SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Update. It appears the original submission was skewing the facts. From the What You Should Know about EEOC and Shelton D. v. U.S. Postal Service (Gadsden Flag case) on the EEOC (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commision) web site:
What You Should Know about EEOC and Shelton D. v. U.S. Postal Service (Gadsden Flag case)
- This decision addressed only the procedural issue of whether the Complainant's allegations of discrimination should be dismissed or investigated. This decision was not on the merits, did not determine that the Gadsden Flag was racist or discriminatory, and did not ban it.
- Given the procedural nature of this appeal and the fact that no investigative record or evidence had been developed yet, it would have been premature and inappropriate for EEOC to determine, one way or the other, the merits of the U.S. Postal Service's argument that the Gadsden Flag and its slogan do not have any racial connotations whatsoever.
- EEOC's decision simply ordered the agency - the U.S. Postal Service - to investigate the allegations. EEOC's decision made no factual or legal determination on whether discrimination actually occurred.
The original story follows. --martyb]
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined in a preliminary ruling that wearing clothing featuring the Gadsden Flag constitutes legally actionable racial harassment in the workplace. In short, wearing the Gadsden flag while at work can earn you the title of "racist", earn you harassment charges, and cost you your job. The ideological witch hunt started back in 2014 when a black employee at a privately owned company filed a complaint with the EEOC when he saw a co-worker wearing a hat featuring the Gadsden flag and the words "Don't tread on me." The EEOC has decided to side with the over-sensitive employee, despite already admitting that the flag originated in a non-racial context and has been adopted by multiple non-racial political groups, countless companies and more, since it was created.
The ruling is a preliminary ruling and has not yet been made "official" but the preliminary ruling says that you can be charged with "racial harassment." They have not indicated when an "official" ruling will be made and it is ongoing.
Source: American Military News
Better Source: Washington Post
Facts: EEOC
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @08:51PM
Honestly, while I appreciate that flag in historical context, consider patriotism in moderation to be more virtue than vice, and generally fit the idea of "right-wing libertarian" as well as any other pigeonhole, I've never worn it. In my limited experience the people who wear it today are mostly jerks trying to signal their right-winginess to likeminded jerks (or possibly to offend opposite-minded jerks, or maybe both); not liking to think of myself as a jerk, I prefer a more live-and-let-live approach, where I don't hide my political beliefs, but also don't seek badges to advertise them.
But this is ridiculous, and I may be acquiring some Gadsden-flag-spangled apparel to wear in protest of this bullshit.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday August 08 2016, @09:33PM
It's an irrelevant question, whether the flag is racist or not. On one level of analysis, no flag or symbol is inherently racist. We attach meaning to symbols. That particular symbol has become popular among groups of people who are often racist--though they usually cloak their racism in nativist or nationalist language. You can't say for sure if any individual person using that flag holds those views, but it's a matter of probability. It definitely raises the odds. You're simply not paying attention if you think otherwise.
But it's irrelevant. Even if it is racist it's still protected Free Expression. We don't make a distinction between protected speech and hate speech in this country, and wisely so. No one is qualified to make that distinction for anyone else. This used to be the default liberal position and I'm dismayed to see so many friends on the left forget how important it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @10:13PM
We don't make a distinction between protected speech and hate speech in this country, and wisely so.
Um, we do. Please remain calm and contact a lawyer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday August 08 2016, @09:44PM
And I'm going to wear my NSDAP armband! Because of the important role it plays in European history and heritage. I'm really not anti-Semitic. Any Jews this upsets are just looking for special consideration. There's an important principle I think we need to uphold.
Saying the Holocaust must be remembered, is of course a racist position - just like the undoubtable racism contained in the statement "Black Lives Matters".
Now, having said enough, I am off to eat a delicious Irish baby.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by aristarchus on Monday August 08 2016, @11:10PM
JC! Satire will not work on jmorris! At least not satire this subtle! I fear you must use scatology or automobile analogies to get through to him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @11:12PM
Being Buddhist, I'm always a bit dismayed at having to explain that no, this swastika really doesn't have anything to do with the Land of the Hummel Dolls, and that my religious symbols should have to pass muster with someone else.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:44AM
Isn't that version mirrored?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:51AM
Depends on where you go. I've seen several Korean ones that aren't.
This has caused some misunderstandings with people that are only familiar with WWII.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:22AM
Except it does. You may not like the historical uses to which it has been put, but that doesn't erase those uses from history, nor from the public's consciousness or understanding.
You may as well argue that there is only one meaning to the term "hacking", and has nothing to do with illegal activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:19PM
Except it doesn't.
It is beyond ignorant to suppose every swastika is related to WWII, especially when you are looking at something that pre-dates it by a few thousand years.
Unless you buy into the hypothesis that the Nazis developed time-travel.
I mean you don't suppose every German you meet is a Nazi sympathizer do you you?
Get a sense of history.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 09 2016, @02:33PM
In Amerika, history began in 1492. Nothing can possibly predate the discovery of Amerika, and even if it did, it would be irrelevant. In fact, I'm not even sure why we recognize European, Asian, and African nations. Unless of course, we did a regime change, and we like the puppets we left behind. It's all about Amerika. /sarcasm
More seriously, I once held the opinion that the swastika was a uniquely German invention. Then I stumbled over a couple of articles that dealt with ancient symbology. The information didn't really stick, except for the idea that the Nazi's stole the swastika. Which is fitting - they stole most everything else from someone!! Money, art, dental fillings, whatever.
(Score: 2) by arulatas on Tuesday August 09 2016, @02:45PM
Then I guess all crosses must be banned as they were used in the south to intimidate in a racial manner. Is this correct?
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 3, Funny) by ilPapa on Monday August 08 2016, @11:23PM
"It's not a swastika, it's an ancient Hindu symbol for good luck!"
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday August 09 2016, @01:15AM
People's Front of Judea.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @01:44AM
Does this mean we can get the Cross and Star of David banned for white and jewish racism against everybody else?
What if I claim nationalism IS my religion, would the symbology suddenly become ok?
What about if the KKK gets itself authorized as a religious institution? They seem to have all the trappings for it.
What about Black Panther symbology?
There are all sorts of fun rabbitholes we can run down taking this action's consequences to its most (il)logical conclusions.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday August 08 2016, @09:54PM
Yup. I have lived in the deep south pretty much my entire life but have never flown a Confederate Battle Flag. But when the snowflakes started banning it and doubled down by starting to dig up the honored dead I really, really thought about buying one. Because before the message of resistance to government overreach in that flag was muddled with the other messages it represented; But NOW it is clearly a flag of resistance. So is the Gadsden Flag and it is a clearer message so I should get a sign with one to stick next to the Trump MAGA sign.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday August 08 2016, @10:29PM
Careful, Soylentils! You have triggered jmorris again! He is once again raving about "snowflakes". I do not know, but I think some snowflake must have done something terrible to him in the past, perhaps broke his heart, or some other major organ. But I do know that jmorris always brings up snowflakes just before he really loses it.
But NOW it is clearly a flag of resistance. So is the Gadsden Flag and it is a clearer message so I should get a sign with one to stick next to the Trump MAGA sign.
Racist flag of resistance? Sounds on par with "Religious Freedom to Smite the Heathens, Unbelievers, and the Unclean!" And the other poster's point about the Gadsden becoming a covert racist flag gains credence. I mean, if jmorris is almost thinking about flying one because, snowflakes?
next to the Trump MAGGOT sign." This is unclear. What is a Trump Maggot? Make America Great by Guns and Overt Threats? Or just what it says, "Living of the Dead Flesh of the Once Great America?" Resist on, jmorris! I suggest Gadsden underwear. Helps keep people from treading on your junk.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday August 09 2016, @01:11AM
Snowflakes broke his sphincter, with their righteous rods of penetrating justice, thusly undoing the sacred work of the honoured dead.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @01:55AM
There were quite a lot of snowflakes in my driveway year before last. I had to call off work to shovel them aside! Don't doubt the power of millions of individual snowflakes to prevent a vehicle from leaving a driveway. Fortunately, a kind neighbor with a snowblower came to my aid as I was about to collapse from exhaustion at clearing the snowflakes…!
It's a big driveway. Bought a snowblower the next year, haven't had a problem with snowflakes since!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:26AM
Careful with that literal symbol of treason, flying it could legitimately be called sedition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:58PM
Ummmmmmm, No? Seriously, I leave it to you to figure out why you're an idiot. Hint: Read the Constitution; treason is one of the crimes specifically defined therein.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:12PM
So please explain this to me, because I really really don't get it: How are symbols used by a group of people that committed treason seen as a sign of patriotism for the country they committed treason against?
As for them being symbols of resistance, I'll just point out that what they were resisting, and what South Carolina started that whole dust-up in 1861 over, was not a policy that Lincoln had mentioned in his election speeches, nor a law that Lincoln had signed, but their fears about what laws and policies Lincoln might come up with sometime in the future. Lincoln wasn't even president yet when they decided to revolt. It is entirely possible that slavery would have lasted for decades in what became the Confederacy had South Carolina let Lincoln go forward with his stated plan of ending the expansion of slavery westward but leaving it alone where it already existed.
The southerners were very poorly served by their leadership, who convinced them to jump at an imagined threat, commandeered almost everything they had for the war effort including drafting pretty much any man they could get their hands on, picked a hopeless fight against a vastly superior force, and in the end lost far more than they would have had they kept their cool. I am at a loss as to how any of that is cause for celebration.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 09 2016, @02:46PM
"picked a hopeless fight against a vastly superior force,"
Note 1: The South took with them much of the competent military leadership, primarily in the person of Robert E. Lee. The Grand Old Army repeatedly shot itself in the foot, and damned near gave the South it's victory on several occassions. It wasn't until Grant turned Sherman loose on the South that things started favoring the North.
Note 2: The South was hoping for some aid from overseas. Had the recieved military and/or economic aid from France, the war may have ended quite differently. Of course, the Northern navy was busy blockading the South's ports, for that very reason.
Note 3: Man for man, the rebels outfought the Union, until near the end of the war, when everyone was demoralized.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:07PM
The South took with them much of the competent military leadership, primarily in the person of Robert E. Lee. The Grand Old Army repeatedly shot itself in the foot, and damned near gave the South it's victory on several occasions. It wasn't until Grant turned Sherman loose on the South that things started favoring the North.
The South was on the run long before then. Their leadership hoped to drag things out long enough for the North to get tired of the war and settle for peace, but once Grant took Vicksburg and Lee lost his last gasp effort at Gettysburg it was all but over. By then the North's competent generals had risen to the top (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, Thomas, etc.) and the resource advantage of the North made it a foregone conclusion. Any hope a European power would intervene disappeared for good after Gettysburg. The Confederates never advanced much or at all in the West, and had Lincoln fired that idiot McClellan from leading the Army Of The Potomac for good as soon as he screwed up the first time the war might have ended a year or two sooner.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 09 2016, @04:17PM
That helped the South survive in the East. However, they began losing in the west almost immediately, in Missouri, Kentucky, and the Gulf Coast. Lee, for all his skill, could only command one army at a time.
In addition, Lee had numerous flaws as a commander that in the long run spelled doom for the Confederacy. Those flaws were exposed once Stonewall Jackson was killed, because one of Jackson's roles in the Army of Northern Virginia was saving Lee's butt on many occasions. For example, Lee was reluctant to fight defensively even though everything he should have learned early on in the war suggested that defenders had a huge advantage over attackers.
They weren't likely to get it. For example, France had renounced slavery, which would have made supporting the Confederacy really difficult politically. The Brits in particular had internal reasons to oppose the Confederacy, and it didn't help that the Confederates never had the diplomatic infrastructure the Union had throughout the war.
1. Even if that were true, that didn't matter much when the Union could field many more troops.
2. The Union troops were consistently better fed and better equipped than the Confederates, because they had approximately twice the civilian resources to work with and almost all the industrial capacity at the start of the war. For example, USA fairly early on issued repeating rifles to their cavalry and mounted infantry that could fire 20 rounds per minute to the Confederate's 3, giving their units a distinct advantage.
Another major advantage the Union had, which did not go completely unnoticed by the Confederacy, was that throughout much of the south the Union Army had a ready-made spy network in the form of the slaves. Sherman in particular routinely received detailed information on where he could find supplies and Confederate forces from the slaves who of course knew their own plantations perfectly well and had also managed to establish networks of information transfer between plantations right under their masters' noses.
-------------------
The Confederates had a chance of winning battles in the Eastern Theater, mainly due to Union general's incompetence, but not much chance of winning the war.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.