Swastikas and context • Hacker News Board

Re: Swastikas and context

#31

Post by anthuswilliams » Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 7:17 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #7

It’s not political correctness, it’s fundamental respect. I think that's the battle cry of all those who enforce PC behavior. UH OH! OUT COMES THE INTERNET PUNDITS! ... Most of them are just contrarians. They would never dare to wear a swastika openly, but they love to argue about how the world has "misunderstood" this symbol. The way I read this is as a criticism of people who do not hold a particular belief, but ar…

He's not criticizing the defenders of free speech. He's challenging the internet iconoclasts who defend the viewpoint itself, and worse, do so dishonestly.

The thing is, I have a chickenboner uncle who defends the use of the word 'nigger' by citing its (supposedly) non-racist etymology. He emphatically claims he is NOT racist. I'm not so sure, but let's do a thought experiment. If he's at all reasonable, he'll probably make the same assumption I do when he encounters someone who uses the word frequently: thar be a skinhead.

Toulouse is right in pointing out that most of these people are Americans who are presumably familiar with western opprobrium wrt the swastika. If they saw a guy on the street with it tattooed on his chest, Toulouse argues, they would cry neo-Nazi, just like the rest of us.

I happen to disagree with the guy on the issue of the swastika, because I know that its disgracefulness is largely a western phenomenon. But I know that online gaming is not a suitable forum to challenge cultural norms. It's interesting to note that many Indians I talk too are far more understanding of the swastika's inappropriateness in that context than these reddite Americans are.

I'm all for challenging normative cultural symbolism, but I know that's not what this is about. As Toulouse points out, the same arguments are made regarding the term 'fag', and the fact that means 'cigarette' in the UK. The issue is not free speech; it's intellectual dishonesty.

Re: Swastikas and context

#32

Post by notahacker » Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 7:23 PM UTC

Its an avatar for a war game series originally themed on WWII

Now sure, sometimes you can have an angular black swastika in a white circle on a red background in an entirely innocent context, even in Europe in the mid 20th century http://www.askaboutireland.ie/aai-files/assets/libraries/dub...

But in a Western wargame? Sure, I'm sure most people wanting swastika avatars are kids trying to be controversial rather than active neo-Nazis promoting an ideology of hate, but I'd be reasonably confident none of them are doing it because it's an auspicious symbol in Hinduism.

Irrespective of whether permitting people to use Nazi symbols actually offends anyone playing a game where the objective is to shoot people, I'm not convinced there's a legitimate freedom-of-speech argument to be made about the avatars a private company chooses to bar from their services. I think censoring a few show-offs is probably an acceptable price to pay for the freedom to operate their services in Germany and it's legal intolerance of Nazi references. Perhaps the counterculture kids can pick hammer-and-sickles or Che Guevara instead....

Re: Swastikas and context

#33

Post by axod » Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 8:08 PM UTC

jpr wrote: post #21

axod wrote: post #15

People who get offended by geometric shapes have way too much time on their hands.

Are there shapes that are non-geometric?

clouds :/

Re: Swastikas and context

#34

Post by Avshalom » Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 8:39 PM UTC

train_robber wrote: post #2

I don't know, the article seemed so badly reasoned from my perspective - a very narrow Western view. In my country (and in my religion) the Swastika is seen everywhere and it is no way used in relation to the Nazis at all. Ironically, the fact that it is such a hated symbol, I learned from the Internet. Maybe he's being reasonable because the target audience is indeed Western. Hmm. But from my seat, I find this reall…

"a very narrow Western view"

Claiming that the swastika is associated with Nazis isn't a "narrow view" if it IS associated with Nazis for half the fucking planet.

Re: Swastikas and context

#35

Post by JeremyBanks » Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 10:13 PM UTC

armandososa wrote: post #18

I found it hypocritical coming from an industry that very often relies on the entertainment values of random acts of violence. "Look, in this game you can shoot people on the face as long as you don't wear any swastikas or call people 'fags' becaus then that would be wrong."

"Look, in this game you can shoot people on the face as long as you don't wear any swastikas or call people 'fags' becaus then that would be wrong."

You're not going to turn off any customers by having shooting in shooters. That's less true for swastikas and slurs.

Re: Swastikas and context

#36

Post by ig1 » Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 10:24 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #30

ig1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different people are offended by different things, there's nothing hypocritical about not being offend by game violence while being offended by a swastika. Some people are offended by nudity, gambling, pigs, swearing etc. There's no rule saying that if your not offended by one thing you can't be offended by anything. It's simply an arbitrary personal choice.

Different people are offended by different things Certainly true, but this makes the whole exercise futile. How can one try to prevent their platform from becoming a medium for offensive speech, when every viewer can potentially be offended by different, orthogonal, thresholds?

They make an arbitrary judgement call about what is acceptable to the majority of their user-base.

Re: Swastikas and context

#37

Post by thwarted » Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 10:57 PM UTC

akkartik wrote: post #20

thwarted wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume to get people to read the piece. TL;DR at the top is kind of like an Executive Summary, and if I saw something labeled an Executive Summary at the top, or even looked like one, I'd skip the whole thing. I think the key is to make the entire piece short enough but not too long so that it's quick to read and the TL;DR can be used as a good way to describe the entire piece in other contexts.

"TL;DR can be used as a good way to describe the entire piece in other contexts." Absolutely. Perhaps we just shouldn't be using tl;dr within a piece. There's other words for short forms: abstract, summary, conclusion. Signed, your friendly tl;dr nazi

Yeah, but I think tl;dr has a certain, not necessarily all negative, connotation. Labeling it as "abstract", "summary" or even "conclusion" maybe would lessen the chances of it being quoted.

Re: Swastikas and context

#38

Post by train_robber » Thu, Nov 25, 2010, 9:54 AM UTC

Avshalom wrote: post #34

train_robber wrote: post #2

I don't know, the article seemed so badly reasoned from my perspective - a very narrow Western view. In my country (and in my religion) the Swastika is seen everywhere and it is no way used in relation to the Nazis at all. Ironically, the fact that it is such a hated symbol, I learned from the Internet. Maybe he's being reasonable because the target audience is indeed Western. Hmm. But from my seat, I find this reall…

"a very narrow Western view" Claiming that the swastika is associated with Nazis isn't a "narrow view" if it IS associated with Nazis for half the fucking planet.

Half the population of the world? You might need to think about that, not many in Asia or Africa is that concerned about Nazis. That makes it a non-issue for around 75% of the world.