Black Ops Swastika Emblems Will Earn Xbox Live Ban

[JDKJ]

Agreed!

First off, low content posts are generally frowned upon. Triple posts are annoying too.

Banning the swastika is about as intelligent as banning guns in this game. The nazis used guns to kill people.

That's a horrible argument, yes the nazis used guns to kill people but so did just about everyone who's fought in a war since they became viable weapons. And the neo-nazis never used guns as a hate symbol either.

Oh and also why are they allowed in the story made of WaW. Very hypocitical

It's not "hypocitical", murder is illegal isn't it? Yet plenty of movies have it. The difference is that in a movie when there's murder it's done to advance the plot, if you kill someone in real life then you're just plain killing someone. Same thing with swastikas. If you put is as your emblem then you're not using it to advance some plot or whatever, it's a personal statement. A personal statement that most people find offensive.

Derp! See below.

 

[JDKJ]

Agreed!

First off, low content posts are generally frowned upon. Triple posts are annoying too.

Banning the swastika is about as intelligent as banning guns in this game. The nazis used guns to kill people.

That's a horrible argument, yes the nazis used guns to kill people but so did just about everyone who's fought in a war since they became viable weapons. And the neo-nazis never used guns as a hate symbol either.

Oh and also why are they allowed in the story made of WaW. Very hypocitical

It's not "hypocitical", murder is illegal isn't it? Yet plenty of movies have it. The difference is that in a movie when there's murder it's done to advance the plot, if you kill someone in real life then you're just plain killing someone. Same thing with swastikas. If you put is as your emblem then you're not using it to advance some plot or whatever, it's a personal statement. A personal statement that most people find offensive.

If the criteria for banning something is (if I'm correctly understanding your position stated above regarding guns as a symbol) whether or not the Nazis used or neo-Nazis use a particular symbol to represent hate, then what's your position on using a depiction of a canister of Zyklon-B gas (used in the gas chambers of German concentration camps)? Fair or foul? It doesn't to me appear to meet your criteria of a previously used symbol of hate. Given your criteria, I'd say, "fair" (and then go on to say that the use of a canister of Zyklon-B gas as a emblem is, in my opinion, ten times more offensive than the use of a swastika).

And before you accuse me of splitting hairs and muddying the waters, think about this:

They've banned the public display of Nazi symbols in many European nations (including Germany). Yet, the neo-Nazis in those nations (including Germany) have managed to devise an assortment of symbols which nevertheless reflect their position and do so fairly obviously (e.g., as posters here have pointed out, they fly the Reichskriegsflagge, which is perfectly legal in Germany but still looks like something only a skin-headed neo-Nazi would fly). How is Xbox Live ever going to address the hundreds of ways in which the asshats who hang out there are certain to devise emblems which, while perhaps not violating the letter of the ban, violate its spirit? I'll betcha Mr. Banhammer Toulouse hasn't given that distinct possibility any thought.

 

[Biffin Bridge]

Agreed!

First off, low content posts are generally frowned upon. Triple posts are annoying too.

Banning the swastika is about as intelligent as banning guns in this game. The nazis used guns to kill people.

That's a horrible argument, yes the nazis used guns to kill people but so did just about everyone who's fought in a war since they became viable weapons. And the neo-nazis never used guns as a hate symbol either.

Oh and also why are they allowed in the story made of WaW. Very hypocitical

It's not "hypocitical", murder is illegal isn't it? Yet plenty of movies have it. The difference is that in a movie when there's murder it's done to advance the plot, if you kill someone in real life then you're just plain killing someone. Same thing with swastikas. If you put is as your emblem then you're not using it to advance some plot or whatever, it's a personal statement. A personal statement that most people find offensive.

If the criteria for banning something is (if I'm correctly understanding your position stated above regarding guns as a symbol) whether or not the Nazis used or neo-Nazis use a particular symbol to represent hate, then what's your position on using a depiction of a canister of Zyklon-B gas (used in the gas chambers of German concentration camps)? Fair or foul? It doesn't to me appear to meet your criteria of a previously used symbol of hate. Given your criteria, I'd say, "fair" (and then go on to say that the use of a canister of Zyklon-B gas as a emblem is, in my opinion, ten times more offensive than the use of a swastika).

And before you accuse me of splitting hairs and muddying the waters, think about this:

They've banned the public display of Nazi symbols in many European nations (including Germany). Yet, the neo-Nazis in those nations (including Germany) have managed to devise an assortment of symbols which nonetheless well-reflect their position and do so fairly obviously (e.g., as posters here have pointed out, they fly the Reichskriegsflagge, which is perfectly legal in Germany but still looks like something only a skin-headed Nazi would fly). How is Xbox Live ever going to address the hundreds of ways in which the asshats who hang out there are certain to devise emblems which, while perhaps not violating the letter of the ban, violate its spirit. I'll betcha Mr. Banhammer Toulouse hasn't given that distinct possibility any thought.

The idea that xbox live would do anything with any kind of 'spirit' involved is laughable. This whole episode is nothing more than a calculated attempt to please the screaming minority who feign offence.

We are bombarded daily with images on TV and the internet that years ago people would have found offensive but these days we are so desensitized that I cannot believe ANYBODY truly sees the swastica as anything other than a grim piece of history.

 

[JDKJ]

Agreed!

First off, low content posts are generally frowned upon. Triple posts are annoying too.

Banning the swastika is about as intelligent as banning guns in this game. The nazis used guns to kill people.

That's a horrible argument, yes the nazis used guns to kill people but so did just about everyone who's fought in a war since they became viable weapons. And the neo-nazis never used guns as a hate symbol either.

Oh and also why are they allowed in the story made of WaW. Very hypocitical

It's not "hypocitical", murder is illegal isn't it? Yet plenty of movies have it. The difference is that in a movie when there's murder it's done to advance the plot, if you kill someone in real life then you're just plain killing someone. Same thing with swastikas. If you put is as your emblem then you're not using it to advance some plot or whatever, it's a personal statement. A personal statement that most people find offensive.

If the criteria for banning something is (if I'm correctly understanding your position stated above regarding guns as a symbol) whether or not the Nazis used or neo-Nazis use a particular symbol to represent hate, then what's your position on using a depiction of a canister of Zyklon-B gas (used in the gas chambers of German concentration camps)? Fair or foul? It doesn't to me appear to meet your criteria of a previously used symbol of hate. Given your criteria, I'd say, "fair" (and then go on to say that the use of a canister of Zyklon-B gas as a emblem is, in my opinion, ten times more offensive than the use of a swastika).

And before you accuse me of splitting hairs and muddying the waters, think about this:

They've banned the public display of Nazi symbols in many European nations (including Germany). Yet, the neo-Nazis in those nations (including Germany) have managed to devise an assortment of symbols which nonetheless well-reflect their position and do so fairly obviously (e.g., as posters here have pointed out, they fly the Reichskriegsflagge, which is perfectly legal in Germany but still looks like something only a skin-headed Nazi would fly). How is Xbox Live ever going to address the hundreds of ways in which the asshats who hang out there are certain to devise emblems which, while perhaps not violating the letter of the ban, violate its spirit. I'll betcha Mr. Banhammer Toulouse hasn't given that distinct possibility any thought.

The idea that xbox live would do anything with any kind of 'spirit' involved is laughable. This whole episode is nothing more than a calculated attempt to please the screaming minority who feign offence.

We are bombarded daily with images on TV and the internet that years ago people would have found offensive but these days we are so desensitized that I cannot believe ANYBODY truly sees the swastica as anything other than a grim piece of history.

Agreed. I'm not so sure that the offense is feigned but, feigned or heart-felt, you've still hit the nail on the head.

 

[JDKJ]

Agreed!

First off, low content posts are generally frowned upon. Triple posts are annoying too.

Banning the swastika is about as intelligent as banning guns in this game. The nazis used guns to kill people.

That's a horrible argument, yes the nazis used guns to kill people but so did just about everyone who's fought in a war since they became viable weapons. And the neo-nazis never used guns as a hate symbol either.

Oh and also why are they allowed in the story made of WaW. Very hypocitical

It's not "hypocitical", murder is illegal isn't it? Yet plenty of movies have it. The difference is that in a movie when there's murder it's done to advance the plot, if you kill someone in real life then you're just plain killing someone. Same thing with swastikas. If you put is as your emblem then you're not using it to advance some plot or whatever, it's a personal statement. A personal statement that most people find offensive.

If the criteria for banning something is (if I'm correctly understanding your position stated above regarding guns as a symbol) whether or not the Nazis used or neo-Nazis use a particular symbol to represent hate, then what's your position on using a depiction of a canister of Zyklon-B gas (used in the gas chambers of German concentration camps)? Fair or foul? It doesn't to me appear to meet your criteria of a previously used symbol of hate. Given your criteria, I'd say, "fair" (and then go on to say that the use of a canister of Zyklon-B gas as a emblem is, in my opinion, ten times more offensive than the use of a swastika).

And before you accuse me of splitting hairs and muddying the waters, think about this:

They've banned the public display of Nazi symbols in many European nations (including Germany). Yet, the neo-Nazis in those nations (including Germany) have managed to devise an assortment of symbols which nonetheless well-reflect their position and do so fairly obviously (e.g., as posters here have pointed out, they fly the Reichskriegsflagge, which is perfectly legal in Germany but still looks like something only a skin-headed Nazi would fly). How is Xbox Live ever going to address the hundreds of ways in which the asshats who hang out there are certain to devise emblems which, while perhaps not violating the letter of the ban, violate its spirit. I'll betcha Mr. Banhammer Toulouse hasn't given that distinct possibility any thought.

The idea that xbox live would do anything with any kind of 'spirit' involved is laughable. This whole episode is nothing more than a calculated attempt to please the screaming minority who feign offence.

We are bombarded daily with images on TV and the internet that years ago people would have found offensive but these days we are so desensitized that I cannot believe ANYBODY truly sees the swastica as anything other than a grim piece of history.

I hope the screaming minority keeps screaming at Toulouse every time the asshats come up with new and ingenious but less obvious ways to symbolize the Nazis and he has to live in his office working unpaid overtime. That guy's a complete twat.

 

[Biffin Bridge]

That's the thing! Once you ban the most obvious thing people are only going to get creative.

Next up you'll see an image of Hitler bumming a bald eagle with the twin towers in the background.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

So when it is the pentagram for offending Jews and Christians and the peace sign for offending conservatives, business men and pragmatists?

Time to let go and move to something more substantial me thinks...............

 

[JDKJ]

That's the thing! Once you ban the most obvious thing people are only going to get creative.

Next up you'll see an image of Hitler bumming a bald eagle with the twin towers in the background.

Or, for the subtle touch, use an imagine of Charlie Chaplain in "The Great Dictator." Technically, he doesn't play Adolph Hitler in that film (a classic work of cinematography, by the way) but he damn sure looks and acts just like him. And you can then give yourself "The Great Horsedictator" as an in-game name.

 

[samonix]

The christian cross was used by a totalitarian, racist and murderous state. It was called the crusades, and no-one cares about that. The star and crescent is used by Al Qaeda, should these symbols be banned because bad people used them.

Nazis are old. If a swastika offends you, you're choosing to let a state that existed before your lifetime ruin your day.

 

[JDKJ]

The christian cross was used by a totalitarian, racist and murderous state. It was called the crusades, and no-one cares about that. The star and crescent is used by Al Qaeda, should these symbols be banned because bad people used them.

Nazis are old. If a swastika offends you, you're choosing to let a state that existed before your lifetime ruin your day.

Not to be a symbol Nazi, but the symbol of al-Qaeda isn't the Star and Crescent. It's most commonly a yellow circle with a yellow shahada (the Arabic for "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger") against a black background. There are geographic variations on the theme (after all, al-Qaeda is a rather decentralized organization with various offshoots that may or may not not subscribe to a central mindset), but nowhere do I think you'll find al-Qeada using the Star and Crescent as its symbol.

 

[Nifty]

I'm behind the swastika ban. Because if it was allowed EVERY fucking Dick and John would use it. You'll just have to use your imaginations to come up with something a bit more original.

Cry me a river.

 

[Interrobangin]

I find all images of ungulates wielding firearms to be offensive. Xbox Live members do not have ample space in their profile to explain the malice out of their use of such iconography, and as such, I am subject to the traumatic memories that are conjured. Please ban everyone who uses this icon.

 

[Alucard832]

That's fucking ridiculous - a full on BAN for a little swastika? Stalin killed millions more than the nazis,but I'm sure anyone that wanted could make a hammer and sickle.

 

[Sneaklemming]

The logic underlying your argument, as I understand, it, is:

Many of the posters here would never use a swastika as an emblem therefore those posters shouldn't care if use of a swastika is banned.

The same logic, if I extend it, appears in this argument:

Males would never have a need for an abortion therefore males shouldn't care if abortion is banned.

The logic of the first argument repeats itself in the second argument, doesn't it? If it does, then I've not made a leap in logic but, rather, an extension of your logic. Haven't I? And if I have, I can only hope that it's one which illustrates to you the invalidity your argument.

No I'm afraid this is not true. I am not a woman, therefore I would never need womans rights, or the right for women to vote. So then do you think I shouldn't care if women were banned from voting, and stripped of their rights?!

I hope you understand how flawed your argument is.

Let's go into the topics focus. I don't care about opinion X, but I do care that others are free to express opinion X. This is the principle that liberal democracies are built on. Go way back to the English Civil war (1600s) - that is when this started to become a norm of society.

The issue has always been how to balance societies desire to express freely, and how to quell incitement to hatred (or hate speech). That is the topic of this thread.

 

[Eggsnham]

Stupid Nazis. Why did you have to ruin the swastika for everyone else?

They didn't. The people that refuse to see it as anything other than a Nazi symbol ruin it for everyone else.

Well perhaps if the Swastika wasn't associated with Nazism and the murder of upwards of 11 million people, 6 million of them Jews, then maybe people wouldn't see it as a symbol of hate.

Besides, it's pretty hard to defend yourself when your emblem is a red background with a a black eagle and an obviously Nazi swastika in the center.

And like the XBL enforcement person guy said, if you want to change peoples' perception of the Swastika, then you shouldn't start in a war game with your emblem. As far as I'm concerned, the ancient symbol for peace and prosperity/wellbeing, won't be that again for a long time.

 

[JDKJ]

The logic underlying your argument, as I understand, it, is:

Many of the posters here would never use a swastika as an emblem therefore those posters shouldn't care if use of a swastika is banned.

The same logic, if I extend it, appears in this argument:

Males would never have a need for an abortion therefore males shouldn't care if abortion is banned.

The logic of the first argument repeats itself in the second argument, doesn't it? If it does, then I've not made a leap in logic but, rather, an extension of your logic. Haven't I? And if I have, I can only hope that it's one which illustrates to you the invalidity your argument.

No I'm afraid this is not true. I am not a woman, therefore I would never need womans rights, or the right for women to vote. So then do you think I shouldn't care if women were banned from voting, and stripped of their rights?!

I hope you understand how flawed your argument is.

Let's go into the topics focus. I don't care about opinion X, but I do care that others are free to express opinion X. This is the principle that liberal democracies are built on. Go way back to the English Civil war (1600s) - that is when this started to become a norm of society.

The issue has always been how to balance societies desire to express freely, and how to quell incitement to hatred (or hate speech). That is the topic of this thread.

Let's assume Male X unintentionally impregnates Female Y. Both conclude that neither is interested in having the pregnancy come to delivery because neither, for whatever reasons, wants the responsibilities associated with child-rearing and that an abortion is their best alternative. Despite the fact that Male X obviously cannot have the abortion which would terminate this unwanted pregnancy, isn't his interest in having Female Y obtain that abortion just as substantial as the interest of Female Y who will be the the one among them to actually undergo the abortion? However, if abortion is banned and therefore unavailable, isn't Male X just as stymied by that ban as is Female Y? And shouldn't Male X therefore care just as much as Female Y whether or not the right to abortion is banned? I damn sure would be if I didn't want the responsibility for any frickin' snot-nosed kids.

 

[Unholykrumpet]

Hitler should have patented the swastika. Then it would just be copyright infringement, instead of a freedom of speech debate.

 

[allansianadventurer]

I think you're absolutely able to explain its other meanings over XBL. If not through voice chat, then through your bio section. If it's too short, put a link.