Apple Removes Civil War Games From App Store
- Thread starter RJ 17
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Really? That's your entire argument? A ban can't possibly exist except in the context of attempting to pretend it never happened, and since a ban exists, therefore they must be trying to pretend it never happened? As opposed to, say, actually pretending that it never happened, which they are definitely not doing?RJ 17 said:
C'mon. I'm against such government censorship, but also against pretending that the swastika ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a] is something it's not.
The people trying to pretend that, say, the holocaust never happened, are the same ones who want to use Third Reich flags.
I am offended by any flag flown by a country thats done bad things. I think why should we stop at nsnning the confederate flag?
Oh wait thats all of them.
Oh wait thats all of them.
So games with swastikas are ok, but the confederate flag is right out?
This whole situation is almost comical in it's level of overreaction. Banning the a flag wont fix the problem, the problem is hate.
This whole situation is almost comical in it's level of overreaction. Banning the a flag wont fix the problem, the problem is hate.
1. It's not forbidden per se, it's allowed to display all things Nazi in museums and the like.RJ 17 said:
2. It's forbidden to display any Nazi-related banners, logos are clothing in public outside of educational purposes. I fully agree with this ban, and I hope so did many German people after the war, but it was instituted by the ALLIED FORCES as part of the Denazification of Germany and Austria. (google it)
If this part of German history is supposed to be buried and forgotten, why did two thirds of my history classes in high school deal with those 12 years?! Why is there a Nazi documentary on TV every week? Why are there so many Holocaust memorials in Germany, including an especially monstrous one in Berlin? Why does every single student have to visit a concentration camp at least once during high school?RJ 17 said:
The civil war wasn't even that bad, but then again most people have forgiven the Americans for that little genocide they committed.
"History is written by the victor"
It is only after the banning of slavery that it became a no-no subject.
People make it sound like it was just the south that partook in slavery... no they struck back at the abolition of it because most of their economy depended on it which to me sounds perfectly reasonable.
Now I'm not saying slavery is reasonable, just saying that the war by itself kind of makes sense.
I don't get this new trend of people being absurdly jumpy all of a sudden over things that have been prevalent for over a 100 years. (like that damn flag).
It's not like the flag itself is a slave owner, the thing is just a piece of fabric, pixels on a screen, the only meaning it has is the one you give to it.
The only power it has is that which you invest in it.
"History is written by the victor"
It is only after the banning of slavery that it became a no-no subject.
People make it sound like it was just the south that partook in slavery... no they struck back at the abolition of it because most of their economy depended on it which to me sounds perfectly reasonable.
Now I'm not saying slavery is reasonable, just saying that the war by itself kind of makes sense.
I don't get this new trend of people being absurdly jumpy all of a sudden over things that have been prevalent for over a 100 years. (like that damn flag).
It's not like the flag itself is a slave owner, the thing is just a piece of fabric, pixels on a screen, the only meaning it has is the one you give to it.
The only power it has is that which you invest in it.
So...the Confederate flag is going to become to the U.S. what the swastika is to Germany? I think that's overkill. The flag being displayed on federal buildings? Yeah, poor taste. Take it down. But getting rid of any game that has it in it, including Civil War games? Um...no.
Yes, and we need to remove Germany & Japan from our world maps, lest impressionable young children discover that WW2 happened. Would someone think of the children?Pirate Of PC Master race said:
Oh, and we need to change the name of our language from English to American, lest they wonder about this "England" place and become traumatized by the Revolutionary War and he controversy of why we kept using the language of THE ENEMY afterward.
Afterward we will begin issuing germ & media-proof plastic bubbles for our citizens to live inside of. It's for the best, citizens. We will decide what you need to know, and it won't be much.
^.^
The enter flap over the flag is a knee-jerk reaction that not only has nothing to do with the horrific tragedy that occurred but completely nullifies any focus on the victims and problems with race.tippy2k2 said:
I was going to say banning the flag would be like banning violent video games, but, here the hell we are. Now excuse me while I go shoot Nazi zombies from outer space, a totally historical, non-hateful way to portray those evil bastards.
Look up "Hernán Cortés" or "Genghis Khan." Look up the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. Look up the Black Death or the Spanish Flu. There are people & event in history that make the US Civil War look like a vacation. It's amazing how a few centuries can dull people's memory of history's greatest monsters. And right now, today, three million children starve to death on this planet every year.Dynast Brass said:
So yes, 1.2 million dead = Diddly-squat.
And keep in mind, this was back when the US population was much, much smaller. There were only 31 million people in the US in 1860.Dynast Brass said:
Fun-fact: In terms of pure military deaths (I'll consider Confederates as Americans since most of them were repatriated after the war), more American soldiers died during the civil war (somewhere between 600,000-800,000 depending on your sources) than in every single war fought after it (including WWI, WWII and Vietnam) combined. That's not even counting the 300,000-400,000 soldiers that survived the war, but were wounded, maimed or crippled in some way.
A war that the Confederacy started by shooting first.
It really was a taste of what was coming for Europe with WWI in a way. Not as extreme, mind you, but the basic elements were the same. You had oldschool Napoleonic tactics being forced up against more modern artillery and guns with much higher rates of fire (breech loading rifles, Gatling guns, etc) by Generals who just did not have the skills to change with the times. It was just a meat-grinder for everyone involved.
At the same time, I'm not sure that mattered. What people are flying was raised up as a "Southern" icon not because of the war, but as a screw you to black people by very racist individuals.Dynast Brass said:
The argument for historicity here reminds me of the attempts to justify why there were no blacks or women in Assassin's Creed Unity.
Oh, certainly. But even if I was granted a lifespan that lasted to the end of the human race, I'm pretty sure I'd die still being amazed at it.Dynast Brass said:
NephilimNexus said:
because by all means it was a justified war, for the wrong causes but justified and legal nonetheless.Dynast Brass said:
I wonder if you compare the number of American deaths in the Civil war, which is fucking ridiculous because it's a CIVIL WAR to the death toll amongst the indian tribes I think you will lose this argument every step of the way, because in this modern day I see a whole lot of Americans, Black or White, and next to no Indians (talking about the tribal people who lived in the Northern American continent not the ones who work the ICT departement).
True. Although to be fair, it seems like the South was banking on the idea that Lincoln didn't have the spine to prosecute a long war. They were hoping to bloody the Union's nose enough early on to where the North would lose popular support and just kind of let them go on their own way.Dynast Brass said:
In that context, it does make a kind of sense. That sort of scenario has played out before in other wars and rebellions. But they severely underestimated Lincoln's resolve, and that of his administration, and the degree to which the populace at large would support his prosecution of the war.
Still though, planning your whole strategy around the hope that the bigger, more populated, more industrialized nation in the war will just kind of go home after bloody it a few times is not generally a recipe for success.
The Spanish Inquisition only actually executed about 3,000-5,000 people in the 350 years it was active. It did investigate around 120,000 or so, and that investigation did involve various kinds of torture and coercion. So still a pretty horrible thing, but it doesn't even come close to the Civil War.NephilimNexus said:
The Crusades, yeah, those were pretty bad. The estimates of the total death-toll of the crusades between 1095-1291 CE is generally considered somewhere between 1-3 million people. If we take the low-end estimates, the Civil War isn't actually *that* far off. If we go with the highest estimate of 3 million, or some other higher estimates floating around like 4 or 5 million, keep in mind that was during a 200 year conflict between dozens of European and Middle-Eastern powers. We killed (by most estimates) between 600,000-800,000 of our own people by ourselves in just four years. That's still a damned impressive showing for a single nation split in half.
The Mongols are absolutely the kings of this particular mountain of corpses. Something like 30-40 million dead in like 150 years. That's pretty staggering.
The Black Death and the Spanish Flu aren't really fair as comparisons though. Those were pandemics. Those are always going to put any sort of human death-toll to shame. Humans *wish* they could kill other humans with the efficiency and thoroughness of a properly up and rolling pandemic. Mother nature ain't no joke, and these diseases are damned good at what they do. Disease is the human race's one true natural predator.
Not trying to make any of these other things seem less horrible. But for a single country (that split to become the two warring ones), and for a war that only lasted 4 years, the Civil War was dang unprecedented. That's also why the Civil War is so interesting historically. It was really a taste of the butchering heading Europe's way in World War I. For a lot of the same reasons, outdated tactics being forced up against more modern technology by officers who were not able to adapt to the times.
"Still though, planning your whole strategy around the hope that the bigger, more populated, more industrialized nation in the war will just kind of go home after bloody it a few times is not generally a recipe for success."
Worked for the USA in the first place, didn't it (i.e. prolong the fight long enough, hope for outside interference)
Worked for the Vietcong (against France and the USA).
Arguably working for ISIS right now.
And last I checked the Taliban are still around.
Worked for the Spanish against the French.
And there's always the "what if" question: What if, after the 1st Battle of Bull Run, the confederates had marched on Washington? That might have been enough to spook the North.
What if Lee, and not Grant, had come up with the idea of leaving his supply lines behind and living off the land (the devastation of which was the death knell for the Southern States)?
What if they'd abandoned direct confrontation and gone for guerrilla warfare?
If it was such a lopsided matchup then why did it take 4 years, and cost so much life?
Worked for the USA in the first place, didn't it (i.e. prolong the fight long enough, hope for outside interference)
Worked for the Vietcong (against France and the USA).
Arguably working for ISIS right now.
And last I checked the Taliban are still around.
Worked for the Spanish against the French.
And there's always the "what if" question: What if, after the 1st Battle of Bull Run, the confederates had marched on Washington? That might have been enough to spook the North.
What if Lee, and not Grant, had come up with the idea of leaving his supply lines behind and living off the land (the devastation of which was the death knell for the Southern States)?
What if they'd abandoned direct confrontation and gone for guerrilla warfare?
If it was such a lopsided matchup then why did it take 4 years, and cost so much life?