Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 1:30 pm How are federal orders applicable to state flags?

It says "state's flags" rather than "state flags" so I'd presume that the order applies to all flags flown on state property or otherwise subject to state policy, not just the state flag of Texas. There will be no consequences, beyond a subset of the electorate being disgusted by the deliberate disrespect to Carter, because it's going to happen as the new federal regime comes into power. The Magadministration isn't going to sic the federal flag cops on him or anything like that (although Trump will undoubtedly bear a grudge against any and all entities that don't fly their flags at full mast in honour of his ascension to the throne).

Thanks.

I live to serve.

Max Peck wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 1:58 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 1:30 pm How are federal orders applicable to state flags?

It says "state's flags" rather than "state flags" so I'd presume that the order applies to all flags flown on state property or otherwise subject to state policy, not just the state flag of Texas. There will be no consequences, beyond a subset of the electorate being disgusted by the deliberate disrespect to Carter, because it's going to happen as the new federal regime comes into power. The Magadministration isn't going to sic the federal flag cops on him or anything like that (although Trump will undoubtedly bear a grudge against any and all entities that don't fly their flags at full mast in honour of his ascension to the throne).

Yes, the origonal article meant "flags flown in the state" not "flags representing the state of Texas."

Imagine a post office next to a Texas state agency office. The USPS will be flying flags at half staff. The Texas state agency office will not. Private entities and local authorities will do whatever their hearts desire or their fears demand.

Smoove_B wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 1:48 pm

stessier wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 1:46 pm The federal flag code is not legally enforceable unless I missed something.

Nope. Which is why I said nothing will happen. I say this as someone that lives next door to a MAGA family that is currently flying an American flag at full-staff. Also at night, completely dark. Because this is AMERICA and our flag is performative jewelry for many people.

I'm actually onboard with the "performative jewelry" part. The flag is a symbol - thus it means something different to everyone. We can discuss it and disagree about it, but I can't see how anyone can say another interpretation is disallowed.

I guess my thoughts are tied to something I've noticed - that the people most likely to wave the flag or proudly display it at every opportunity are also the most likely to disrespect it.

I mean, there are rules/regulations/whatever for how/why/when a flag should be raised/lowered, how it can(not) be worn, etc, etc.

Sure, it's a symbol, but it's one that the government tries very hard to control in terms of use and in theory owns. As a symbol it is likely that the government has an official stance on what it represents.

Does that change the fact that people treat it and use it in different ways and purposes? No, but it's not some random grouping of lines and geometric shapes, with arbitrary meaning.

Smoove_B wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 4:54 pm I guess my thoughts are tied to something I've noticed - that the people most likely to wave the flag or proudly display it at every opportunity are also the most likely to disrespect it.

I don't see them as the most likely to disrespect the flag but I do see a general hypocrisy in regard to respect for the flag going to 11 when it comes to ostentatious flag wavers, as around here they are more likely to be shitty human beings demanding respect and giving none than the average person. The people who park their car (usually a pickup truck) across the sidewalk is basically a subset of people who display flags.

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 5:05 pm I mean, there are rules/regulations/whatever

I'd go with 'traditional practices' that just happen to be written down. The government only takes notice when it's politically convenient.

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 5:07 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 5:05 pm I mean, there are rules/regulations/whatever

I'd go with 'traditional practices' that just happen to be written down. The government only takes notice when it's politically convenient.

Shrug.

Also shrug, but it's important to the conversation to note that the flag code isn't any form of law. Attempts to have it be law were struck down as unconstitutional. You can violate it all day and never be anything but rude.

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 5:05 pm I mean, there are rules/regulations/whatever for how/why/when a flag should be raised/lowered, how it can(not) be worn, etc, etc.

Sure, it's a symbol, but it's one that the government tries very hard to control in terms of use and in theory owns. As a symbol it is likely that the government has an official stance on what it represents.

"Tries very hard" is not really a thing in this country - the First Amendment protects that.

It does have an official stance though. Given there is no way to enforce it, and it changes as the government changes, I don't find it meaningful.

If "try really hard" isn't a thing, then why are Smoove and others unhappy with how some people treat the flag? Internal moral compass?

And I'm well aware the flag crap is not law. I thought I made that clear in the first place?

I can't answer for others, I can only say it's the hypocrisy for me. I also had respect for the American flag instilled in me as a Boy Scout as part of my quasi-militaristic indoctrination. When I see people in my community that claim to be patriotic Americans disrespecting the flag, I find it offensive. I can also say LM's observation that more often than not they're just gross people in general (unrelated to the flag) has also been my experience.

None of that changes the petulant behavior I'm expecting to see next Monday with respect to the flag. In the big picture it doesn't matter. But I hope I'm alive to see what happens when TFG shuffles off this mortal coil with respect to the display of flags since we've apparently moved on to setting a new precedent.

These are exactly the same people that would try to drag someone in front of a literal firing squad for disrespecting the flag. But now being disrespectful is a way to thumb their nose at the Democrats, so... hurrah for stigginit!

Smoove_B wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 4:54 pm I guess my thoughts are tied to something I've noticed - that the people most likely to wave the flag or proudly display it at every opportunity are also the most likely to disrespect it.

Respec!

There aren't enough emoticons to express my reaction.

Squa’ in the balls!

That's not covered by the flag code, either for or against.

Blackhawk wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:32 am That's not covered by the flag code, either for or against.

Not all forms of disrespect are covered by the Flag Code.

Blackhawk wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:32 am That's not covered by the flag code, either for or against.

But what if they cut up an actual flag to make the pants?

Max Peck wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:46 am

Blackhawk wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:32 am That's not covered by the flag code, either for or against.

But what if they cut up an actual flag to make the pants?

That would be covered. As would using the flag as a toga.

Flag patterned cloth, on the other hand, is not.

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 11:47 am Texas governor orders state’s flags raised to full-staff for Trump’s inauguration

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) on Monday ordered the state’s flags be raised to full-staff on Inauguration Day, as President-elect Trump enters his second term in the White House.

The move disrupts the 30-day period of half-staff mourning issued by President Biden to honor the late President Carter. Biden ordered flags nationally to half-staff through sunset on Jan. 28. Abbott’s order would apply to all flags at the Texas Capitol and at state buildings on Jan. 20.

Indiana has quietly followed suit, along with Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Tennessee

Not sure where to put this, but Biden declared today that the Equal Rights Amendment (barring gender discrimination) has been ratified as the 28th amendment.

But like, probably not? 38 states needed to ratify it. Virginia in 2020 became the 38th state to ratify it, BUT before Virginia did that several states either rescinded their ratification or had deadlines pass that had been included in their original ratification votes. The U.S. Archivist has said that the ERA is not ratified, although the American Bar Association issued an opinion that it is. One would imagine that this SCOTUS would rule that the ERA has not been ratified.

But who knows? Maybe we have a new constitutional amendment. But probably not.

https://theonion.com/pros-and-cons-of-buying-greenland/

El Guapo wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 1:54 pm But who knows? Maybe we have a new constitutional amendment. But probably not.

I'm all for the ERA, but that's one sketchy "ratification." I suppose someone will now persuade SCOTUS to finally drive a stake through its heart.

Kraken wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:07 pm

El Guapo wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 1:54 pm But who knows? Maybe we have a new constitutional amendment. But probably not.

I'm all for the ERA, but that's one sketchy "ratification." I suppose someone will now persuade SCOTUS to finally drive a stake through its heart.

It's pretty weird. Honestly if he had announced that the ERA was ratified in 2021 at the beginning of his presidency *maybe* it would have had a shot to stick - basically would rely on the idea that ratification can't be rescinded and can't expire. But doing it on his last day just looks weird and makes the thing double-sketchy,

Just forces the topic into headlines. Not that it matters at this point, but once upon a time, denying equal rights would be seen as a political negative.

This passage from John-Paul Sartre has been getting a lot of play recently:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Antisemitism can really stand in for any variety of fascism in this argument. It's kind of amazing that Sartre nailed the underlying logic of Trolling as early as 1948.

I feel like someone in TCM's scheduling department was making a statement on Tuesday. This was the lineup:



The pivot from MLK-adjacent programming to movies about resisting Nazis and fascists was... interesting.

I feel like someone should do a court ordered wellness check on these obviously insane people.

Mississippi Republicans files “life begins at erection” bill.

Every sperm is sacred

Skinypupy wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:23 pm I feel like someone should do a court ordered wellness check on these obviously insane people.

Mississippi Republicans files “life begins at erection” bill.

Every sperm is sacred

As written by Sen. Bradford Blackmon, the bill would make it “unlawful for a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo.”

Is it just me, or does this criminalize bleeding, spitting, and going to the bathroom?

Turns out, this was put forward by a Democrat State Senator. My mistake for assuming otherwise.

So this is a troll bill (which I suspect it is, regardless of party affiliation) and/or we have our share of insane people as well.

Some UFC fighter was praising Hitler on a podcast.

"I honestly think that Hitler was a good guy based on my own research, not my public education indoctrination. I do really think before Hitler got on meth, he was a guy to go fishing with," the American fighter said.

"He fought for his country. He wanted to purify it by kicking the greedy Jews out that were destroying his country and turning them all into gays," he added.

"They were gaying out the kids. They were queering out the women. They were queering out the dudes. Do you know where the first tranny surgery ever was? Happened to be in Germany before Hitler took over."

Dana White, head of the UFC condemned Hitler but refuses to discipline this guy, citing "free speech." Essentially that keeps him platformed to continue to say racist, homophobic shit to large audiences.

Dana White recently joined the board of Meta.

Words cost nothing. That's why speech is free.

Various news outlets are reporting that Mitch McConnell fell down the stairs today while leaving a senate meeting.

Karma