[Wormsie]

BTW2 I heard that there is a neo-nazist party (in politics) in Finland, and that it's supposed to be the first in Europe. Is that true?

If there is, I haven't heard of it...

[Kolzig]

Neither have I.

[KamisoriX]

banning a symbol but letting the DVU in the Bundestag. These crazy germans

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by EasilyConfused

But banning things that hurt feelings or are "highly inconsiderate" seems way too broad to me. Think of all the things that are said on a daily hourly basis on this forum that hurt people's feelings--individual people, people we "know" in a way. Yeah, yeah, "it's not the same." Okay, what about the example of people protesting during the Vietnam war? What about John Kerry and others, who said that US soldiers had committed atrocities? Hurt feelings? Yes, as many veterans clearly feel today. True? Look in the history books--documented at Mai Lai and other places. Highly inconsiderate? We-ellllllll. What about pro-life protestors--or pro-choice protestors? Where do you draw the line on what's "considerate" there? Is Nazi symbolism something we feel free to ban because it appears to be a historical "done deal," something we settled in a war half a century ago? My view here is that Emily and jjacob are right, and that it's important not to ban these symbols for the very reason that banning them does more to help keep the nasty feelings behind these movements alive than allowing a free and open debate about them to take place.

Sorry if this hurts anyone's feelings.

Hmmm I see your point. But I dunno, to me protesting a war, or arguing on the forums, is far different than a symbol that embodies the worst form of genocide and mass murder. Let me ask you this, should people be allowed to wear KKK robes in public while walking in the mall. I mean it is freedom of speech. They could cause riots and in some cases even bloody accidents if let's say a black person sees it.

But from a different perspective, wearing it for a kids play, or viewing it in a textbook is totally different because it is only for educational purpose.

That said, I think boobs should be banned coz Janet Jackson hurt my feelings

[Curt]

I think each case has to be determined on it's purpose. If the symbol is used purely to inflame, ignite or belittle then the person responsible should face the consequences of their anti-social use of/behaviour. On the other hand, if the purpose is passive or benign then the symbol should be ok to use in those circumstances.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Let me ask you this, should people be allowed to wear KKK robes in public while walking in the mall.

Yes. I've seen people wear t-shirts with the text "All children should be killed". I mean, ultimately anything can upset people. You just have to deal with it.

[EasilyConfused]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Let me ask you this, should people be allowed to wear KKK robes in public while walking in the mall. I mean it is freedom of speech.

Again, it's a really good question. Freedom of speech as you said never meant "anything goes." If you come into my house spewing racist junk, I can kick you out. (And I will. ) A mall is technically private property--it has a private owner. But courts in some cases have held that malls are more like public streets, where the government is not supposed to just stop something. (Freedom of speech applies to government's role of course in stopping what is said. It's not a problem for private citizens to say "That is not cool"--we always have that right.)

As far as causing violence, yeah, that's also a problem, and a hard question. Again, I think context matters. But the courts at one point ruled that in some cases, the police had the obligation to protect unpopular views. I mean, plenty of people in the South wanted to hurt Civil Rights protestors (and did.) Martin Luther King made white segregationists so ANGRY that they responded with violence--that was actually his goal, because he wanted to make people in the US see that the violence was there all the time, it just wasn't always on the surface. (And he also wanted to show that African Americans could respond without violence, peacefully asking for equality and fair treatment.) Should the government have shut down those protests just because there was the potential for violence? I don't think so.

It might be that you think that the government should prevent speech you think is disagreeable and allow speech you think is okay. Actually, you can make a good case for this, and a lot of people have. I just don't think it's the best approach, because we have seen over time that what we think is disagreeable and what we think is okay changes, and humans are pretty fallible creatures. But I know what you are saying, and I am also extremely uncomfortable with hate speech. For me, that's the closest call.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

Yes. I've seen people wear t-shirts with the text "All children should be killed". I mean, ultimately anything can upset people. You just have to deal with it.

Since someone's brought up the subject of t-shirts (cheers wormsie ) I thought I talk about offensive t-shirts. I'm on the mailing list for the newsletter of a website that solely sells offensive t-shirts. I won't post the link here because I think it would breach forum rules but contact me if you want it. (If using e-mail mentiong AG in the subject. Don't want to delete you as spam)

This site is an equal opportunities offender. If you perused their selectiion then you will almost certainly come across something you'll personally find offensive. But they don't single out a particular group. Upon receiving complaints about a t-shirt denigrating black people they launched an equivalent t-shirt denigrating white people.

Now, their newsletter includes a section entitled "our hate mail" which purports to be real e-mails they've received. One recurring theme in these mails is "I used to think your site was really cool until you released shirt X. That's disgusting. How could you release a shirt like that?" The point is, all too often, people are happy to go along with things that conform to their own prejudices. It's only when something affects them directly they shout out.

We all have different views on what we personally find offensive. You could argue that the view regarding the swastika is wide enough to justify banning it, but I think you're starting down a slippery slope.

stepurhan

P.S. I've never bought a t-shirt from this site. I consider the newsletter a reminder that freedom of speech is still operating properly. If something this offensive can carry on then maybe their is hope for the more positive uses of freedom.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

I thought so too, and I was going to add a post about that, adding that it didn't matter because most people don't care to notice which way the arms were facing, they just see a swastika and think "BAD!" But a google search turned up pictures of nazi flags and the swastika arms are facing in the same direction as the symbol on Ganesh's hand in that picture. So either Ganesh is advocating genocide or the claims that the nazis reversed the symbol aren't true.

Edit: Apparently it's the former, at least for the Ganesh in the picture. A little more research shows that the nazis DID reverse the symbol, and that specific picture of Ganesh actually has the nazi swastika on his hand. :eek:

But again, a lot of people don't know that, and I'm willing to bet that you'll find a few neo-nazi sites online advocating peace and love because they don't know which way a swastika faces.

Actually the Swastika is found facing both ways in Hindusim.

The Reversing thing by the nazis is a myth:

clockwise it represents the evolution of the universe (Pravritti),
anti-clockwise it represents the involution of the universe (Nivritti).

same in other cultures:

Contrary to most popular beliefs, the Swastika can be turned in either direction, tilted and even abstracted, as is often seen in ancient Western Europe, The Middle East, China, Greece and India.

The counter clockwise Swastika is associated with the Goddess Kali, and Her Magickal rites. Kali as the supreme Mother is Time and Evolution. An important link to the cult of the Goddess Kali is the principle of Kali-Maya, the principle of time-illusion versus reality in the realm of Tantric Hindu Magick. [The word magick as well as the Persian/Iranian Magi, has its roots in the Sanskrit word Maya]. It is also important to note that the counter clockwise Swastika is also associated with the moon Goddess.

Among the Jains the Swastika is the symbol of the seventh Tirthankara. The general use of the Swastika amongst Jains is the same as for Hindus.

The clockwise Swastika, in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions, is associated with the sun, Lord Ganesha [The elephant headed remover of obstacles and pathfinder], good fortune and the eternal cycle of life. Note that for the Moon we use the counter-clockwise Swastika and for the Sun the clockwise swastika.