Conflict Kitchen closes after death threat (Pittsburgh, Carnegie: condo, crime, house)

[airwave09]

Originally Posted by bluecarebear

The quotes were enough to incite violence and conflict which is why this would qualify as hate speech. The Resistance quote alone doesn't come off as warm and fuzzy.

Anything anyone does or says is enough to incite violence from someone that is just the right level of crazy. This is absolutely terrible reasoning for infringing on everyone's free speech. The only speech that would not be protected here are the death threats themselves. Just because you don't like or agree with what someone, a group, or even a company says, doesn't mean that you are allowed to go around threatening the people or group who said it.

What if Southern BBQ was served wrapped in a Confederate Flag?

You do realize that a lot of southerners and establishments down south treat the flag as a proud symbol for states rights? This is what the primary conflict was about in the Civil War, and every other side issue (such as slavery) was brought about as an extension of this primary conflict. This is why many people proudly display the flag all over the country today, because they believe in states rights over the corrupt and increasingly useless Federal government that continues to grow like a lecherous fascist tumor between each coast, with it's (bad) influence even reaching overseas.

[SammyKhalifa]

Originally Posted by airwave09

a proud symbol for states rights?

Yeah, States' Rights to own people.



That whole idea ("states rights") about the confederacy is basically so much revisionism apologist talk.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
--Mississippi declaration of secession

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
--Texas declaration of secession

Northern states “have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.”
--South Carolina (I guess states rights aren't so great when it comes to being against slavery)

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."
--Alexander Stevens, CSA Vice President

[ditchdigger]

Don't try to confuse the issue with facts.

[wpipkins2]

Originally Posted by airwave09

Anything anyone does or says is enough to incite violence from someone that is just the right level of crazy. This is absolutely terrible reasoning for infringing on everyone's free speech. The only speech that would not be protected here are the death threats themselves. Just because you don't like or agree with what someone, a group, or even a company says, doesn't mean that you are allowed to go around threatening the people or group who said it.



You do realize that a lot of southerners and establishments down south treat the flag as a proud symbol for states rights? This is what the primary conflict was about in the Civil War, and every other side issue (such as slavery) was brought about as an extension of this primary conflict. This is why many people proudly display the flag all over the country today, because they believe in states rights over the corrupt and increasingly useless Federal government that continues to grow like a lecherous fascist tumor between each coast, with it's (bad) influence even reaching overseas.

Slavery was not a side issue. Slavery was THE issue. Slavery was the economic engine of the south and they were willing to die for that right.

[sealie]

Can we not go off into the weeds on the Confederate flag? It was a bad analogy, black/white race relations in this country have no similarity to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, there was no Black state created by govt fiat here as was Israel, there is no constantly shifting balance of power in the region, there are not currently white southerners suffering at the hands of a black regime and being interviewed for their thoughts on their own culture, and the flag as a symbol is not a valid analogy to a piece of paper with the words of interviewees written on it. It was a bad analogy born of sloppy thinking. Flip it around and make it about soul food with a wrapper interviewing blacks about culture and have them mention Selma or Ferguson and upsetting white people and you MIGHT have an analogy. Why black/white race relations get dragged into every "oppressed minority" argument is a mystery I don't pretend to understand. The oppression of blacks or Mexicans or gays or women or poor people or Jews or Palestenians is different because the issues behind them are different and the entrenched beliefs and fear driving it is different.

[sskink]

Originally Posted by airwave09

You do realize that a lot of southerners and establishments down south treat the flag as a proud symbol for states rights? This is what the primary conflict was about in the Civil War, and every other side issue (such as slavery) was brought about as an extension of this primary conflict. This is why many people proudly display the flag all over the country today, because they believe in states rights over the corrupt and increasingly useless Federal government that continues to grow like a lecherous fascist tumor between each coast, with it's (bad) influence even reaching overseas.

And the swastika started out as a harmless symbol of luck/auspiciousness until adopted by the Nazis. It's not a symbol any Jew (or normal-thinking person) wants to see again. It doesn't matter what it meant a century and half ago. It doesn't mean that now. Same with the stars and bars. It doesn't have the meaning to most that you think it does.

I suggest you get over it and stop with the BS rationalizations.

[PghYinzer]

Not sure if this is already located somewhere in the thread, but I thought better to repeat the link than not....

The actual wrapper that caused all of this hoopla....

http://conflictkitchen.org/wp-conten...pper_final.pdf

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa

Yeah, States' Rights to own people.
That whole idea ("states rights") about the confederacy is basically so much revisionism apologist talk.

Originally Posted by wpipkins2

Slavery was not a side issue. Slavery was THE issue. Slavery was the economic engine of the south and they were willing to die for that right.

My 2 cents regarding my readings about confederacy is that the first seven states seceded primarily over the potential threat of slavery being dissolved and the potential threat that non freemen blacks would be made the legal equivalents of whites. The war itself was fought over whether or not these 7 states, and the additional 4 that seceded after Lincoln issued his muster call, actually had the right to leave the Union. The spark that actually ignited the war, the firing on Ft. Sumter, was caused by the disagreement between SC and the US on who actually had sovereignty over the fort. I know that this is a fine distinction that to some may be seeming to split hairs but it recognizes where and when the issues of slavery and states rights actually came into play.

I personally don't see the use of the flag as 'hate' unless the one displaying it is doing so for that specific purpose. Northerners flying it escapes common sense & their ancestors (who spilled blood fighting against it) are probably turning in their graves, but to each his own.

Back to the actual issue of this discussion - from looking at the posted wrapper, yes, I can see how someone could get upset with it, but we live in a country where all speech which is not imminently dangerous is protected even if its veracity is questionable and to make a death threat is a pathetic response to said speech. Hopefully they are able to track down the perps. I wouldn't have closed down if I were the place.

[PghYinzer]

As it has only been a day, I have not had a chance to read a book about the history of Israel but it seems like the entire history of the region would easily allow for two vastly different perspectives on who is right and who is wrong. All CK did was their job, an show the viewpoint of the often underrepresented side in a conflict.

[doo dah]

Tony Norman's column. He says Melissa McCart has received some "...sexist and nasty personal attacks because of her reporting on this issue." It is a shame that some people feel that they need to attack someone's gender, but...has she apologized for mis-characterizing Conflict Kitchen to the extent that they have received a DEATH THREAT?