a roach motel: States could check in, but never check out.

              So, yes, that fight was both about slavery, and about self-determination, with each side on the wrong side of one of those issues.

              1. Right. Secession was in part about slavery, in part about tariffs and taxes, in part about cultural differences and independence, and in part about legal reasons or concern with the rule of law as the Constitution was being thrashed (the Constitutional concerns were mostly related to slavery and so can be fairly associated as such, although technically distinct in that one may conceivably have a concern for ignoring the law and subverting the Constitution separate from the underlying normative view). Slavery was the single biggest factor, but it wasn’t close to being the only factor. Only 6 out of the 11 seceding states gave it as the reason for secession in their proclamations. Keep in mind also that the reasons or motivations of politicians and those in power are frequently different from the sentiments of the average common man (who, in the case of the South at this time, for example, didn’t own slaves).

                Secession was one thing, but the war was another thing. They are two different events. Lincoln did not have to start a war, but he wanted to and he did.

                Eight days before Sumter, Lincoln’s own Secretary of State William Seward wrote, “It would be contrary to the spirit of the American Government to use armed force to subjugate the South. If the people of the South want to stay out of the Union, if they desire independence, let them have it.” And again 2 days before Sumter he wrote, “Only a despotic and imperial government can subjugate seceding States.” Seward was right. Lincoln was a tyrant.

                The North had offered the Corwin amendment to enshrine slavery into the Constitution and protect it from any federal intervention. This was an effort to compromise and avoid secession and potential war. Lincoln commented in support of the amendment. The South could have kept slavery if they would only give up on secession, rejoin the Union and pay the taxes. But the South didn’t go for it. Isn’t that strange?

                So Lincoln started the war and like all wars, it was first and foremost about money and power. The South was being oppressed economically by the majority North into paying for an outsized proportion of federal taxes through tariffs. As a typical Northern editorial remarked, if this revenue were not collected by military force, “the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; there shall be no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.” Lincoln likewise made clear that he had no purpose or intent to interfere with slavery and pointed out that he could not lawfully do so, while on the other hand he making clear that he employ all violent military force necessary to collect the controversial taxes. Give me that money!

          2. So did the Confederacy propose to enfranchise the salves, in the interest of self-government?

        3. bernard, Yes there are plenty of sins and gross imperfections to decry, particularly slavery. But your logic applies also the United States when it was founded.

          1. Yes, M L. The United States when founded operated as a racist society, and does to a lesser, but still considerable, extent to this day. That is not a historical breakthrough. Your advocacy on behalf of the Confederacy, however, is racist. Convincing you to suppress it would be a breakthrough, however tiny.

            1. The truth about this history has been suppressed but you will never be able to erase it. There is a wealth of information and historical documents to disprove very prevalent myths, misunderstandings and propaganda. Maybe I’m a contrarian but that is the sort of thing that naturally interests me. Especially when the impetus behind it is in service of the ideology of centralization of government.

              1. The truth about this history has been suppressed but you will never be able to erase it. There is a wealth of information and historical documents to disprove very prevalent myths, misunderstandings and propaganda.

                That’s full Lost Cause. Never go full Lost Cause.

                1. Sarc, Let’s back up here. There are two separate but related topics. First being the use and meaning of symbols, the public and private regulation of their use, and the political discussion surrounding that which in my view is obviously very tactical and part of the broader fundamental conflict among political ideologies.

                  Second, my response to Stephen Lathrop is that advocating an accurate understanding of history is not racist. That is what Stephen calls “advocacy on behalf of the Confederacy” but I’m doing no such thing. Stephen in his own words stated that he would like to suppress this, because he knows that is part of the broader fundamental political conflict. To be clear regarding the Lost Cause, there are many people who get into things like, “the cause was pure as the driven snow,” or historical falsehoods like “slavery had nothing to do with it,” or impossible counterfactuals like “things would be much better if the South had won, or had been allowed to secede peacefully, and slavery would have ended within a few years anyway.” None of that is my thing. But I am interested in the history, the misleading claims on both sides, the misunderstandings and myths, and the broader political conflict which drives all of that.

                  1. There is meaning to what people want a symbol to mean, as well. Trying to argue that the Confederate Flag was fine, and that Lincoln was a warmonger tyrant…that’s got a lot of meaning.

                    You sure as heck are arguing for the Confederacy, by picking up the argument they made against the Union, and have kept on making ever since. Damn near word for word.
                    Yes, some go off into ‘what if Lincoln bought all the slaves’ or whatever. But you’re parroting the foundational claim. Which has been debunked numerous times by numerous sources starting with Frederick Douglas.
                    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/

                    1. First, Lincoln was absolutely a tyrant. If you don’t know the reasons supporting this, then you’re too ignorant of history to have a discussion about it. By the way there is nothing at your link about Frederick Douglas.

                      Second, if by “the Confederate flag was fine” you mean the Confederate secession cause was fine, I’m arguing nothing of the sort. As I stated above, secession was first and foremost about slavery, a horrible thing. The historical context is that the North, and Lincoln, were just as racist. The secession, though, isn’t the same thing as the war. Not at all. And there are actually multiple different flags related to various parts of this history.

                      Read this https://mises.org/wire/civil-war-both-sides-were-wrong

                    2. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

                      Frederick Douglas, Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln. Delivered at the Unveiling of The Freedmen’s Monument in Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C.”

                      Your convenient lens is undone by contemporaneous evaluation of one who should know better than you or I.

                    3. It’s quite a mystery what you think that quote means, because there is nothing in it that contradicts anything I’ve said or thought. I recommend you dig into history by reading a few good books or at least good articles that might tilt away from your preconceptions on these subjects. That’s what I did and just in the last year or two learned about these subjects. I’ve read thousands of “contemporaneous evaluations,” so I know the history. You might be surprised to learn that 1876 doesn’t count as “contemporaneous,” not even close in the argument of those pushing a more ideologically left perspective, because they are forced to downplay and dismiss countless immediately post-1865 writings.

                      Here’s a real contemporaneous evaluation for you.

                      ““The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal it’s desire for economic control of the Southern states.”

                      ― Charles Dickens (yes, that Charles Dickens)

                    4. The Dickens quote is from 1862.

                      Here’s a really fun and quirky one: A guy by the name of Karl Marx (yeah) wrote in 1861:

                      “The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.”

                      I could go on like this for thousands of posts.

                    5. Well, if Dickens and Marx contradict what the actual founders of the Confederacy actually said, then fine.

                      But the doesn’t mean they are right about the conflict, and the Confederate founders wrong.

                    6. The historical context is that the North, and Lincoln, were just as racist.

                      Frederick Douglas sure as heck addresses that bit of claptrap.

                      As for your secession isn’t the same as war, the South wanted and expected war, just read the contemporaneous sources. The South fired the first shots.

                      So Marx was naive about the Civil War and slavery. Welp guess I’d have to give up and go home.

                      You may deny it, but from all you say you are indeed a genuine Lost Causer. Reminds me how you deny being a nativist even as you coyly ask me ‘shouldn’t we prioritize American citizens?’. Dude, your insistence goes against your posts. Sometimes in the same post.

                      Funny how Lost Cause Confederate apologia and nativism go hand-in hand so often…

                    7. You are both clueless. Dickens and Marx don’t differ from what the founders of the Confederacy said. There are thousands upon thousands of quotes and historical records from Americans as well saying the same thing. As I mentioned many times, the primary reason, though not the only reason, for secession, was slavery. The war, on the other hand, is a different story. The South preferred to secede peacefully. Many in the North supported that, including Lincoln’s own Secretary of State. But Lincoln wasn’t having it. The North offered the Corwin Amendment to keep slavery, avoid secession, and keep the taxes and the empire. The case for war was made based on this: money from tax revenues, and imperialist nationalism. In the end, Lincoln chose war and started war for these reasons, and only later was the righteous cause of abolition grafted on for political purposes. Lincoln committed many tyrannical acts and war crimes along the way. We all know of the Confederacy’s sins. The false myths are in the lies about the Union cause and the inaccurate views of Lincoln. Read your history.

                      P.S. Sacastro, when will you learn that citizens and natives are not the same thing? America is a country of immigrants. Your ignorance is appalling.

                    8. “The war, on the other hand, is a different story. The South preferred to secede peacefully.”

                      If so, opening fire on Ft. Sumter was a poor way to communicate that.

                      (As to the rest, Jefferson Davis’ speech on why he was leaving the Senate lays out his view on why the South was seceding in some detail, and it boils down to slavery. If e.g. Marx thinks differently, that raises two questions:
                      1)Who is better placed to know, Marx or Davis?
                      2)How often is Marx right about politico-economic topics?)

                    9. Absaroka,

                      “Jefferson Davis’ speech on why he was leaving the Senate lays out his view on why the South was seceding in some detail, and it boils down to slavery. If e.g. Marx thinks differently . . . ”

                      Marx does not think differently! How many times do I have to say it before you get it? The South seceded, in large part, over the issue of slavery. Slavery had absolutely nothing to do, however, with why Lincoln started the war.

                    10. “1)Who is better placed to know, Marx or Davis?
                      2)How often is Marx right about politico-economic topics?”

                      Did you even read the rest of this thread? I included Marx just for fun. Countless American contemporaries say the same thing, from the Confederacy and the Union, and Davis is not in disagreement.

            2. The United States when founded operated as a racist society, and does to a lesser, but still considerable, extent to this day.

              Agreed. And especially so in liberal Democrat cities that are so dangerous and oppressive to minorities.

              Liberal Democrat New York City has arrested and imprisoned thousands of minorities for carrying ordinary pocketknives:

              How a ’50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail

              Quote:
              80 percent of weapons recovered under stop-and-frisk were knives, according to an analysis of the department’s own statistics. And experts say the vast majority of those were likely misclassified as “gravity knives.” Whether deliberate or not, dramatically expanding the definition of an illegal knife has not only landed thousands of innocent people in jail — it also had the effect of making stop-and-frisk appear far more effective than it actually was.

              Fully 86% of those arrested are Black or Hispanic.

              1. I think you’re getting worse at this as you go along, perhaps because you’re getting more partisan.

                Using a Village Voice column criticizing overcriminalization to argue NYC is too liberal.
                Using Ferguson’s police as an example of a liberal failure.

                I guess with you it’s revolution or nothing?

      2. You are a bigot, M L. Why deny it? You would have been happy during the 1960s, when bigots wanted everyone to know that they were bigots. Today, you’re just an unconvincingly closeted bigot.

      3. The Confederate flag stands for treason in service of slavery.

        1. Symbols stand for whatever people perceive them to stand for. Nothing more, nothing less.

          1. Full postmodernism, eh? Convenient!

            Also reductive. Symbols have a shared meaning, that’s part of their function. Otherwise there is no reason why this silly thread about flags is getting so large.

            1. That’s not postmodernism. That’s descriptivism. The reason the thread is getting so large is that there’s also prescriptivists.

              1. Descriptivism taken to that level is indeed postmodernism – the symbol is all in the beholder. Enjoy your Bentham, that’s about as much as it’ll get you.

                Operationally, it’s not going to be purely one or the other, just like language.

                The thread is big because the right is fightin’ mad about the symbolism of this one example of banning a symbol.

  23. When it comes to political fringe groups adopting historical symbols, my position is “fuck ’em. They can’t have it” I’m not giving them any tenancy in my brain.
    I’m having trouble thinking of a reason why I’d want to fly a flag at a soccer game. At best, all I’m doing is obstructing the view of somebody behind me who’d rather see the pitch than the back of my flag. If the team wants to ban flags and banners for this reason, that sounds cool.

    Like most Americans, I don’t care two farts in the wind about soccer, unless I personally know someone actually on the pitch during the game, and maybe not even then. But the people who do are welcome to continue to do so, as it impinges on me not a whit, and the same goes for a club banning flags and banners during game time.

    1. “why I’d want to fly a flag at a soccer game”

      Apparently its a custom in soccer.

      Can’t blame them, gotta do something to keep awake.

      1. “Apparently its a custom in soccer.”

        Apparently, not in Salt Lake City (any more).

        Who cares, other than maybe flag manufacturers and retailers?

  24. I have a great idea. They should ban all US citizens from attending game. Only undocumented residents (or whatever the popular term is these days) should be allowed to attend AND they should be allowed to attend for free. Also, tv viewing of the games should only be allowed for undocumented residents.

  25. The Colonial flag hasn’t been adopted as a symbol for hate groups. A very mentally deficient person named Colin Kaepernick had a bit of brain diarrhea that dribbled out, and the insane leftist conglomeration of big corporations and SJWs lapped it up, and went charging after this latest shiny object in their crusade against American values. The push to demonize Confederate heroes and that flag was never going to stop there and was always really about propaganda and controlling thought and speech.

    1. Just like the push for deviance was never going to stop with “civil unions.”

      1. Get a room, you two.

  26. Heritage not hate – French town capitulates to political correctness (/sarcasm)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mort_aux_Juifs

  27. Why does the Volokh Conspiracy attract so many bigots?

    Other than the movement conservatism, I mean.

    1. I don’t know; what appeals to you about it?

  28. Can’t we just get rid of all the liberal now already?

    1. You’re free to go, if you want.

  29. The irony. The left doesn’t like something so they boycott, the right calls them snowflakes. The right doesn’t like something so they boycott and call the right bigots.

    Yeah we’re making great headway here.

    I’m totally amused by how the left is responding to what amounts to the inanity of banning a flag because a small fringe group of bad people decided to use an US flag as their symbol, instead of pointing out the real bigots of that small fringe group and the corruption of using that flag.

    Also, so many of these posts are a study in fallacious arguments.

    1. No, we’re not making headway here. What you’re watching is the ramp up to a civil war.

      1. Yeah, it should be a real doozy. In my experience, urban liberals are so competent in various skills, life repairing things, growing food, using weapons, cleaning water, and producing energy.

        1. Don’t make the mistake of thinking they don’t have any advantages in this fight.

          Yes, from a physical tactical position, the right has the advantage, being more commonly armed, and living in less dependent parts of the country. But the left has the rather critical advantage of controlling the communications systems, including schooling and the media. These are “soft”, not “hard” advantages, but they’re still advantages. Big ones.

          The longer they can put off the actual war, the better things are for them, because we’re gradually losing the culture, and their domination of communications is growing ever more complete. We’re living under an ever more complete panopticon surveillance system, with more and more computing power to throw at interpreting the flood of data. It’s getting harder and harder to communicate without the left knowing what you have said.

          If they lose, it will be because they’re living in a bubble, and think they’re ready for the hot war before they actually are. Not because their efforts are doomed.

          1. I’m not sure I agree. Once self-reliant conservatives realize that communications are being intercepted, they’ll switch to other forms that cant’ be monitored. It’s happened before, and it’ll happen again.

            Ultimately, the tyranny of the type the left desires requires boots on the ground, and they’re utterly ill-equipped for that, even if they do control communications and education. I don’t think the culture in the heartland will be lost to the point where it can’t fight a war.

            1. “Once self-reliant conservatives realize that communications are being intercepted, they’ll switch to other forms that cant’ be monitored.”

              All you have to do is look at history. The Nazis knew their secure communications were being intercepted and decrypted, so they stopped using them and went on to win the war.

              1. Encryption has changed a great deal since World War II.

                I recommend Signal: a secure messaging app that works seamlessly across Windows, Mac, Android and iOS. Its text messages, voice and video calls cannot be monitored by any government or corporation. And a great feature: disappearing messages that can be set to expire and be deleted automatically after up to a week.

                https://signal.org/download

                Install it and ask your friends, family and associates to use it.

                1. Yeah, but it’s like Gab, in a way: Once the left is doing the intercepts, use of encryption they can’t beat will be viewed as evidence you’re on the other side. It would have to be in almost universal use to work out, if only people who really need to hide something use it, they just draw attention to themselves.

          2. You idiots…you think urban lefties are going to get into a hot war?!?

            We’ll get the FBI, state police, US Marshalls, state militias (and whatever agencies are necessary to fight whatever goofiness you could remotely put out there.

            Oooh you guys are real scary….

            Clowns.

            1. Ya think, huh? The Spanish Civil War was a win for the rural faction, as the closest modern comparison.

              In the U.S. context, it depends on how fast and what the leftists go for, law enforcement isn’t filled with progressive types, just the political appointees at the top in urban areas.

              1. Not to mention that most LEOs are not particularly brave. Yes, they’re quite brave when they can throw flash grenades into a house at 3 a.m. while a kid wanted for selling weed is sleeping inside, and burst into the house with 15 guys wielding MP5s, but otherwise, they seem to be quite cowardly. In a civil war situation, people will be fighting back.

                1. What, precisely, are the clingers prepared to kill and die for in the civil war they fantasize about?

                  Abortion? Insufficient privilege for ostensible Christians? Environmental protection? Dealing with the Muslims, uppity blacks, and radical feminists? Gun laws? Social Security? The war on doobies? Gay marriage? Lack of successful and skilled right-wing comedians, directors, and musicians? Insufficient respect for conservative-controlled campuses in rankings? Immigration?

                  What is it about modern, tolerant, reasoning, successful America that makes some Republicans and conservatives contemplate going “the full LaVoy?”

              2. GCE ended up being a proxy war between socialists and fascists around the world, hardly a great parallel.

                And don’t forget to add in the age disparities in the two cohorts in this case.
                Add in the strong narrative in these fantasies that you lot won’t shoot first on accounta being the heroic good guys.

                The most you can hope for is pathetic racist terrorism like what’s been happening lately.

                1. The Spanish civil war is a fine enough parallel, for what is being discussed, urban vs rural. Read up on how it started before the rest of the world got involved, and it’s spot on for today. Besides, what evidence do you have that the world won’t get involved if there was one, and for the same reasons?

                  What the heck are you talking about, wrt age disparities?

                  Is RWH engaged in cosplay? Maybe, but Antifa isn’t when they firebomb ICE centers, as well as guys that shoot up congressional baseball games. You don’t have to go to far back into the past to see that the left today is like the militia movement of the 90s, with the impatient ones doing a few bombings of abortion mills and gay night clubs.

                  Anyway, his point is fair enough about LEOs. Compare how they reacted in hurricane Katrina and you get an idea how they will react in a real civil war. They are brave enough rescuing others, but not big on endangering themselves on stupid orders.

                  1. The left is like the militia movements of the 1990s? That’s a laugh. Anyhow, how did that end up turning out more wet fart than civil war.

                    In the partisan fight you seem to be envisioning, the demographics with respect to age are quite stark. Fighting-aged folks are not joining the conservative cause in droves these days.

                    The GCE was not a closed system. Do you expect some other countries to give money or material to one side or the other?

                    RWH isn’t even doing cosplay; he’s a sad little man and threatening people on the Internet is proof only that he’s impotently frustrated. His pathetic melodramatic performances here is proof why there won’t be a civil war, and that whatever violence happens has been and will be handled fine by the fattest of cops.

                    That bird sanctuary was your best folks, sorry to say.

                    1. Exactly. The left today is like the 90s militia movement, which died down when W got elected and gun control faded away for almost decade and we were focused on foreign wars. If an democrat wins, expect the same, but if Trump wins reelection, expect it to be like the 2nd term of Clinton with regards to subversive leftist-ism, not unlike the pentagon bombings and so on from the leftists in the 1960s.

                      As for demographics, you may be right, but not for the reason you think. The left keeps importing Hessians by the millions, if you know what I mean.

                      As for who is sadder, I don’t know if it is RWH, who thinks of himself as a biblical patriarch who’s going to see him and his kind through the whole mess (should it start) with his stock of 5.56 or you, who is so utterly blind to what is right in front of your face. Your world is candy coated sugar topping of “good intentions” and you never have taken a bit out of the pro-offered candy to see what’s beneath. The left wants to fundamentally transform this county, and has used those very words, from Obama to the Green New Deal (embraced by all major candidates) to open borders and medicare for all, and they are ruthless enough to use the machinery of the state at their command to crush their opposition. It’s ironically, it is what the right should have done to the commies a generation ago.

                    2. Yeah, Mexicans are the footsoldier of the left. Just like the black was the footsoldier of the Jew?

                      As for your tiresome ‘fundamentally transform means you hate America’ thesis, it’s semantic question begging in service of the same melodrama the right’s been serving since Reagan’s Time for Choosing speech.
                      It’s served you well electorally, but good lord does it seem to make you miserable.

                    3. “The left wants to fundamentally transform this county, ”

                      This country has already been transformed by the liberal-libertarian mainstream alliance. Did you miss the entire culture war?

                      Environmental protection. Treatment of gays. A social safety net. Contraception. Treatment of blacks. The war on doobies. Creationism in science classrooms. Treatment of women. Military service. Treatment of Muslims. Abortion. School prayer. Abusive policing.

                      The culture war’s losers have been getting stomped by science, tolerance, reason, education, modernity, and inclusivity, and whining about it, for more than a half-century. Fundamental transformation — or, as most Americans call it, progress.

                    4. It’s funny, reading Sarc writing; “everything is normal, these aren’t the droids you’re looking for. What’s your problem?” when Rev photobombs a normal discussion to say “yea, Mad_Kalak’s right, we are fundamentally transforming things, what you gonna do about, punk!” which completely contradicts Sarc.

                      Shit, you guys should make a WWE tag team and do an interview for Mean Gene, “Let me tell you something brother!”

                      As for hispanics (not just mexicans silly, it’s South American these days coming over the border) they are the demographic foot soldiers of the left. Since you were saying that older conservatives won’t pick up arms in any potential civil war, I was agreeing that the demographics (may) favored your side, but not for the reason you said. And there you go making it sound like I was using some anti-semitic or racist trope. And you go on and on about “bad faith”.

                    5. Ah. Making RAK the voice of the left generally. With due respect to RAK, they call that ‘nutpicking.’

                      Back to the old replacement thesis. We’ve been over this.

                      Deciding demography is destiny and that immigrants won’t vote like the whites do says quite a bit about what you think about your own philosophy.

                    6. Oh, woe is me. I am getting shamed for pointing out that hispanics vote democrat. Wasn’t there a book that the left was pumping up recently, about a permanent democratic majority due to hispanic immigration. STOP THE PRESSES.

                      btw, hispanics are mostly white.

                      C’mon, it’s funny it was with Rev and you working at cross purposes.

                    7. Your getting shamed for giving up on the Latin vote, and instead doubling down on hostility towards them.

                      Rev and I have different views on faith, tone, and methods, and sometimes on end-states. Doesn’t make either of our posts wrong, any more so than when someone protests it’s only about illegal aliens and then someone like you comes in and says ‘We need to stop all immigration!’

                    8. Ahh yes, Sarcastro, it’s only okay to point out the growing Hispanic population that votes Democrat when it’s done in a celebratory way. It’s bad if you point it out as a reason to halt immigration.

                    9. We’ve “given up” on trying to get the mestizo vote (they’re Indians, not Latins) because they’re largely a low skill, low IQ group that needs free stuff to survive. Could we get white Argentinians the way we got white Cubans? Yes. Can we get 80 IQ Mayans from Guatemala? No.

                    10. ” because they’re largely a low skill, low IQ group”

                      That’s the R wheelhouse. Why don’t you already have these guys wrapped up? They should join you in hating all those darn educational elites with their fancy degrees.

      2. Once again, Krayt, I am asking for data to support EV’s assertion.

        My own observation does not support that it is widely used.

        That it was flown at Obama’s inauguration as part of a display of all historical flags hardly supports it either, despite the various mouth-foaming comments on the matter.

      3. Just to be clear, Brett, you’re advocating for civil war because our society has taken some turns you don’t like, and you’re right in there with RWH, one of the most toxic, bigoted, stupid commenters on the entire Internet?

        1. I don’t see him advocating for a civil war, just discussing what would happen if one did. Look, the term “Cold Civil War” has entered the mainstream conversation such that even normies have heard it. It’s fairly clear to say that we are in one now. Wait until Trump wins reelection, or if he loses, if the left tries to forcibly “buy back” AR-15s and AKs.

          1. It won’t even end with ARs. That’s just a lie propagated to fool stupid people. With the exception of Las Vegas, every recent mass shooting would have been just as effective with a Glock 19.

            1. Of course, the left wants full civilian disarmament. But they will start with the ARs, since the Supreme Court has be to chicken-shit to explicitly protect them like they did handguns.

              1. “Of course, the left wants full civilian disarmament.”

                Of course. Eh… except for the parts of the left who love their weapons as much as you love yours. There’s way more of them than you think.

                Speaking for myself only, I don’t want to take any weapons away from you unless you’re irresponsible with them. Are you irresponsible with firearms?

        2. Ahh, yes, when the left imposes its agenda, it’s a “thing we don’t like,” but when the right imposes ours, it’s “evil, cruel, and fascist.” Got it.

          1. Meh. If the shoe fits…

            1. ^proves point

        3. No, I’m not calling for a civil war. Nobody wins a civil war, if we have one, even if my side “wins” it, the US will be an international backwater for a couple of generations due to the destruction. And that’s if China doesn’t use the opportunity to just remove us from the picture for good.

          But the thing about wars is that if somebody else wants one, you can’t refuse to have one. You only get to decide if you fight back or are rolled over.

          And the left wants one. They want to subjugate everybody to their will, and that IS war. Sure, they’d rather that everybody voluntarily submit, but they show no sign of accepting “No” as an answer to their demands.

          What they did with Gab should be a revelation. They weren’t content to kick people off a platform they owned, they set out to destroy any platform that didn’t join in the censorship. There is no separate peace where the left is concerned, only war or submission.

          1. The left wants civil war, that’s why only the right publishes fanfiction about it nonstop since at least Clinton.

            1. Losing the culture war has made some right-wingers quite cranky.

              But just until they are replaced.

            2. Yeah, you don’t need fiction when you’re doing it in real life.

              1. You often argue there’s liberal agendas behind the actions of many institutions both private and public; that liberalism is threaded through the media, education, higher government, even industry.

                And yet these organizations, all of whom benefit greatly from the status quo, are also working on a civil war agenda?

                Seems like you’re writing some fan fiction of your own.

                1. Again, look at Gab. Maybe you don’t think that’s the stuff of an approaching civil war, but I do. If one side won’t even let the other side have its own institutions, what is left but war or surrender?

                  1. I don’t see it as approaching civil war, because the Internet is a social, and thus a performative, medium.

                    Gab is full of antisemetic yahoos. What kind of civil war would they foment? Not very organized, those types. Though I’ll give you potentially violent, given recent history.

                    As I said, what you see and will continue to see is tragic but ineffectual terrorism.

                    1. IOW, “We’re not really denying the right their own institutions, because the institutions we’re crushing have people on them we don’t like, and so don’t really count.”

                      You’ve moved from, “We’re entitled to censor our own platforms” to, “If a platform has anything on it we’d censor, and they don’t, we’re entitled to destroy it.”

                    2. If the platforms that allow those youtube and facebook ban become alt-right hellholes, maybe that’s not the fault of youtube and facebook.

                      The right isn’t being denied anything, they just whine more when the standards are applied and they are found uncivil/racist/not good for marketing.

                      The right is the ones that ruined Gab. That’s your guys yelling about the Jews and replacement of whites. That’s who Based Dragon and Jacob Wohl and whoever attract.

                      What are you talking about censoring or destroying third party platforms? How is that happening, other than the right’s inability to control itself?

                    3. You really aren’t aware of what was done to Gab? Somehow I doubt that.

                      I think I’ve accurately described the attitude you’re demonstrating here: If a platform doesn’t censor in the same way the left does, it SHOULD be destroyed.

                    4. “You really aren’t aware of what was done to Gab?”

                      I can say that I have no idea what, if anything was done to Gab. Also no interest in learning more about it. YOUR fascination doesn’t translate to everyone else.

                      “If a platform doesn’t censor in the same way the left does, it SHOULD be destroyed.”

                      If you buy into the idea that anything should be censored, (whether by self or by order from outside) you’re going to find at least a tiny bit of overlap in describing what should be censored.

                    5. All I’ve heard is Gab became so toxic it began having trouble with hosting/payment.

                      The toxicity came first, make no mistake.

                      If you’re arguing that private businesses need to associate with everyone in order to preserve freedom of speech, you’re not really into freedom.

                  2. “Maybe you don’t think that’s the stuff of an approaching civil war, but I do. ”

                    There have been people predicting a new civil war just about since the end of the last one. There have been people who were sure their reading of the Bible said the world was about to end, too.
                    There’s a chance that eventually, at some point, one of these people will actually be right. But, the pattern so far…

            3. The left wants America disarmed, and if they try to do that any way other than tiny bite by bite (as they have been thus far) they will get a civil war. It’s what kicked off the shooting in the American Revolution.

              The left also wants religion out of public life by pulling tax free status, and forcing compliance with diversity and LGBT mandates, not to mention going after free speech and freedom of conscious. And yes, I know the right went after commies a generation ago, and are you surprised when people are upset similarly when the shoe is on the other foot?

              The left is actually very lucky that Christianity is a religion founded on individual suffering and persecution, and that Christians are told that they will suffer and be persecuted for their beliefs. This means that if the left persecutes Christians, that they feel they had it coming. This is all covered by Nietzsche when he wrote about Slave Morality btw.

              I have no doubt that if the right were to do equally big things as the left actively wants, you’d get a similar reaction from the left. Imagine if the GOP wasn’t full of cowards and used a legislative majority to strip the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction on abortion and then passed a law defining life as beginning at conception.

              1. No need to assume bad faith – as they say repeatedly, and as the nation seems to agree when surveyed, the left wants America disarmed on accounta all the shootings that have been going on.

                As to your gun control leads to civil war, it’s just more fan fiction.

                Plenty of violent Christians out there. Plenty of uncharitable ones and ones willing to turn a blind eye to the President’s morality.
                I’ve become pretty unimpressed with the performative conservative type of christian these days, whose politics seem to have corrupted their ideals. I don’t expect anything morality-wise is holding them back from anything they might want.

                As for if the right gets really radical, IMO look to Hong Kong for the model of what you’d see, but with a somewhat more ambivalent government.

                1. No need to assume bad faith, bad faith is in evidence. Kirkland’s little charade is broader than just him ya know. As an aside, don’t you get tired of that same cliche you spout?

                  The left want to disarm America , has since the 1960s. Sorry if that’s news to you, but if you can’t acknowledge that reality, then we can’t really have a debate. It’s kinda like a biologist talking to someone who believes in spontaneous generation.

                  1. My preferences — education over ignorance, progress over backwardness, reason over superstition, tolerance over bigotry, science over dogma, inclusivity over insularity, freedom over authoritarianism, progress over pining for illusory good old days — are no charade.

                    These preferences are much broader than me, which explains the culture war’s trajectory.

                  2. “The left want to disarm America ”

                    Parts of the left may want to, but other parts get just as hard for projectile weapons as you do.

                2. Naw, one of my skills is joyful repetition. It’s what makes me such a good teacher.

                  You can cherry pick all sorts of quotes, but the left today through both deed and word don’t want disarmament. It won’t stop the NRA’s persecution narrative, but I know plenty of grassroots lefties that have guns in their home. More that know how to shoot. Heck, I’ve been in the Boy Scouts enough to know .22 and shotgun, though it’s been a while with both.
                  Also black powder, though that’s neither here nor there.

                  1. Your repetition is what makes you *think* you’re a good teacher.

                    Cherry pick quotes? I see. Unlike a good teacher you didn’t bother with original sources, but rather your meta-narrative. The quotes are collection of prominent leftists and democrat politicians publicly calling for massive amounts of gun control. You know, the kind that started the American Revolution. But okay.

                    Now, does the NRA sound shrill? Yes, for two reasons, the first is because there are financial incentives to do, which is why leftists are painting a verbal picture of Trump these days locking Mohammedans up in concentration camps when he’s really been rather moderate. But don’t forget, just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean that they are not out to get you, and make no mistake, the party leaders of the democrats would ban every gun in civilian possession tomorrow if they could.

                    Yes, and your point about leftists in the public (not in office) having guns is well taken, because it is one of the few areas that the right has not lost on the culture war in the past 50 years…because the democrats were the ones who disarmed blacks a generation ago.

                    1. Eh, I got good metrics back in my TA days. Nowadays my leadership seems to think I’m good at explaining things. Are you trying to hurt my feelings? Because what we do on the Internet, it isn’t teaching.

                      I’ve seen those quotes before. It’s cherry picked, both on the individual and individual quote level. I could get just as many quotes from liberals saying they don’t want to ban guns.
                      The paranoid style of American politics has been going on for quite a while. Just because you think they’re out to get you doesn’t mean you’re not deluded. There’s a reason 30% of the GOP thinks Sandy Hook was a hoax put on by deep state crisis actors.

                      Things are changing, there is certainly an appetite for some common sense restriction these days. And maybe I’ll be surprised at how far the Dems go. But the right wing received wisdom doesn’t get me to anywhere other than that the NRA isn’t just shrill, it’s cynical and manipulating politics in a way that has damaged America.

                      The Dems who disarmed blacks back in the day? Which party do you think they are a part of now?

                    2. Just wait to election time, and the same people will be complaining about armed Black Panthers being visible near polling places.

          2. Anyone who denies that the left wants a civil war is stupid or dishonest.

            “Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it. But the temper and folly of our enemies may not leave this in our choice.”

            -Thomas Jefferson

  30. The most ridiculous part of this story is that the Betsy Ross flag has nothing whatsoever to do with Utah.

  31. I see we’re at the Civil War 2 wanking stage of conservative argumentation.

    1. Speaking of clingers preparing for the great and righteous ballistic reckoning . . . how is that ‘Defense Distributed’ guy doing with respect to his quest to arm all right-wingers with undetectable, unregistered, readily transferable, liberal-killing weaponry?

      He must be a billionaire by now, maybe even planning to run for senator or governor in some desolate backwater.

      1. Well, he was doing fairly well for himself and the movement, and in reality, complete civilian disarmament is off the table due to the good word he did.

        But, some 16 year old on a sugar daddy website said she was 18 and he was dumb enough to brag about who he was. Doesn’t matter that the little harlot lied, the way statutory rape works. When she got in trouble with the law, she said (something akin too) “you know who I fucked” to try to plea bargain.

        Anyway, Defense Distributed is still in business, with a new manager. I think you’ll find that this battle station is fully operational for when your pitiful fleet arrives.

        1. Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve created. The power to destroy a planet is insignificant compared to the power of the Force.

Please to post comments