NationStates

Anti Defense League wrote:

Eahland wrote:That's a lot of projection there.

I've told you this before, and you'll certainly ignore it again, because facts are inconvenient to your narrative, but while the blue saltire on red with the white stars, which is commonly called the Confederate flag, was never a "national" flag of the uprising, it was, in actual fact, the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, which was the primary combat formation of the Confederacy, and so the flag actually flown in battle by Lee's army of traitors. It was used from 1861 until Lee's surrender in 1865 (and has continued in use to this day as a symbol of racism), and so outlasted any of the various short-lived Confederate "national" flags. It's not "the" Confederate flag, but there isn't any "the" Confederate flag. It is one of several Confederate flags, the one that actually flew above many of the traitors who were actually shooting at American soldiers, and it is certainly the most widely recognized symbol of the Confederacy.

My only wish is said "traitors" had got the chance to shoot at more American soldiers; Robert Lewis Dabney was right.

Wasn't sure if this fell under "advocating death" since it's referring to events over 150 years ago, but still doesn't seem kosher.

I'm not sure how one can advocate for death for people....that are already dead and have been for a century or more in most cases.

It's not flaming; no one is being flamed.

It could potentially be construed as trolling in that it's a bit provocative in its support for the Confederacy, especially given that it cites with approval an individual best known today for his support of slavery, and opposition to 'negro suffrage', of extending public education to African Americans, and of allowing emancipated African Americans to teach white children; "if the low grade of intelligence, virtue, and civilization of the African in America, disqualified him for being his own guardian, and if his own true welfare, and that of the community, would be plainly marred by this freedom; then the law decided correctly that the African here has no natural right to his self-control, as to his own labour and locomotion".

However:

A) 'Shoot at' is not quite the same as 'shoot and kill'.

B) I think the principle of historical distance also applies to point A.

C) We are not told what Robert Lewis Dabney was right about, so it's impossible to make a firm judgement on this part of the post.

On this basis, while I think it's a bit provocative, it's not actionable in its current form.

The person is however DOS so...DOS go boom

Ah well. Thanks for looking into it.