Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:51 am UTC

Hi there ladies and gentlemen.

I was linked to a Reddit discussion of a picture of a videogame where the author used the swastika to symbolize evil. Besides some "upvotes", it was frowned upon and he was even threatened. I know that the WWII is pretty recent in the memories of people, and I've been an indirect victim of the WWII (my grandpa is the direct victim), however, I don't understand why the swastika can't be used to symbolize something very bad in a virtual world. I mean, in these worlds people do horrible things, like killing ruthlessly every innocent citizen in a town just because they feel like, and no one complains, but when you draw a swastika, then people want to kill you.

Let's work with the fact that the swastika is not a socially acceptable symbol, of course it brings horrible memories to a lot of people and I understand that perfectly. However, in this case why the other symbols associated with other genocides or other horrendous facts of the history aren't a taboo? I mean, Stalin was another recent genocidal governor, and I don't see people complaining about that. Also, the Great Pyramid is even one of the "Seven Wonders of Ancient World", and it is to me another symbol of unimaginable suffering.

My question is: are people that hypocritical or is there a logical explanation?
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby elasto » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:16 am UTC

I think it's just a variant of 'comedy is tragedy plus time (or distance)'.

Some events have had such a deep impact on the Western psyche that they require a lot of time before they can be 'recycled' into the public sphere. Consider how in Germany the Swastika is actually illegal to display. Or imagine how long it will be in the US before planes flying into towers is 'legitimate' content for a video game.

The building of the pyramids had no deep impact on the US psyche (for obvious reasons) plus an enormous time has passed, so one can wonder at the majesty of them with only a passing thought for the unimaginable suffering involved in their construction.

Reminds me of another post I came across here where someone was outraged at the innocence of some Asian website (I think it was) that had some sort of offensive image on it (Hitler or something, I fail to recall). The poster just couldn't understand how anyone from any country could be unaware of causing offence, but it's all much the same thing.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:58 am UTC

elasto wrote:I think it's just a variant of 'comedy is tragedy plus time (or distance)'.

Some events have had such a deep impact on the Western psyche that they require a lot of time before they can be 'recycled' into the public sphere. Consider how in Germany the Swastika is actually illegal to display. Or imagine how long it will be in the US before planes flying into towers is 'legitimate' content for a video game.

The building of the pyramids had no deep impact on the US psyche (for obvious reasons) plus an enormous time has passed, so one can wonder at the majesty of them with only a passing thought for the unimaginable suffering involved in their construction.

Reminds me of another post I came across here where someone was outraged at the innocence of some Asian website (I think it was) that had some sort of offensive image on it (Hitler or something, I fail to recall). The poster just couldn't understand how anyone from any country could be unaware of causing offense, but it's all much the same thing.


That's pure hypocrisy. I see even more hypocrisy and a lot of prejudice also because Stalin also caused a lot of suffering, and no one talks or gets offended from that, obviously because they were all poor bastards so no one cares. I wonder why people don't get offended by the Christian cross because of the inquisitions... Oh, nevermind.

I'm not saying it's okay to have a swastika on your t-shirt, I'm just saying that there's no big problem imho in drawing a swastika on the t-shirt of a character in a cartoon to symbolize they're bad. And if eventually the swastika lose its 'heavy' meaning because of over usage, that's actually a good thing imho, or do people like to have symbols that can cause suffering only by looking at them?

Are the swastikas in movies/pictures of the WWII censored in Germany?

So far the score is hypocrisy 1 - 0 logic.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby elasto » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:04 am UTC

I guess you could call it hypocrisy if you like, but only in the sense that everyone is a hypocrite all the time - including you and me.

Do you care about your friends' pain more than a strangers'? Would your neighbor dying peacefully in your arms have a greater emotional impact on you than a thousand people dying slowly and painfully of starvation half a world away?

Of course you do, and of course it would, and there's nothing wrong with that; It's normal human nature and you'd be a gibbering emotional wreck if it were not the case.

EDIT:
I'm not saying it's okay to have a swastika on your t-shirt, I'm just saying that there's no big problem imho in drawing a swastika on the t-shirt of a character in a cartoon to symbolize they're bad. And if eventually the swastika lose its 'heavy' meaning because of over usage, that's actually a good thing imho, or do people like to have symbols that can cause suffering only by looking at them?

What you're describing is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that time and distance causes emotions to fade - with Stalin's atrocities 'more distant' than Hitler's.

You personally are ready to 'move on' and 'reclaim' the swastika. Many others however are not. That doesn't make them 'hypocrites' so much as just normal people with normal human emotions for whom certain topics are still sensitive.

Maybe for you nothing is 'off limits', but for most people there is something for which it's still 'too soon' (eg. 9/11). Like it or not this is one such thing.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Lazar » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:17 am UTC

Just to be clear, you guys do know it's been well established that the pyramids weren't built by slaves, right? I mean, it still would have been crazy strenuous work, but they were treated with a measure of respect, as shown by the evidence of what they ate and how they were buried.
Exit the vampires' castle.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby elasto » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:22 am UTC

Weren't a good number of people buried alive in some of the pyramids though - presumably against their will? eg. the household servants of the dead rulers?

But, no, I personally wasn't aware that the pyramids were built by willing participants. That's good to hear if that was in fact the case.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:23 am UTC

The NAZI party is particularly associated with genocide of very specific groups. Stalin for example, while very many died under his authority, specific groups weren't genocided as such, mostly political opponents or others who would just be more convenient, dead. While you had much to fear being in Soviet Russia, specifically having some sort of heritage wasn't enough to condemn you to death.

It is this sense of targeted hate that I think is particularly offensive. Its the same thought of thing that distinguishes a regular murder from a hate crime murder, we recognise the later being worse.

Its not possible today to disassociate the complete anti-Semitism from the Swastika. Perhaps this is awfully Western centric view point, but that's who we are (mostly). The Soviet Flag for example isn't as strongly connected with such hate, certainly not in the Western view point. The tartars might disagree.

But as always, being a decent person in society includes NOT displaying symbols or continuously bringing up great tragedies from peoples pasts. Its just a mean thing to do. Whether or not the USSR flag does this is moot in so far as the Swastika does. And the Swastika is also strongly linked to "white supremacy" groups, which is not something that the USSR flag is associated with.

What's also relevant is that the German people themselves have completely rejected the Swastika. There is a great shame there. It is the only place where it is in fact illegal. And it was always a political flag, not a national one (such as the USSR).

Are the swastikas in movies/pictures of the WWII censored in Germany?


Yes it is illegal to display the Swastika in Germany. It is even illegal in video games. Specifically the WWII series of games, Hearts of Iron, which is a WWII simulation, strictly doesn't have a single swastika in it. It is also forbidden to display it in their online forums.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:32 am UTC

elasto wrote:I guess you could call it hypocrisy if you like, but only in the sense that everyone is a hypocrite all the time - including you and me.

Do you care about your friends' pain more than a strangers'? Would your neighbor dying peacefully in your arms have a greater emotional impact on you than a thousand people dying slowly and painfully of starvation half a world away?

Of course you do, and of course it would, and there's nothing wrong with that; It's normal human nature and you'd be a gibbering emotional wreck if it were not the case.

EDIT:
I'm not saying it's okay to have a swastika on your t-shirt, I'm just saying that there's no big problem imho in drawing a swastika on the t-shirt of a character in a cartoon to symbolize they're bad. And if eventually the swastika lose its 'heavy' meaning because of over usage, that's actually a good thing imho, or do people like to have symbols that can cause suffering only by looking at them?

What you're describing is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that time and distance causes emotions to fade - with Stalin's atrocities 'more distant' than Hitler's.

You personally are ready to 'move on' and 'reclaim' the swastika. Many others however are not. That doesn't make them 'hypocrites' so much as just normal people with normal human emotions for whom certain topics are still sensitive.

Maybe for you nothing is 'off limits', but for most people there is something for which it's still 'too soon' (eg. 9/11). Like it or not this is one such thing.


Well, I understand your point, however, I'm talking mostly about the Holocaust and the Famine. Both facts took place geographically "far" from America and with a time distance of no more than 10 years, both were terrible genocides, the Americans could in fact do more for the Jews (e.g.: repatriating lots them before the murdering) than for the Ukrainians. And why the Americans made lots of books and documentaries about the Holocaust and only very few about the Famine? Why the Famine doesn't affect them?

To me, besides the fact that the Germans were the enemy, there's also a cultural difference and the fact that the Ukrainians were all very poor/not 'important'.

Since we're all in for analogies, it's like saying that I'd suffer more when a neighbor that is victim of my enemy is in pain than any other neighbor, especially when I didn't help them when I could... or when the neighbor has the same religion of me... or even worse, when the neighbor has some considerable amount of money. These aren't reasons I'd take into account, even unconsciously, to determine the amount of emotional impact I'd have.

I think that's it; unless there's something right in front of me I'm not able to see... please let me know in that case.

EDIT:
Lazar wrote:Just to be clear, you guys do know it's been well established that the pyramids weren't built by slaves, right? I mean, it still would have been crazy strenuous work, but they were treated with a measure of respect, as shown by the evidence of what they ate and how they were buried.

I thought "respect" was invented recently... I mean, I even heard a discussion of Brits vs French on who actually invented it.
I'm pretty sure the closer to 'respect' back then was "work harder or I'll crackle the whip on your back" :mrgreen:

EDIT2:
BattleMoose wrote:Its not possible today to disassociate the complete anti-Semitism from the Swastika. Perhaps this is awfully Western centric view point, but that's who we are (mostly). The Soviet Flag for example isn't as strongly connected with such hate, certainly not in the Western view point. The tartars might disagree.

But as always, being a decent person in society includes NOT displaying symbols or continuously bringing up great tragedies from peoples pasts. Its just a mean thing to do. Whether or not the USSR flag does this is moot in so far as the Swastika does. And the Swastika is also strongly linked to "white supremacy" groups, which is not something that the USSR flag is associated with.

Yeah, I think you pretty much got it. Also, it's all encapsulated in the golden rule "don't be a dick". However, when we're talking about videogames it's kinda okay, or it's even a good thing to be a dick :D. Just not in very specific cases, and apparently the only way to know which ones is when people start to threat you and your family, then you'll know it's okay to nuke a whole city of innocents but it's not okay to kill a single prostitute after giving her a ride (in both senses :lol:).
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby elasto » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:07 am UTC

Frankenstein wrote:Well, I understand your point, however, I'm talking mostly about the Holocaust and the Famine. Both facts took place geographically "far" from America and with a time distance of no more than 10 years, both were terrible genocides, the Americans could in fact do more for the Jews (e.g.: repatriating lots them before the murdering) than for the Ukrainians. And why the Americans made lots of books and documentaries about the Holocaust and only very few about the Famine? Why the Famine doesn't affect them?

'Distance' isn't referring so much to geographical distance as emotional (though geographic distance will tend to desensitize).

My point about friends vs strangers was to emphasize that noone treats or feels about every grouping equally. So if there's a grouping we encounter frequently (say Jews) and another grouping we encounter only very rarely (say Tutsis) then the Jewish holocaust is naturally going to have more emotional resonance than the Tutsi holocaust even were it to be the case that they both happened the same geographical distance away.

danielcw
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:33 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby danielcw » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Frankenstein wrote:Are the swastikas in movies/pictures of the WWII censored in Germany?


In general no, but it depends on the case.

Swastiaks are allowed in works of art. Movies like Indiana Jones or documentaries more or less have no problem at all.
Sometimes the symbols are censored or obscured on TV, but that is a volunatry action form the broadcasters or translaters, but not forced by law.

Videogame makers typically always censor such symbols, but therer is some debate, whether it is still neccessary.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:37 pm UTC

Perhaps this is a case where context matters? Simply saying 'people were upset about the use of a Swastika' doesn't give us much to go on other than your indignation and confusion.

Wolfenstein for example has lots of Swastikas, and I think people are generally pretty understanding of their presence. Was the game in question, I dunno, educational programming for kids and the Swastika used as a example of right angles and crossing lines? That's fairly inappropriate use of a Swastika.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Neil_Boekend » Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:51 pm UTC

I think it also matter that you shoot the ones that carry the swastika proudly. If the game worked from the Nazi POV there would probably be a big problem.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1455
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Xenomortis » Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:09 pm UTC

You're basically beat over the head with the atrocities the Nazis committed when growing up in Western society.
Everybody knows about the death camps, the mass genocides, and that Hitler was basically evil incarnate.
The crimes committed under Stalin are not as well known. And we didn't fight a massive war to get rid of him either (the Nazi's tried that - look where that got them).

The Nazi's were "The Enemy" and war with them was entirely justified in the public mind.
The Soviets, even under Stalin, were not.
There was a cold war with the USSR, but nothing to really "rally behind", to say these people were "evil", that any association with them should be shameful. It was simple "commies bad, Uncle Sam good".*

Any association with Nazism is controversial in the public eye.
Is it entirely logical? Not necessarily.

*I may be totally wrong; I was born only a year before the USSR collapsed, so this is speculation at best.
Image

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Zamfir » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:31 pm UTC

I think it's more precise than that. Swastikas were a very specific sign. Not a generic sign of fascism, they were not used in Italy or Spain. It's the self-chosen sign of the same people who went on to start world war 2, and the holocaust. There was no milder Nazism that shared the same symbols, but refrained from killing Jews or starting wars. Anti-semitism, general ethnic hatred, aggressive warfare, these were core value of Nazism. They prided themselves on it. People only called themselves Nazis and used swastikas if they supported those things.

That's not the link between soviet symbols and Stalinist purges, let alone the Ukrainian famine. Starving Ukrainians was not a core value of soviet communism. There were soviets using the hammer and sickle before Stalin, and after him, and in other countries, and quite some of them did not support the killing.

So it entirely possible to consider yourself a hard-core, soviet-style communist while also condemning Stalin. You can't really call yourself a Nazi while condemning Hitler and the holocaust, there has been no other kind of Nazism.

Of course, there are other nasty aspects that are core values of soviet communism. Violent revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, persecution of the wrong-minded, exporting the revolution by force. The hammer and sickle really are a symbol for those policies. If you don't stand behind those, there is not much point in using the hammer and sickle.

As analogy: Frankenstein mention Christianity and the inquisition. The cross does not imply support for the inquisition, even if the inquisition used the cross. It does imply belief in heaven, that Jesus Christ is the son of the only god, that the bible is a uniquely valuable text, etc.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:05 pm UTC

Well, I must say that you have some good points guys, but I think the most important fact that makes the swastika so 'offensive' today is that it's still being used by antisemitic and white supremacy jerks... I don't quite understand though, aren't Jews white too? Anyway... so it seems it's still strongly associated with antisemitism today because of its usage post-war, however, IMO the very people offended by the swastika are the ones who turned it from a symbol of Nazism into a symbol with so many strong meanings. I mean, each time you forbid it and overreact over it, it becomes stronger as a symbol of many bad things in the history, and that must amuse the jerks. When they see people covering the eyes of their kids not to see a swastika or nations forbidding it, that increases their certainty that low-pixel fan represents something very significant.

You can 'hurt' and demoralize your enemy by printing well-though propaganda, by printing their kids starving to death, but to hurt your enemy with 2 lines of crappy art, that's a powerful weapon. And it's effective as long as people allows it to be effective. As long as people give importance to it.

LTS: The victims gave too much importance for a stupid symbol (understandably), and eventually it became a symbol of great importance and of multiple meanings. Basically the swastika nowadays is like the 'picture' of all the suffering caused by the Nazis...

elasto wrote:
Frankenstein wrote:Well, I understand your point, however, I'm talking mostly about the Holocaust and the Famine. Both facts took place geographically "far" from America and with a time distance of no more than 10 years, both were terrible genocides, the Americans could in fact do more for the Jews (e.g.: repatriating lots them before the murdering) than for the Ukrainians. And why the Americans made lots of books and documentaries about the Holocaust and only very few about the Famine? Why the Famine doesn't affect them?

'Distance' isn't referring so much to geographical distance as emotional (though geographic distance will tend to desensitize).

My point about friends vs strangers was to emphasize that noone treats or feels about every grouping equally. So if there's a grouping we encounter frequently (say Jews) and another grouping we encounter only very rarely (say Tutsis) then the Jewish holocaust is naturally going to have more emotional resonance than the Tutsi holocaust even were it to be the case that they both happened the same geographical distance away.

Seems a little bit odd to me... another point though is that nowadays you can't easily identify the victims and the culprits of the Famine, since basically it was Soviets killing Soviets... how do you know which of them you're looking at when they come to America? In case of the Holocaust, Jews were the victims. You see a Jew, you see a victim. That's kinda wrong though.
Izawwlgood wrote:Perhaps this is a case where context matters? Simply saying 'people were upset about the use of a Swastika' doesn't give us much to go on other than your indignation and confusion.

Wolfenstein for example has lots of Swastikas, and I think people are generally pretty understanding of their presence. Was the game in question, I dunno, educational programming for kids and the Swastika used as a example of right angles and crossing lines? That's fairly inappropriate use of a Swastika.

Neil_Boekend wrote:I think it also matter that you shoot the ones that carry the swastika proudly. If the game worked from the Nazi POV there would probably be a big problem.

It seemed a strategy game, I don't know exactly because the post was deleted, but it seems the guy was playing the game as an evil emperor or something, and he decided to 'make' a swastika of bushes on the garden of his castle. Basically, he was using the swastika as a symbol of how evil his empire was (and even emphasized that). I totally can't see how that is offensive in any way... I mean, it would be offensive IMO if the good guys had a swastika in their garden.

It seems to me that, it doesn't matter the context, not even to say the Nazis were all moth*rf*ckers (sorry) you can use the swastika, and as I said previously, it's exactly that kind of attitude that 'empowers' not only the symbolism but also the jerks today... When I hear about neo-nazis & cia, I see they know nothing about Nazism, they are a bunch of kids who never grew and have no clue... I always keep wondering what the actual Nazis would think about them. I bet they would be a joke and would be killed only for the pleasure of the Nazis, perhaps being used for target practice.
Xenomortis wrote:You're basically beat over the head with the atrocities the Nazis committed when growing up in Western society.
Everybody knows about the death camps, the mass genocides, and that Hitler was basically evil incarnate.
The crimes committed under Stalin are not as well known. And we didn't fight a massive war to get rid of him either (the Nazi's tried that - look where that got them).

The Nazi's were "The Enemy" and war with them was entirely justified in the public mind.
The Soviets, even under Stalin, were not.
There was a cold war with the USSR, but nothing to really "rally behind", to say these people were "evil", that any association with them should be shameful. It was simple "commies bad, Uncle Sam good".*

Any association with Nazism is controversial in the public eye.
Is it entirely logical? Not necessarily.

*I may be totally wrong; I was born only a year before the USSR collapsed, so this is speculation at best.

"commies bad, Uncle Sam good" 2 ... :mrgreen:
Zamfir wrote:I think it's more precise than that. Swastikas were a very specific sign. Not a generic sign of fascism, they were not used in Italy or Spain. It's the self-chosen sign of the same people who went on to start world war 2, and the holocaust. There was no milder Nazism that shared the same symbols, but refrained from killing Jews or starting wars. Anti-semitism, general ethnic hatred, aggressive warfare, these were core value of Nazism. They prided themselves on it. People only called themselves Nazis and used swastikas if they supported those things.

That's not the link between soviet symbols and Stalinist purges, let alone the Ukrainian famine. Starving Ukrainians was not a core value of soviet communism. There were soviets using the hammer and sickle before Stalin, and after him, and in other countries, and quite some of them did not support the killing.

So it entirely possible to consider yourself a hard-core, soviet-style communist while also condemning Stalin. You can't really call yourself a Nazi while condemning Hitler and the holocaust, there has been no other kind of Nazism.

Of course, there are other nasty aspects that are core values of soviet communism. Violent revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, persecution of the wrong-minded, exporting the revolution by force. The hammer and sickle really are a symbol for those policies. If you don't stand behind those, there is not much point in using the hammer and sickle.

As analogy: Frankenstein mention Christianity and the inquisition. The cross does not imply support for the inquisition, even if the inquisition used the cross. It does imply belief in heaven, that Jesus Christ is the son of the only god, that the bible is a uniquely valuable text, etc.

Yeah, I agree about the values, however, I read/watched somewhere that the Famine had a 'logo', I mean, a specific symbol tailored to represent only the Famine... The Famine had its own particular symbol, but no one cared much, so it didn't become significant. Perhaps part of the story is because the symbol was not stamped on every flag and pretty much everywhere like the swastika.

Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that people nowadays are kinda 'reverse worshiping' the swastika IMO :?.

Also, symbols means whatever you see on them. And perhaps the fact we're neglecting is what caused all the turmoil... When I see the cross I always think "I have to google if they did more harm than good" :P. I never google that though, perhaps unconsciously I don't want to know the answer to that question.

That's why symbols are so powerful, because people see what they want to see, and because people see symbols everywhere if they're meaningful enough to them. Yes, I'm talking about seeing swastikas in clouds and (appropriately) in dogs poop.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:37 pm UTC

Frankenstein wrote: I don't quite understand though, aren't Jews white too?
For an absolute mind fuck of an exercise in mental gymnastics, go check out the logic behind those who want to keep Europe full of white 'Europeans'.

Frankenstein wrote:IMO the very people offended by the swastika are the ones who turned it from a symbol of Nazism into a symbol with so many strong meanings. I mean, each time you forbid it and overreact over it, it becomes stronger as a symbol of many bad things in the history, and that must amuse the jerks. When they see people covering the eyes of their kids not to see a swastika or nations forbidding it, that increases their certainty that low-pixel fan represents something very significant.
Huh? Not everything needs to be reappropriated. The word nigger isn't offensive today because 'white people don't want to use it'.

I think if anything you're exaggerating 'people taking offense to a swastika'.
Frankenstein wrote:It seemed a strategy game, I don't know exactly because the post was deleted, but it seems the guy was playing the game as an evil emperor or something, and he decided to 'make' a swastika of bushes on the garden of his castle. Basically, he was using the swastika as a symbol of how evil his empire was (and even emphasized that). I totally can't see how that is offensive in any way... I mean, it would be offensive IMO if the good guys had a swastika in their garden.

It seems to me that, it doesn't matter the context, not even to say the Nazis were all moth*rf*ckers (sorry) you can use the swastika, and as I said previously, it's exactly that kind of attitude that 'empowers' not only the symbolism but also the jerks today... When I hear about neo-nazis & cia, I see they know nothing about Nazism, they are a bunch of kids who never grew and have no clue... I always keep wondering what the actual Nazis would think about them. I bet they would be a joke and would be killed only for the pleasure of the Nazis, perhaps being used for target practice.
So, I think you've sort of explained the issue here. There's a casual game and some guy is somewhat flippantly throwing around Nazi-ism because hyuk hyuk being evil is teh lolz. If I'm logging into a game of Civilization, I don't want to see someone named themselves Adolf Hitler, and each of their cities 'BurnTehJoos' or the like. Nazism, as explained to you already, is associated with a very specific kind of tyranny - why do you suppose this player decided he was going to underline his evil empire as being Nazi's, or more to the point, what do you think that brought to the game?

Again, to be crystal clear - Nazi does not simply equate with evil.

As for your second paragraph that I quoted I almost have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, there are neo-Nazis today who are probably idiot kids, but none of them are actually making arguments for national socialism and are actually pro-interracial marriage and have a best friend whose Jewish.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:46 pm UTC

@Izawwlgood: Yeah I agree to some extent.
Izawwlgood wrote:hyuk hyuk being evil is teh lolz.

In Engrisch please :P.
Izawwlgood wrote:As for your second paragraph that I quoted I almost have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, there are neo-Nazis today who are probably idiot kids, but none of them are actually making arguments for national socialism and are actually pro-interracial marriage and have a best friend whose Jewish.

I was saying that if they could go back in time I doubt they would be taken seriously by the Nazis.

Anyway, nothing changes the fact that "Basically Decent" in videogames is a real mess. You have games being frowned upon because of dozens of killings, and games being acclaimed for unleashing a genocide on innocent people.
Last edited by Frankenstein on Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:48 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:48 pm UTC

The reason people may have been offended by this random persons use of a swastika is because contextually, it was pretty inappropriate use of a swastika.

Frankenstein wrote:I was saying that if they could go back in time I doubt they would be taken seriously by the Nazis.
Why?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:49 pm UTC

Frankenstein wrote:Hi there ladies and gentlemen.

I was linked to a Reddit discussion of a picture of a videogame where the author used the swastika to symbolize evil. Besides some "upvotes", it was frowned upon and he was even threatened. I know that the WWII is pretty recent in the memories of people, and I've been an indirect victim of the WWII (my grandpa is the direct victim), however, I don't understand why the swastika can't be used to symbolize something very bad in a virtual world. I mean, in these worlds people do horrible things, like killing ruthlessly every innocent citizen in a town just because they feel like, and no one complains, but when you draw a swastika, then people want to kill you.

Let's work with the fact that the swastika is not a socially acceptable symbol, of course it brings horrible memories to a lot of people and I understand that perfectly. However, in this case why the other symbols associated with other genocides or other horrendous facts of the history aren't a taboo? I mean, Stalin was another recent genocidal governor, and I don't see people complaining about that. Also, the Great Pyramid is even one of the "Seven Wonders of Ancient World", and it is to me another symbol of unimaginable suffering.

My question is: are people that hypocritical or is there a logical explanation?


It doesn't mean just simply "bad". It is a symbol of Nazism(and before that, other things in contexts that have been greatly overshadowed by this meaning). Using it to mean a generic bad is sloppy, in the same way that using "socialist" to describe all political things you dislike is sloppy.

I don't agree with outright censorship, but yeah, I would expect people to be unhappy with a casual or inappropriate use of swastikas. That isn't really surprising.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:56 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Frankenstein wrote:I was saying that if they could go back in time I doubt they would be taken seriously by the Nazis.
Why?

Because they are ridiculous and probably would poop their pants and call their mommas when they see 1/2billion of what the Nazis did.

Tyndmyr wrote:It doesn't mean just simply "bad". It is a symbol of Nazism(and before that, other things in contexts that have been greatly overshadowed by this meaning). Using it to mean a generic bad is sloppy, in the same way that using "socialist" to describe all political things you dislike is sloppy.

I don't agree with outright censorship, but yeah, I would expect people to be unhappy with a casual or inappropriate use of swastikas. That isn't really surprising.

Yeah, it's sloppy, it's dumb, it's disrespectful to some extent, it should be avoided, but I don't see people swearing to kill someone and their family when they use the word "socialist". I mean, if I were descendant of a Jew who died at a concentration camp, I would not want to resolve that issue with violence. Well, unless I was pretty sure I was dealing with an actual neo-nazi... even though I can't say for sure I'd use that amount of violence.

As I said previously, If the swastika becomes a meaningless symbol, it would be better for everyone. One less thing to care, one less source of unnecessary suffering.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Lazar » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:02 pm UTC

Frankenstein wrote:I don't quite understand though, aren't Jews white too?

Nowadays, among people who a) posit the existence of races and b) aren't neo-Nazis or something similar, Jews generally are considered white. Growing up as a half-Jewish person in the northeastern United States, I never felt non-white at all. But racial categories are notoriously arbitrary, especially among racial supremacists. The Nazis considered Jews to be subhuman even if they looked indistinguishable from Germans; they considered Poles, Russians and Ukrainians to be subhuman, even though those are among the paler peoples of Europe. They declared the Japanese to be "honorary Aryans", and at the same time they tried to exterminate the Romani, who in ethnolinguistic terms are the most "Aryan" people in Europe. Basically, they made stuff up as it suited their purposes.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:05 pm UTC

Frankenstein wrote:Because they are ridiculous and probably would poop their pants and call their mommas when they see 1/2billion of what the Nazis did.
Well, A ) I think some/many Nazi's in WWII probably pooped their pants and called their mommas when they realized the extent of what the party got up to, B ) I think some/many neo-Nazi's today are probably more extreme even than those in WWII, and C ) Again, why?

Frankenstein wrote:Yeah, it's sloppy, it's dumb, it's disrespectful to some extent, it should be avoided, but I don't see people swearing to kill someone and their family when they use the word "socialist". I mean, if I were descendant of a Jew who died at a concentration camp, I would not want to resolve that issue with violence. Well, unless I was pretty sure I was dealing with an actual neo-nazi... even though I can't say for sure I'd use that amount of violence. As I said previously, If the swastika becomes a meaningless symbol, it would be better for everyone. One less thing to care, one less source of unnecessary suffering.


Again, I think you're exaggerating the responses people are having to swastika's, and now, I think you're underestimating the responses some people have to socialism. I also think you should avoid telling people how they should respond to things that may or may not be offensive to them. You don't get to decide how people handle or respond to things.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:30 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Frankenstein wrote:I don't quite understand though, aren't Jews white too?

Nowadays, among people who a) posit the existence of races and b) aren't neo-Nazis or something similar, Jews generally are considered white. Growing up as a half-Jewish person in the northeastern United States, I never felt non-white at all. But racial categories are notoriously arbitrary, especially among racial supremacists. The Nazis considered Jews to be subhuman even if they looked indistinguishable from Germans; they considered Poles, Russians and Ukrainians to be subhuman, even though those are among the paler peoples of Europe. They declared the Japanese to be "honorary Aryans", and at the same time they tried to exterminate the Romani, who in ethnolinguistic terms are the most "Aryan" people in Europe. Basically, they made stuff up as it suited their purposes.

Oh, yeah, the good ole nonsense.
Izawwlgood wrote:Again, I think you're exaggerating the responses people are having to swastika's, and now, I think you're underestimating the responses some people have to socialism. I also think you should avoid telling people how they should respond to things that may or may not be offensive to them. You don't get to decide how people handle or respond to things.

No, the guy was really threatened by quite notable members of Reddit (although, I don't know how it works, but they seemed to have many 'points' there). I'm sure that's why the thing was deleted.

And even if *I* don't get to decide how people handle that, SOMEONE with a little more tolerance and common sense must decide things for people when they start to promise killing each other, because at that point they're clearly unable to decide things reasonably. I mean, intolerance is what caused the very source of the whole problem, right?

People offend you, you threat their lives, they kill your family before you kill theirs, you invade their city killing everyone, they attack you through the air, you launch some nukes, they launch nukes. The thing escalates pretty much like that. People should be tolerant at the "people offend you" part, otherwise it could escalate to WWIII (obviously I'm exaggerating). If Hitler was tolerant when he was offended/treated unfairly, history probably would be very different. It's much easier to forgive when the things are still on 'verbal' offenses than on the next steps. At least that my opinion.

If they want to take action against that, they should do so in courts, not with violence.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:38 pm UTC

Frankenstein wrote:No, the guy was really threatened by quite notable members of Reddit (although, I don't know how it works, but they seemed to have many 'points' there). I'm sure that's why the thing was deleted.
Heh, karma in reddit is just a representation of people in that chunk of time 'upvoting' or 'downvoting' a comment. The presence of a high vote count just means a lot of people agreed, not that that person is a 'notable member'.

Frankenstein wrote:And even if *I* don't get to decide how people handle that, SOMEONE with a little more tolerance and common sense must decide things for people when they start to promise killing each other, because at that point they're clearly unable to decide things reasonably. I mean, intolerance is what caused the very source of the whole problem, right? People offend you, you threat their lives, they kill your family before you kill theirs, you invade their city killing everyone, they attack you through the air, you launch some nukes, they launch nukes. The thing escalates pretty much like that. People should be tolerant at the "people offend you" part, otherwise it could escalate to WWIII (obviously I'm exaggerating). If Hitler was tolerant when he was offended/treated unfairly, history probably would be very different. It's much easier to forgive when the things are still on 'verbal' offenses than on the next steps. At least that my opinion. If they want to take action against that, they should do so in courts, not with violence.
This is quite different from the Charlie Hebdo comics. This is also why I asked you at the beginning what the context was. ADDITIONALLY, giving people shit on the internet for being assholes is what you're asking for, a non-violent disagreement.

So, to summarize... You seem to be upset that people on the internet were offended by the flippant and inappropriate inclusion of a swastika, because you want swastika's to no longer be offensive, because you condemn the use of violence? I don't actually think anything unreasonable happened here after the guy was idiotic with a swastika.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:55 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:So, to summarize... You seem to be upset that people on the internet were offended by the flippant and inappropriate inclusion of a swastika, because you want swastika's to no longer be offensive, because you condemn the use of violence? I don't actually think anything unreasonable happened here after the guy was idiotic with a swastika.


Nope, here you go: (discl: just my opinions)
1-I was upset because people think having a swastika in a virtual garden of a virtual castle in a virtual world in a videogame is enough reason to kill someone. And other people seemed to agree. That was specially surprising because I took absolutely no offense and couldn't even imagine someone would react like that.
2-If I could choose, I'd prefer the swastika to be completely 'unlinked' from Nazism, specially because the swastika is a religious symbol on some cultures an was not invented by the Nazi it's just /part/ of their flag. Of course people would probably find other ways to offend others and I don't agree with that, but I'm pretty sure that guys was not intending to offend anyone but simply using a swastika as a symbol of evil, whether it's accurate or not.
3-Don't you condemn violence in cases like that? If people kept their words, probably a teen would be orphan by now. You can never use "Nazism" to combat Nazism. You combat things like that with tolerance and being civilized, otherwise inevitable you end up being just like them.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:00 pm UTC

1 - I have no idea what these death threats were or how serious they were. Telling an anonymous stranger on the internet that you hope they die because they did something that bothers you is hardly the promise of violence, though of course if these death threats were serious, of course that's a Bad Thing.

2 - That's not really your decision to make. I don't think you really know what that guy was thinking or intending, but you are obviously aware of the outcome.

3 - Condemn the violence in the Charlie Hebdo incident? Absolutely. Do you understand the difference between that and what you're describing here?
Frankenstein wrote:You can never use "Nazism" to combat Nazism.
What do you mean by this? Are you again conflating Nazism to 'violent bad things'?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:07 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:1 - I have no idea what these death threats were or how serious they were. Telling an anonymous stranger on the internet that you hope they die because they did something that bothers you is hardly the promise of violence, though of course if these death threats were serious, of course that's a Bad Thing.

2 - That's not really your decision to make. I don't think you really know what that guy was thinking or intending, but you are obviously aware of the outcome.

3 - Condemn the violence in the Charlie Hebdo incident? Absolutely. Do you understand the difference between that and what you're describing here?
Frankenstein wrote:You can never use "Nazism" to combat Nazism.
What do you mean by this? Are you again conflating Nazism to 'violent bad things'?


1-Well, they aren't just "I hope you die" afaik.
2-I know, I just said that if I could decide I would decide that.
3-Killing people for disagreeing with you sounds pretty "Nazi" to me. I mean, Stalin and many other did that too, but according to this very thread we don't know them very well :P.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:13 pm UTC

1 - Again, without you being specific about what was exchanged, it's hard to tell what happened. But, that said, telling a stranger on reddit that you'll kill them is hardly, as I see it, equivalent to the Charlie Hebdo event.

3 - Now you're being flippant. People, myself included, have been quite specific in explaining to you why Nazism means something more specific than 'Evil'. I'm not sure why you're deliberately ignoring that.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby leady » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:15 pm UTC

they lost, fairly recently and have terrible public and media relations - no other reasons really

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:40 pm UTC

So, It's more acceptable to promise killing a family than for example, saying "that looks like Nazi architecture" because Nazism means something "specific".

We live in strange times... I thought the WWII would be the last big war of humanity, but with that kind of mentality, I fear that in a distant future WWW will stand for World Wide War.

Also, I'm going to watch out for Mossad, because I use the word "Nazi" quite a lot, like for example: "that policy is almost Nazi", "a Nazi UFO crashed in your toilet", "you're like a modern Nazi hunter", "not even the Nazis would enter there", and so on. So, applying the logic you're saying here, I should be on top of Mossad's list.

Also, the few Jews I know are all the time referring to Auschwitz, the most common phrase I hear is "that's worse than in Auschwitz", so, they can say that, but if *I* ever say that the Mossad is going to kill me?

The hypocrisy.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:44 pm UTC

Frankenstein wrote:So, It's more acceptable to promise killing a family than for example, saying "that looks like Nazi architecture" because Nazism means something "specific".
Wat?

Frankenstein wrote:We live in strange times... I thought the WWII would be the last big war of humanity, but with that kind of mentality, I fear that in a distant future WWW will stand for World Wide War.
Wat?

Frankenstein wrote:Also, I'm going to watch out for Mossad, because I use the word "Nazi" quite a lot, like for example: "that policy is almost Nazi", "a Nazi UFO crashed in your toilet", "you're like a modern Nazi hunter", "not even the Nazis would enter there", and so on. So, applying the logic you're saying here, I should be on top of Mossad's list.
Wat?

Frankenstein wrote:Also, the few Jews I know are all the time referring to Auschwitz, the most common phrase I hear is "that's worse than in Auschwitz", so, they can say that, but if *I* ever say that the Mossad is going to kill me?
Wat?

Frankenstein wrote:The hypocrisy.
I have no idea what you're gibbering about.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:10 pm UTC

NOTE: I didn't even mention Charlie Hebdo in this thread, but that's surely an example of how far things can go with no tolerance.

This thread makes me sad.

Perhaps I'm completely wrong and my mind is so twisted that I'd be better dead, but in my opinion freedom of speech is more important than unintentionally offending someone. No matter what you say, as long as it's meaningful and worth saying, someone will always be offended by something, what's very subjective also. I can say "Nazi" all day long and that's totally not going to affect the memories of that dark episode in history. Lots of words have similar origins, like Barbarian, Criminal, Vandal, etc. I don't see people complaining about these... Oh, the hypocrisy.

Also, when you can't convince people that they should try to solve their issues talking and being civilized rather than just firing their guns right away, you know this world simply isn't for you.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3068
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby PAstrychef » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:33 pm UTC

One of the freedoms that comes with free speech us the freedom to not use words or phrases that you know are hurtful to others because you are a compassionate human being.
If you use "nazi" the way sports fans have used "fag", "queer" and "gay", (as a sort of generalized slur) then you really have a lot of maturation ahead of you.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:34 pm UTC

Frankenstein wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It doesn't mean just simply "bad". It is a symbol of Nazism(and before that, other things in contexts that have been greatly overshadowed by this meaning). Using it to mean a generic bad is sloppy, in the same way that using "socialist" to describe all political things you dislike is sloppy.

I don't agree with outright censorship, but yeah, I would expect people to be unhappy with a casual or inappropriate use of swastikas. That isn't really surprising.

Yeah, it's sloppy, it's dumb, it's disrespectful to some extent, it should be avoided, but I don't see people swearing to kill someone and their family when they use the word "socialist". I mean, if I were descendant of a Jew who died at a concentration camp, I would not want to resolve that issue with violence. Well, unless I was pretty sure I was dealing with an actual neo-nazi... even though I can't say for sure I'd use that amount of violence.

As I said previously, If the swastika becomes a meaningless symbol, it would be better for everyone. One less thing to care, one less source of unnecessary suffering.


Swearing to kill someone and their family over the use of a word is pretty universally bad. But there is indeed some pretty strong anti-socialist sentiment out there. Just depends on what circles you travel in. Likewise, the strong reaction to nazi symbology is not quite universal. Many asian countries see it in a somewhat less severe light, because they have more distance from it.

I don't generally support getting worked up over symbols, but I don't think you can reasonably advocate for taking the swastika back. I mean, sure, go ahead and try, but it means quite a lot to a very many people. I do not think you can reasonably expect to change that many views so greatly. And if you DO posess such unusual powers of persuasion, there are probably far, far easier/better purposes to pursue. Words mean what everyone uses them to mean. If your definition differs from everyone else's, you're the one using the word wrong.

Also, I caution you not to put too much weight into internet comments, which really vary depending on locale, and can contain a great deal of stupidity/hyperbole. Youtube comments, for instance, are basically terrible always. They might say all kinds of things, but the likelihood of any such things translating into actual action are extremely low. It's just a form of competing for attention to loudly proclaim your disagreement or whatever. Or troll for shock value. Whichever. You can't discount the context when evaluating comments for "violence" or whatever.

3-Don't you condemn violence in cases like that? If people kept their words, probably a teen would be orphan by now. You can never use "Nazism" to combat Nazism. You combat things like that with tolerance and being civilized, otherwise inevitable you end up being just like them.


Again, "nazism" is not a universal label to describe bad stuff, or conflict, or hostility. This makes your sentence nonsensical.

Frankenstein wrote:Also, when you can't convince people that they should try to solve their issues talking and being civilized rather than just firing their guns right away, you know this world simply isn't for you.


It's situational. Neither talking nor shooting guns is a universal fix for every scenario. Obviously.

Use the right tool for the job. This principle extends to language, of course. You will have far more luck with talking if you're using words in the same fashion as the folks you are talking to. Some of your points do not appear to do so, and as a result, are borderline incomprehensible. Just claiming to be for tolerance doesn't mean your side of the argument is automatically correct, or even sensible.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:47 pm UTC

Nice replies guys, thanks! I thought this thread were dead.

I never knew Reddit were on par with Youtube comments. I thought it were a civilized community just like this one (to some extent :P).

Also, in my humble opinion, what one say must be interpreted by the intentions, I don't remind calling anyone a "Nazi", but if a friend of mine called me a "Nazi" in the midst of a humorous and informal conversation, I'd totally not care, and that's considering that I hate the Nazis wholeheartedly. But if someone wanted to offend me, I'd take offense from not only "Nazi", but whatever way they find to offend me in that magnitude. What really matter in the end is what you mean, not the sounds coming out of your mouth, but their meanings.

Also, I don't understand why people are so intolerant nowadays. If you tolerate a little and forgive a little, the world is going to be a much better place, "respect" IMO is another level of sentiment, along with "comprehension". I just wanted people to tolerate a little bit more, that's what I try to do in my social interactions with others. I live with a lot of things I don't agree and I try to comprehend and respect the different views, but it seems most people can't even 'tolerate' the others to the point of not wanting to kill them all.

If people can't even tolerate different opinions, how are we expect to forgive, respect and comprehend each other? People don't want to hear different opinions, whenever they hear something they dislike their immediate reaction is aggression.

The modern world is a sad and hypocritical place.

Tyndmyr wrote:
Frankenstein wrote:Also, when you can't convince people that they should try to solve their issues talking and being civilized rather than just firing their guns right away, you know this world simply isn't for you.


It's situational. Neither talking nor shooting guns is a universal fix for every scenario. Obviously.

Use the right tool for the job. This principle extends to language, of course. You will have far more luck with talking if you're using words in the same fashion as the folks you are talking to. Some of your points do not appear to do so, and as a result, are borderline incomprehensible. Just claiming to be for tolerance doesn't mean your side of the argument is automatically correct, or even sensible.

Well, IMO people should use violence only as a last resource, no matter what. And even in cases where it's necessary, I'm all in for "non-lethal violence". Not even the Nazis employed violence right away in all situations.
Last edited by Frankenstein on Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Zamfir » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:04 pm UTC

I would normally post this in the humorous news thread, but what the heck. It's just too perfect.

http://modernfarmer.com/2015/01/nazi-era-cattle-breed-just-awful-expected/

And UK farmer Derek Gow confirmed that suspicion the hard way, as his Hitler-era Heck cows proved so aggressive that he ended up sending more than half of them to the sausage factory.
[...]
But that’s hardly all that the cattle evoke. This particular breed dates back to the 1920s, when German zoologists and brothers Heinz and Lutz Heck, recruited by the Nazis, began a program to resurrect extinct wild species by cross-breeding various domestic descendants — an effort typically referred to as “back breeding.” Among their success stories was the half-ton Heck cattle, a reasonable facsimile of the hearty and Herculean auroch cattle that dated back some 2 million years prior and has roamed en masse all over Germany centuries prior.
[...]
Is anyone really surprised that the cows turned out to be murderously dangerous?

“The ones we had to get rid of would just attack you any chance they could. They would try to kill anyone. Dealing with that was not fun at all. They are by far and away the most aggressive animals I have ever worked with,” Gow told the Independent.

See? People hate those swastikas for a reason.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:10 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:I would normally post this in the humorous news thread, but what the heck. It's just too perfect.

http://modernfarmer.com/2015/01/nazi-era-cattle-breed-just-awful-expected/

And UK farmer Derek Gow confirmed that suspicion the hard way, as his Hitler-era Heck cows proved so aggressive that he ended up sending more than half of them to the sausage factory.
[...]
But that’s hardly all that the cattle evoke. This particular breed dates back to the 1920s, when German zoologists and brothers Heinz and Lutz Heck, recruited by the Nazis, began a program to resurrect extinct wild species by cross-breeding various domestic descendants — an effort typically referred to as “back breeding.” Among their success stories was the half-ton Heck cattle, a reasonable facsimile of the hearty and Herculean auroch cattle that dated back some 2 million years prior and has roamed en masse all over Germany centuries prior.
[...]
Is anyone really surprised that the cows turned out to be murderously dangerous?

“The ones we had to get rid of would just attack you any chance they could. They would try to kill anyone. Dealing with that was not fun at all. They are by far and away the most aggressive animals I have ever worked with,” Gow told the Independent.

See? People hate those swastikas for a reason.

I see that the cows took offense from being called Nazi and went nuts. You know humanity is retrograding when you're using cows to understand the humans :P.

EDIT:
Also, yeah, it seems nowadays people love to hate. It's the first response to everything, when you don't comprehend/agree with something, you automatically must hate it. There's no mid-ground, you either open your arms or shoot your guns.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Zamfir » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:47 pm UTC

Yeah, you can't help it. Back in the days, people were kind and tolerant.

1930s Germany was good, I hear. Haters didn't get any opportunity.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Frankenstein » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:04 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Yeah, you can't help it. Back in the days, people were kind and tolerant.
1930s Germany was good, I hear. Haters didn't get any opportunity.

Very nice one :lol:.

I see intolerance increasing though. This millennia started really badly IMO. Anyway, obviously things are improving overall. But it's still too far from 'acceptable' IMO. That thing about retrograding was supposed to be funny. It seems I've failed miserably.

I even coined a quote in your honor, friend (it's obviously not referring to you, you just inspired me to put that fact in words like the famous people out there):

"The primitive man fears what he can't explain, and hates what he can't understand" - Frankenstein
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Why the swastika is not socially acceptable nowadays?

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:24 pm UTC

Frankenstein wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Frankenstein wrote:Also, when you can't convince people that they should try to solve their issues talking and being civilized rather than just firing their guns right away, you know this world simply isn't for you.


It's situational. Neither talking nor shooting guns is a universal fix for every scenario. Obviously.

Use the right tool for the job. This principle extends to language, of course. You will have far more luck with talking if you're using words in the same fashion as the folks you are talking to. Some of your points do not appear to do so, and as a result, are borderline incomprehensible. Just claiming to be for tolerance doesn't mean your side of the argument is automatically correct, or even sensible.

Well, IMO people should use violence only as a last resource, no matter what. And even in cases where it's necessary, I'm all in for "non-lethal violence". Not even the Nazis employed violence right away in all situations.


Uh...the Nazi's are maybe not the best of examples of tolerance or non-violence.

Especially when compared to rude words on the internet.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests