‘Offended’ flea market shopper calls 911 over Confederate merchandiseOK, let's see.
"A shopper perusing the merchandise at the Redwood Country Flea Market was so offended by a vendor selling Confederate and Nazi historical memorabilia, the person actually called 911.
Wallingford, Connecticut police were dispatched to the flea market to investigate.
confederate-flag-clinton-gore-button
Confederate memorabilia.
The police chief William Wright tells News 8 “the reason no one was arrested was because the items were being sold on private property” — not to mention no laws were broken.
“There was a table set up with this material,” Wright says, according to Journal-Record. “It’s not criminally illegal, but obviously it offended this person. It causes some people a sense of being uncomfortable. Certainly the owner could preclude this merchandise.”
The town resident who called 911 said there were helmets with swastikas, images of Hitler and other historical Nazi items.
“I was shaking and almost vomiting,” he tells the paper. “I had to run. My grandmother had numbers,” referring to the digits the Nazis would tattoo on prisoners.
The caller complained that the Confederate items were “not authentic” and were replicas of flags and weapons.
He says the seller told him “he was selling so much he can’t keep it in stock.”
Jason Teal, president of the Meriden-Wallingford NAACP, was contacted to see what he thought.
“It’s difficult because it’s on private property and it’s considered free speech,” Teal says.
According to the paper, the complainant also called Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr., who promptly called Chief Wright.
“I had to check with the chief over what is actionable and what isn’t,” according to the mayor. “Unless something violates state or federal law, there’s no jurisdiction for government to do anything. We had to ask, is it something controlled by law?”
And the assistant regional director of the Anti-Defamation League in Connecticut sees a difference between authentic memorabilia and “cheap replicas” “used as symbols of hate.”
“It’s unfortunate that under the law people have the right to sell these things; but it doesn’t mean they should sell these things,” Joshua Sayles says.
“It’s not a crime but I would call it hate. People look at the situation in Charleston and say it’s down in the South. But this stuff is here in Connecticut.”"
1. The morality of the shopper was presumed to be Law; the shopper demanded enforcement of the shopper's morality, calling not just the chief of police, but the mayor as well.
2. Police Chief says that the merchandise "could be 'precluded'", indicating that the merchandise is actually evil in his eyes, even if not illegal.
3. NAACP says it's on private property so nothing can be done. Like everyone else, doesn't point out Free Speech. Just can't get at it, legally.
4. The Mayor wanted to see if it was "actionable" - it wasn't.
5. Anti-Defamation League claims it amounts to "hate symbols", because: cheap replicas.
6. Joshua Sayless says the right to sell this is "unfortunate" and that they should not, a moral statement. Also says that this Hate is a "South" characteristic (bigot, who hates).
There is SJW morality and that only, forced upon this story, which is a story of SJW hysterical ideological reaction to discomfort which MUST NOT BE ALLOWED. There is no thought of "I disagree, but will fight to the death for your right to disagree", a la Voltaire (dead white man in deep dark history). These same people would likely walk around a crowd of anti-capitalists burning the American flag, give them a thumbs up, and keep shopping.
I own a Buddha figurine. That doesn't make me a Buddhist. I own a copy of Rules For Radicals; that doesn't make me a radical wanting to destroy everything I see. I'd love to own an authentic German Luger; that doesn't make me a NAZI. Vomiting due to encountering an ideological difference, does make one mentally unstable, which mental instability is related to ideology. Demanding enforcement of personal moral proclivities by civil authorities is totalitarian.
14 comments:
"Vomiting due to encountering an ideological difference, does make one mentally unstable"
But .. But ... But ... Her grandmother had NUMBERS!
My, these SJWs have weak constitutions.
FFR has been suing to remove "big Mountain Jesus" from ski slopes in Montana. They found a local atheist who's claiming she's wanted to go skiing since she was a teen, but has had to avoid the slope because she would be forced to look at a statue of someone she doesn't believe is real. I suppose she also avoids Macy's at Chrismastime.
From everybody's favorite atheist, Annie G.: "When we look at that Jesus statue, we see the continuing efforts of this aggressive, missionizing, male-only Catholic club to deny U.S. women the right to abortion and contraception in the name of Jesus."
Whereas most people see a statue wearing a ski helmet.
Those "authentic replicas" are pretty hard to come by these days(?!?). On the other hand, those inauthentic replicas are a dime a dozen.
The questions of "private property" and "no laws broken" will be speedily remedied, I'm sure. Anyone remember Kelo v. City of New London, CONNECTICUT 545 U.S. 469 (2005)? Your private property can be taken for the "greater good" anytime any level of government wants it for some other purpose. Selling "hate" merchandise obviously requires action, NOW!
Can something actually be "criminally LEGAL"?!? (Oh yeah, I forgot: ObamaCare, for starters, with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION following right behind. Sorry, sorry, SORRY: the Affordable Care Act and undocumented guest worker program. After all, I wouldn't want to be held criminally responsible for some Bloomingberg idiot getting the vapors.) If not, does "criminally illegal" make any sense at all?!? How could it be ILLEGAL and NOT criminal simultaneously?!? Oh, right: refer back to ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. As long as the government does not enforce its own laws (except selectively as arbitrarily determined by the ruling elites), it could be "illegal" (against the law) but not "criminal" (because nobody is going to actually arrest and prosecute you for the illegal act).
I L-O-V-E the affirmation of a "right" that should never be exercised because, well, someone might have their feelings hurt. Unless, of course, it occurs somewhere in the South; can't have that happening up here in "pure as the driven slush" Politically Correcticut. (I'd be willing to bet that this doufus thinks that all blacks come directly from Africa the country via a Democrat slave plantation stopover in the South the country into the glorious "freedom" of Correcticut.) It's the same stupidity as wanting abortion to be a RIGHT that should be freely exercised RARELY. H-U-H?!?
These people are going to hold back the ISIS hordes?!? ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Loving this accelerating slide down the rabbit hole toward oblivion. . . Mad as haters (no, Alice, that should NOT be spelled "hatters," regardless of what your English teacher told you), every one of them.
Hi,
Here's a good example of why I was asking about who the SJWs are. Because here I see no reason to call any of them as such, according to the harsh definitions you listed, even if there are weird behavior to note here nonetheless.
The shopper is the strangest of course, freaking out about articles being sold at a market. I can understand why the specific Nazy symbols made him feel uncomfortable, but calling 911, that's crazy. He cannot judge anything based on that 1 experience, and shouldn't ever consider that preventing him to sell is a goop idea.
But then the opposite is true. Why label the shopper as SJW, with what it entails, when all we know is that he overreacted over some stuff being sold? His personal reasons trumped his judgment, but it doesn't mean he would always act like that, or want to impose his views on many other things.
The other players in that story are more moderate but I think they could be even more, in the sense that selling these things is not a big thing at all, just let it go, the guy is obviously allowed to sell that stuff, and no, it doesn't show hate right away, it means nothing, the stuff could be used for anything.
Hugo,
There is nothing more I can tell you. If you are not an American and are an Atheist, then it is not your rights, laws and culture which are under attack. So, no problem.
I suspect that you have not observed the constant torrent of hatred and threats which has gushed out of the Left for the past 30 years, or the constant lawsuits by Atheists via their large assault organizations, who become "violently ill" at the sight of religious symbols, such as crosses on hillsides, or in museums, but who put crucifixes into bottle of urine which then go into museums.
I suspect that the normalization of aberrational behaviors, complete with legal injunctions against treating them in any way, is likely OK with you.
And I suspect that it is also OK with you that when either states or individuals express their right to exercise their religious beliefs under the specific protection of the US Constitution, that they are mob-threatened with destruction, economic and physical, because it is not your problem, you are an Atheist.
We live in a culture of constant assaults of hate from the Left, which is directed from the Left toward everything about the cultures in which they live, but especially toward the people of those cultures. The Left has become very large, which the new, Leftist Hillary knows, as she accuses us of racism for wanting voters to prove who they are, using IDs. Not just accuse, though, she uses it to prove to her black subjects that they must hate us... even though it is their votes which will be diluted as well. The constant race agitation results in riots and deaths; the Leftist agitators walk away.
Well then, what else can be said, except never mind.
Stan, first of all, your response has nothing to do with what I just wrote; cant you, or don't you want to, discuss single issues at a time, without going into generalization?
Second, no I am not American, but I live here now, so it's weird that you mention that twice in 2 days, as you told me 'welcome to the US' just a month ago...
Third, I have seen hate on many fronts, but a lot more from the right towards the left, much much more! And it's the Right that gets offended all the time, not the Left. It's the Right that mention violence and guns... It's the Right that want to impose their views and lifestyle instead of letting others live as they wish. I can expand on that when I get the chance...
Fourth, if you don't want inputs from Atheists on your blog that's fine, but you did invite me to join in so I find it odd that now it's pointless for me to even try. I thought it could be interesting to try once again to have meaningful discussions. Let me know if you would rather not, no problem at all.
Thanks
Hugo,
I'm sorry, but you’re comments above are completely out to lunch. I didn't make up SJWs. I don't have to defend their existence(!) All you have done here is to reject, and make demands. You are not here to discuss, that is obvious.
It is the Left that wants to eradicate both the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution. Yes, the conservatives react to that. You seem to think that the conservatives sit around generating anger for no reason at all other than finding somewhere to direct their unconstrainable hatred. Actually I'm not surprised by your belief in that cartoon, because it is a staple of the Atheist Left.
As for joining in, I find that you merely reject any and everything which is presented to you, while presenting nothing of your own beyond those rejections. Interestingly, that is the “intellectual” basis for Atheism, and it is an Atheist habit of "skeptical thought", whereby rejection occurs automatically and without any reasoning provided or deemed necessary. And that is why many of today's Atheists claim "to merely have no theist beliefs" instead of owning up to the fact that they have rejected theist arguments, God and God theories for reasons which they cannot justify under Aristotelian principles of deduction, nor principles of disciplined empirical science.
If you want to provide evidence which supports your views and defeats mine, then present it. But kindly don't play the Victimhood card here, and expect not to be called on it.
So. If you have some evidence for your claims, or deductive reasoning for your constant rejections, then lay it out. Let us see what you have. All you have done so far is to reject, and make empty claims. That is not a basis for discussion; it is exactly like a moral and intellectual superiority assertion by which you pass judgment, without any moral or intellectual involvement whatsoever.
So make a factual or logical claim. Then we have something to discuss.
OK?
Btw, to reject the concept that SJWs even exist is ludicrous. I did not make up the term, they did. If you don't like that, perhaps it would be better to get them to defend your claim that they don't exist. (Try looking up gamer-gate, radical feminism, sad puppies/Hugos... or just SJW, and then tell them all that social justice is not a thing).
So make a factual or logical claim. Then we have something to discuss.
OK?
Ok, let's reduce it to 1 topic at a time then. The current article you linked to described a situation of people who do not self-identify as SJW. Yet, because of what's described, you labeled these people as SJW*. Given what you said it means, I think it is wrong to give them that label. So I wonder why you judge them so harshly? To put it in more obvious logic terms; all SJW are bad, but not all people who do bad things are as bad as SJWs.
* A social justice warrior is defined by the following characteristics:
1. Iconoclastic regarding western culture.
2. Considers his opinion to be morally correct, therefore dissent is immoral. This produces the designation of the Oppressor Class, and the moral intolerance of dissent, which characterizes their designated Oppressor Class.
3. Utopian, in the sense that he "knows" that his own plan for society is the only, singularly correct plan.
4. Dogmatic. Moral superiority leads to self-delusion of being a "savior", i.e. a Messiah. This produces the designation of Victimhood Classes.
5. Runs in packs of like-thinking moral, utopian iconoclasts, who are also totalitarian to the point of Stalinist in their assault on the Oppressor Class.
By the way, on number 3, the quote you posted say
"Jason Teal, president of the Meriden-Wallingford NAACP, was contacted to see what he thought.
“It’s difficult because it’s on private property and it’s considered free speech,” Teal says."
But you said:
"3. NAACP says it's on private property so nothing can be done. Like everyone else, doesn't point out Free Speech. Just can't get at it, legally."
Therefore, I don't think anyone is trying to push hard their own morality and choices on other; it's just individuals trying to understand if some individual being offended is worth pursuing or not, and concluding that no, it should not.
I disagree with their opinion that it should be illegal, and I think they would need to argue their case in court before they could start shutting down places as they would like to. We also have to admit that it's worrying that the items are popular though; as it implies that at least a tiny minority of the buyers are actual crazy people planning their next mass massacre...
Quick note on the other topics to finish; I am pretty sure I will agree with you on issues related to gamer-gate and radical feminism, and it's another case where I saw secular people, leftist/liberal people, be on the same side as conservatives.
Hugo,
There is no right NOT to be offended. Only the new world of social justice makes that claim. If anyone does not rebuke the claimant of "offense" for trying to stamp out another person's documented Rights of Free Speech (and Commerce but that's a whole 'nother bucket of Progressive worms), then they are not defending basic American Constitutional principles. The statement to which you refer is a prime example:
“It’s difficult because it’s on private property and it’s considered free speech,”
He recognizes that it is protected. But that only gets in the way, and makes it "difficult". He is not supporting free speech; he is lamenting free speech as being a difficulty in the pursuit of suppression of "offending" and/or "offensive" people. What if it were not on private property and there were no such thing as the First Amendment? Then it would not be "difficult". They could do exactly what they want to do.
It is blatant; it is obvious.
It is the presupposed new social justice Right "NOT to be offended" which is in play in each of these people, including the chief of police, the mayor, the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League.
As an aside, the Anti-Defamation League was not formed to fight freedom of speech, it was formed to fight lies and historical revisionism. I support that principle. I do not support the new NAACP which has morphed away from MLK's principles, and into a hate group specifically to maintain the concept of perpetual black inferiority and white oppression. I.e., class warfare.
I should also mention that in any society where there are protected ideas that cannot be discussed or someone might be offended, mind control is in play and totalitarianism is the intent. The Leftist push is to iconize and sanctify all previous civil restrictions, which they happen to find "offensive". This includes legislation, which must occur from the judiciary and which is unconstitutional. They have had some, minimal success. They will not stop until all contrary thought is made "offensive" and illegal.
If you have not done so, you might study and contrast the French Revolution and aftermath (leftist), vs. the American Revolution and its aftermath, which was at the time considered "liberal" but now is considered radical and right wing since that is the name given to freedom pursuits.
One MORE thing, then I'll stop. How do you know how these people self-identify? I self-identify as male, yet I do not preface every sentence with that ID. The hordes on the internet do self-identify themselves with the SJW concepts. If you want to press the issue of the group-entry requirements for being an SJW, there is only the behaviors which are consistent with SJW beliefs and assaults. I have already said that there is no SJW organization as such; it is a mob which includes much of the Democrat Political Party, some of the Republican Party and many others, including large portions of the now-leftist government. They don't carry cards saying "SJW" for ID, they don't have to because they recognize each other by their belief-based behaviors. And that's how anyone can recognize them.
Hi Stan, I will go line by line, but cover only a few, because I am genuinely trying to have a conversation, and it seems to me that it's difficult to do so when there are so many broad topics, and side topics, included. So please don't think it's an attempt to ignore things... Also, the other problem is that you tend to answer with way too much material for me to reply to; I am not retired you know ;-)
Also, after writing what's below, I realized I could be much shorter and summarize here at the top... the main question I have for you at this point is: why do you lump people into a group you think is completely irrational, dogmatic, totalitarian, etc... (the so-called SJW) based on few anecdotal evidence? And why do you end up sounding so outraged by what happened in that particular instance when, in the end, not even a single action was taken by the authorities?
"There is no right NOT to be offended."
Totally agree. There is not even something to agree or disagree on, actually, that is a fact of the justice system. However, what is strange to me here is that, as a very liberal person, I usually see hordes of conservatives, and whiny liberals, get offended by so many things... so I push it even farther than just 'there is no right not to be offended', my position is something like 'people get offended way more often than they should' or 'people don't get offended about the right things'. Let me clarify that further by quoting something not from your last comment, but the one before:
"But kindly don't play the Victimhood card here, and expect not to be called on it."
I am not, and have not, ever, played the Victimhood card, and I am not feeling under attack in any way. You were obviously referring here to the fact that I said I observe as much hate coming from the Right than the Left, and actually much more from the Right imo. But this does not mean that I feel the hate sent my way; not at all! I actually know that people like you 'hate' me, be it directly or indirectly, because of some of the views I hold, but I don't feel any personal feeling of 'hate', and you would probably say it's not 'hate' (?), so that's why I am using quotes... I don't feel persecuted, silenced, annoyed or even remotely offended. I just think we disagree strongly on certain things, and that's actually why I like to discuss them, as I almost never get to do that in person.
And there is a link here, between this notion that we don't have a right to 'not being offended' and why I keep asking about 'who' the SJW really are according to you, based on your definition. The link is that you sound really offended at the slightest thing that reminds you of a SJW, regardless of the other things you know about these people. You said:
"How do you know how these people self-identify?"
I don't know and you don't either, because the article does not mention anything about that. That's why my point is that, based on the few items that are described in the article, it is premature to jump to the conclusion that these people adhere to the SJW principles described above. I don't understand how you can call them 'mob'-like, assaulting others, trying to push totalitarian views, and so on... they aren’t really that bad for all we know! But, your response to this is the following:
" He is not supporting free speech; he is lamenting free speech as being a difficulty in the pursuit of suppression of "offending" and/or "offensive" people. What if it were not on private property and there were no such thing as the First Amendment? Then it would not be "difficult". They could do exactly what they want to do. It is blatant; it is obvious."
I don't think it's that obvious. We are not talking about a city trying to shut down all stores visited by only a certain group of people in the hope of silencing them, for example. We are talking about 1 seller at a flea market selling a few items that are direct symbols of a violent regime that killed millions of people... therefore, it's not all black or white here because, and I think that's where the police/mayor are mistaken, one could argue that the seller is encouraging the message promoted by the symbols and even encouraging violent actions, a form of indirect threat.
As I just said, I think it's a mistake to conclude that, as these are only symbols and could be used for anything, but it's not a completely random thing either; they are not saying that we should remove anything anyone finds offensive. Au contraire, they are explicitly concerned by the fact that these are cheap replicas that serve absolutely no historical purpose, and thus considerably reduce the chances that they are for mere collecting purposes. It does raise some red flags regarding the intentions of the buyers just like someone buying every book on home bomb-making while reading a Quran and pro-ISIS blogs might... Again, the problem is that it's not the seller that needs monitoring but some of the buyers, most likely a tiny minority. It's just 1 more ways to try to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. Something which inevitably sacrifices the liberty/privacy of some people in some cases...
But then, why blame all the people described in the article so much? Is it really something that happens that often at flea markets; is there a systemic censorship as to what can/cannot be sold? There are literally millions of sellers across the US and tens of millions of buyer, yet the article mentions how in 1 place 1 shopper got annoyed, called 911 for no good reason and then... nothing happened.
Thanks for your time
Oh, almost forgot... side note regarding the interaction you had on that thread regarding Trump, and I am writing here so that others see it but maybe not "Jason T."... I am pretty sure that's the same troll again. The profile has again no public view, which is really unusual, and he did everything he could to write inflammatory remarks.
To be frank though, I also blame you a bit here Stan... I told you that you should ignore people with such profile, yet you seem to "like" it, as you also write strong remarks in return... I am just giving advice so it's really none of my business, and it's your blog, your comments, your words. But I just can't help thinking about what you wrote about 2 months ago when someone pretended to be Martin from Rocket Philosophy, and I pointed out to you how it was probably not the real Martin: you said that you have become more radicalized over the years, and that the Atheists have too... well I wonder if that's really the case honestly. You can always find radicals online, it's very easy, for any topic whatsoever. So, could it be that you became more radicalized for something as silly as a stupid troll pulling your leg too often?
I am a very positive person, so I would prefer to see more people be positive and happy as well, even if we disagree! But that's just my opinion :)
Cheers
"I don't think it's that obvious. We are not talking about a city trying to shut down all stores visited by only a certain group of people in the hope of silencing them, for example. We are talking about 1 seller at a flea market selling a few items that are direct symbols of a violent regime that killed millions of people... therefore, it's not all black or white here because, and I think that's where the police/mayor are mistaken, one could argue that the seller is encouraging the message promoted by the symbols and even encouraging violent actions, a form of indirect threat.
Then you support the strict policing of speech against grey areas which must be silenced. Therefore there is nothing else to discuss. All speech can be construed as threatening grey areas, as triggers, as offensive, as indirect threats. So that leaves only speech which overtly supports the government diktats du jour. This concept is diametrically opposed to the Voltaire and Enlightenment concepts which I endorse, and which the USA was created on and thrived on until the last decade. The USA is headed for third world status in all areas, including freedoms.
I have nothing else to say, in light of all this. The polarization of the USA is complete, and what will result is yet to be seen.
I think we are done here; there is nothing else to say.
Post a Comment