site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   2590 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for April 11, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Policy proposal: anything with an American Flag on it must be manufactured in the USA. American flag T shirts? Must be MiUSA. Buckets? MiUSA. NFL making those weird camo sweatshirts with the patch on it? MiUSA. Your beer can better have American beer in it if it has a flag on it.

Why am I wrong about this one? Seems like a slam dunk.

I'm not sure what's the point of it. I mean yeah, there probably may be some legal way to do it, but why? It won't change anything significantly, and the reason why manufacturing is moving out aren't because evil fatcats hate America. It's because it is cheaper, and the reason it is cheaper is because workforce overseas is cheaper due to lower living standards and absence of regulations. I see no major non-niche brands that advertise something like "yeah we cost twice the competition, but we are made in America so it's clear you should buy us!". I mean, there are brands where MiUSA is part of their marketing, but not many that make it the center and rely heavily on it, as far as I can see. Thus, I must conclude, the revealed preference of the US consumers, en masse, is to get cheaper goods, regardless of where they are made. I don't think putting or removing some flags is going to change that. You can say "fuck the weak consumers, the interests of the Nation demand we have domestic manufacturing", then you need something global and non-consensual like tariffs and import bans to take the choice away.

Plus, of course, enforcing this with the consumers largely not caring would be tough. You can't go for the consumers, since punishing consumers for displaying American symbols would get you eaten alive in the media. You can't go for the manufacturers (on case by case basis) because it'd be too costly and they are outside the country, and something like WTO would likely be reluctant to help you. And if you go for the middlemen, it'd be a perpetual game of whack-a-mole, which, given the experience with controlling other goods, you are going to lose.

1A will have something to say on the matter.

Same argument against as for every anti-trade policy: it raises prices. Goods that are efficient to make in the US already are, so you pay more under the new policy. Or more likely, they just don't put the flag on, so there's just less expression of American patriotism. Plus, there's already mandatory country-of-origin labeling on lots of products.

Or more likely, they just don't put the flag on, so there's just less expression of American patriotism.

Less expression of performative patriotism, insasmuch as it forces anyone who wants to add a flag would be forced to put their literal money where their mouth is.

I've always thought this. Should be the same all over the world, if I'm king of it.

This country self-fetishizes enough that we may single-handedly resurrect the textile industry.

I never wear anything with an American flag on it, actually, same reason I take my hat off indoors: Dad raised me to do these things. He said things like hats or shirts and beach towels (which you literally lay out on the ground, step on, etc.) are inappropriate for the flag. He spent years as a scoutmaster so maybe that's where he got such ideas. Anyway he passed them on. This is only tangentially related to your post.

It's in the Flag Code. You're not supposed to wear the flag, let it touch the ground, carry things in it or use it for advertising. Scoutmasters are probably some of the few who tend to follow it.

I think that only concerns the flag itself - i.e. a rectangular piece of cloth with specific pattern, used for a specific purpose - not a depiction of the same pattern in different places. I.e. if I have a cup with the Statue of Liberty and American flag depicted, I don't think Flag Code applies to the cup.

As far as I can tell, the Flag Code doesn't limit itself to just physical pieces of rectangular cloth, or even the entire pattern. It mentions embroidery and printing as things that shouldn't be done to the flag, and given it was mostly written in 1923, I don't think the spirit of the Code would make exceptions for more modern manufacturing methods.

(i)The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown. (j)No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations...

...Not that anyone really cares. And if we'd all strictly followed the Flag Code from the beginning, there would be way fewer US flags in everyone's lives and it wouldn't have the same cultural impact.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats