Skip Navigation

White House Agrees To Ban Pride Flags At US Embassies In Spending Bill Deal

www.forbes.com White House Agrees To Ban Pride Flags At US Embassies In Spending Bill Deal

The State Department authorized pride flags to be flown at U.S. embassies in 2021, reversing a Trump-era ban.

White House Agrees To Ban Pride Flags At US Embassies In Spending Bill Deal
67

You're viewing a single thread.

67 comments
  • Another two steps back.

    • Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line for non-government related symbols to be shown? What types of non-government related symbols should be allowed, and which ones shouldn't?

      • Perhaps each symbol could be evaluated individually based on what it is meant to represent? I don't know why that's such a difficult thing to imagine.

        I've seen those black "POW/MIA" flags next to US flags all of the time and I've never once seen a single ammosexual conservative freak complain about it, despite their cult of personality centering around someone who literally belittled prisoners of war for being caught.

        I've never heard of anyone complaining about that. I see the "pride" flag to be as offensive as the black POW/MIA flag.

        • Perhaps each symbol could be evaluated individually based on what it is meant to represent?

          Which criterea do you propose should be used in such an evaluation to determine whether the government should display a specific symbol?

          • Am I being tasked with creating a protocol for evaluating which symbols the government should display? Like what do you think you're accomplishing with this line of questioning? It's not my fucking job or expertise to come up with that criteria, there are much smarter people who could do that.

            I know you think you've made some powerful rebuttal here, but you really haven't.

            There is no set of reasonable, ethical criteria that could possibly make displaying a rainbow flag offensive. It just doesn't exist. If you're upset by seeing a pride flag, then that's 100% your problem.

            That's like getting mad at seeing the California flag flying next to the US flag because you just hate that CA exists. Fucking dumb.

            • Am I being tasked with creating a protocol for evaluating which symbols the government should display? Like what do you think you’re accomplishing with this line of questioning? It’s not my fucking job or expertise to come up with that criteria, there are much smarter people who could do that.

              I apologize if my probing came off as accusatory — this was not my intent. I'm simply curious if you perhaps had a framework that you had considered as a solution to the issue that you are describing. I have no issue at all with the recognition and discussion of issues, but I believe that degrading something simply because of its shortcomings, without the suggestion of an alternative, or a possible solution, is non-constructive. It is often the case that there are downsides to the systems in place — and it is certainly important to be aware of them — but it is also often the case that, despite their downsides, they are the current best solutions. One can, for example, look at democracy. There exists a metaphor that says "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner". It can certainly happen that the majority makes a decision to the detriment of the minority, but, despite its shortcomings, democracy is possibly the most moral solution as, even if its decisions are to the detriment of a minority, the people must always have a say in the laws that govern them. Through the recognition of these shortcomings, however, a well-structured government can implement checks, and balances in an effort to reduce these "negative" outcomes. These mediations are only arrived at through the discussion of shortcomings, but one would simply not have democracy if they only belittled it.

              I know you think you’ve made some powerful rebuttal here, but you really haven’t.

              I am trying to word my comments in a way that doesn't antagonize, and I am not, in the slightest, seeking "gotcha" moments. I only wish to have a discussion on the issue that you pointed out. I apologize if I wasn't successful to that end.

              There is no set of reasonable, ethical criteria that could possibly make displaying a rainbow flag offensive. It just doesn’t exist. If you’re upset by seeing a pride flag, then that’s 100% your problem.

              I would, perhaps, reword the question to ask whether a government should be involved in cultural issues. I have no doubt that there are people who truly believe that the pride flag is evil and/or offensive, but removing the pride flag, and any other symbols, from government buildings needn't be interpreted as a surrender to bigotry but, instead, the taking of a position of non-involvement.

              That’s like getting mad at seeing the California flag flying next to the US flag because you just hate that CA exists. Fucking dumb.

              Ha, yeah, that's bigotry for you. That being said, I would still argue that the flying of California's flag is fundamentally different than the display of a cultural symbol — of course, this is dependent on context, and what the intent of flying flags on flag poles actually is.

      • Ones that support his agenda should be shown.

        Ones that do not support his agenda should not be shown.

        This is how biases and tribalism work.

        • Yeah my agenda of (checks notes) thinking people shouldn't be persecuted for existing.

          A dire slippery slope for sure.

You've viewed 67 comments.