Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Swastikas and context

stepto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: Swastikas and context

#11

Post by thwarted »

deadsy wrote: post #5
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…

Right - In India and in many parts of Asia the symbol is considered as a positive, being used for religious adornment, political parties and product advertising. It's a great piece of graphic art and it's a real pity the Nazis screwed it up with bad associations for the western world. Most Americans aren't aware of the Symbol being used in other contexts (my wife expressed surprise when she saw it on a Balinese templ…

In India and in many parts of Asia the symbol is considered as a positive, being used for religious adornment, political parties and product advertising.

Heh, as I was reading the above, I was thinking I wouldn't want to see the stereotypical Republican Elephant or Democrat Donkey used by other players in these games either -- it does distract (in some way, it's sad that people have such strong identification with groups and their symbols like that, it reeks of being proud of groupthink). As the author points out: the game isn't a forum to discuss these things, and symbols like those have meanings that are not part of the core intent of the game or why people are there. Presumably trademarks are out too, but that may be more of a civil legal issue than just having to deal with misinterpretation of intent.

Re: Swastikas and context

#12

Post by thwarted »

akkartik wrote: post #9
thwarted wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He really should have put the TL;DR at the top. He could have worded the entire piece as "You may think our policy is capricious and arbitrary but the internet is filled with a lot of jerks. We hope to be consistent in our rulings; you'll just have to deal with it, as we don't want to spend our time dealing with lame issues. And this is a lame issue."

What is the point of putting the tl;dr at the bottom, or the middle, or anywhere but the very top ?

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.

Re: Swastikas and context

#13

Post by prat »

"no educated human on the planet looks at the swastika symbol on a video game service in the year we make contact and says oh, that symbol has nothing at all in any way to do with global genocide of an entire race and, even if it did, one should totally and reasonably ignore that because it’s a symbol that was stolen or coop-ted from religions."

Really? no educated human? Well I guess I am an exception or at least was until I came to the US - because you see, I am educated and likely more highly educated than the author.

The author, most likely never having stepped outside the US, has no idea of the diversity of world sensitivities and cultures.

Does the author, for example, know of the Khmer Rouge symbol? I am educated and I didn't until I googled it.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/79176.stm

So stop using the word "planet" for the west .

Re: Swastikas and context

#14

Post by thwarted »

SmokenJoe wrote: post #4

I am amused by his attempt to correct his info on the history but continuous to be belligerent. Note the symbol in question was the most pervasive religious symbol ever before it was adopted by a political party. If you beleve the cross was adapted from it then all the more respect. Of you remove one religious symbol than ban them all. I dot want to waste my time with this kind of thing but don't make it into am popu…

It's unfortunate that by hiding the symbol because it might offend and increase support issues (the latter of these I actually find to be a legit reason), it doesn't help strip the symbol of its offensive connotation to westerners. It ends up further retarding progress in reducing ignorance.

If the Nazis used a big capital N as their logo, no one would consider the letter N to be offensive. The main reason it has such strong Nazi association is because that symbol is used in few other contexts in western culture, it's relatively rare (which may be a strong reason why it was chosen by the Nazis, it had little modern western cultural baggage, so they could define it). In contrast, one of the major western religion symbols is the t-shaped cross.

Re: Swastikas and context

#16

Post by Be-The-Water »

There are many theories on this, its pretty well know that the swastika pre-dates Hitler by thousands of years. But some people think that he chose it because of something called the "Aryan Invasion" of India, of which some believe that one of the original ancient religious books now adopted by Hindus was written by the Aryans. There is evidence of the symbol not just in ancient Indian civilizations, but in ancient European as well and is thought to be carried through to India. But no one knows for sure, and no one knows exactly why Nazi/Hitler chose it.

Re: Swastikas and context

#17

Post by ajays »

So if the Nazis had instead used the Holy Cross as their symbol, everyone (in the west) would be OK with banning it from churches and all forms of public display?

Re: Swastikas and context

#18

Post by armandososa »

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."

Re: Swastikas and context

#19

Post by barfoomoo »

aniket_ray wrote: post #3

To be fair, Swastika is considered very auspicious by Hindus. Here in India, you'll see Swastikas everywhere. Till I grew up and read about Nazis, I never even knew that there was anything negative about the symbol. It's just a symmetric symbol and I don't see any reason for blocking that symbol. The author might not agree with the political views of the Nazis but that is frankly not a reason to ban a symbol. To use…

I guess he is more concerned with the way Swastika is interpreted in the western world. It is sort of synonymous with white supremacist groups. And the contrarian mentality that he explains is very apparent in reddit. In reddit, I see people just jump on anything that has to do with US/White/Christianity/Israel but go to extreme hilarious lengths to defend obviously radical practices/ideas associated with other cultures.

Ps:I am from India and I very well know the religious significance of Swastika.

Re: Swastikas and context

#20

Post by akkartik »

thwarted wrote: post #12
akkartik wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point of putting the tl;dr at the bottom, or the middle, or anywhere but the very top ?

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

Post reply on HN