Poll: Do you agree with the Black Ops Swastika Ban?
- Thread starter MoNKeyYy
- Start date
You missuderstand me, the historical community recognizes them as seperate symbols with seperate histories (though one is dirived from the other)Rubashov said:The swastika in the following image is not a Nazi swastika; however, as an image, it is indistinguishable from one, and would as such be banned under the Black Ops policy. So no, the two images are not separate from each other--at least not any more so than the hammer and sickle of (for example) Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartacists is distinguishable from the hammer and sickle of Josef Stalin.AKmontalvo said:
back to Black Ops, they dont wanna consult on whether each player is using one symbol or another (for reasons that your picture illustrates), so they are taking up the polocy of 'if it looks like a dog, its a dog' which doesnt seem unreasonable it would take to much time and manpower to do it any other way
I agree with the ban because it's not about what the Swastika originally symbolised, it's not even about what it stood for in the 1940's, it's about what it means now and what statement people are making when they choose to create a Swastika and display it as a clan tag.
Are people really so naive that they think people displaying a Swastika in Black Ops could really be:
Have not fear, this guy is probably just a peace loving Buddhist waving to his friends (you can tell he's a Buddhist because he has a shaved head like Buddha with an ancient Buddhist symbol).
Don't fret, this is probably just some guy getting a Hindu haircut.
Ignore the large gun this gentleman is wielding, but note the Swastika on his shoulder. This probably means he's a peaceful Jainist and so wouldn't wish harm upon anyone.
It's perfectly obvious to Microsoft and Treyarch what the people displaying the Swastikas are trying to symbolise, i.e. they're either a troll or a White Supremacist, which both things that are forbidden by the Terms of Service for X-Box Live, a private network where no Freedom of Speech or expression exists.
Are people really so naive that they think people displaying a Swastika in Black Ops could really be:
Have not fear, this guy is probably just a peace loving Buddhist waving to his friends (you can tell he's a Buddhist because he has a shaved head like Buddha with an ancient Buddhist symbol).
Don't fret, this is probably just some guy getting a Hindu haircut.
Ignore the large gun this gentleman is wielding, but note the Swastika on his shoulder. This probably means he's a peaceful Jainist and so wouldn't wish harm upon anyone.
It's perfectly obvious to Microsoft and Treyarch what the people displaying the Swastikas are trying to symbolise, i.e. they're either a troll or a White Supremacist, which both things that are forbidden by the Terms of Service for X-Box Live, a private network where no Freedom of Speech or expression exists.
The hammer and sickle is banned in several Eastern European countries because of its associations with the Soviet occupation. Clearly at least some people consider the hammer and sickle quite offensive. The question, therefore, ultimately comes down to 1) whether or not it is ethical for someone to ban something simply because someone could find it offensive, 2) whether the number of people who could find it offensive is somehow relevant, and 3) whether or not it is appropriate for the State to stop someone from banning something on a platform they rightfully possess. My intuitions on these three questions are:mitchell271 said:
1) No.
2) Perhaps, if it ever were ethical to ban something because of its offensiveness, this factor would be relevant; as it is, no.
and
3) Absolutely not.
But Treyarch/Microsoft, apparently, does not. And anyway, why is it that viewing the Nazi swastika and the Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/etc. swastika as separate symbols, despite their being in many cases indistinguishable, is somehow more justified than viewing the Stalinist hammer and sickle and the anarcho-communist/left-communist/Trotskyist/etc. hammer and sickle as separate symbols, despite their being in many cases indistinguishable?AKmontalvo said:
Perhaps. But they could use the same logic to justify banning the hammer and sickle--they don't want to have to consult whether each player is using it to represent the desire for a stateless society in which all things are held in common, or using it to represent the desire to go kill some Cossacks.
Define vile?Greyfox105 said:
other than that, Yes of course I agree. I respect a persons right to express themselves, but the swastika is a symbol that is inextricably linked to the genocide of 12 million people, and to allow it to be used is not only horribly insensitive, but also a terrible business decision that could offend an entire religion of potential customers.
I should get off MY high horse? Right back at you Troll. The Swastika may be a horrible symbol but it is still something that does not physically hurt anyone. That clearly means it should not be censored. Seeing as Microsoft makes people agree to do so, they have all the right to censor it. Speaking of censorship, what did you think of Disney trying to put Little Sunflower from Fantasia in the memory hole?Tdc2182 said:
Meh, I am on the fence about this. I see why it was banned, but how do you choose which symbols are to be banned and which are to be excluded?
Swastikas, impromptu genitals and Hammers/Sickles are pointless and dumb. That being said I am against the ban, if it helps separates the creative from the shallow and unimaginative then all the better.
Go for it, I'll be laughing my ass off at you.
Go for it, I'll be laughing my ass off at you.
1st one: They certainly dont, lets agree on that. As for your second point your asking me like im the one making these decisions; i can certainly see your point but thats over my head as to why, perhaphs because the hammer and sickle more or less all promote a similar idea whereas the swastika of nazi germany's connotation is vastly different from the connotation of the symbol ot was dirived from, but again, thats just my thoughts on why that may beRubashov said:
2nd one: I'd imagine they got less complaints about hammers and sickles (or something along those lines) Possably because the hammer and sickle (lets face it) doesnt seem connote its violent history as strongly and the swastika. That and the swastika is still used as a rally icon for hatred and violence today among groups such as the AB KKK and Neo-Nazis, the hammer and sickle isnt used to such an extent
I guess I'll say I'm sorry, Ive literally been in an argument with about ten people on this one thread alone. I'm of the minority apparently of people who think that things that represent racism, anti-antisemitism, etc. should be made illegal. And yes, I realize that is an extreme view. I accept that.astrav1 said:
I have no idea. I never watched it.
I missed out on some super awesome debater action, it seems like. 
Forgive me if I repeat someone's post-- but quite honestly, I can't be assed to read pages 2-7.
Mega awesome super +1 to Rubashov's post, both for remarking on the Soviet symbology and for the point on the ethics of banning "offensive" materials. Given that we're discussing a game where you are praised for slaughtering people over and over ad nauseum, I'm not sure it's appropriate to approach the "offensive" argument in anything short of a marketing discussion.
On that point-- I think it's worth noting that any symbols or actions Treyarch decide to censor will be considered "offensive" by the greatest majority possible. Note that, additionally, Treyarch is a business, trying to sell a product to the greatest majority possible. Maybe I'm a cynical bastard in regards to the operations of businesses, but I wouldn't be surprised if their actions were done less as an ethical approach to symbology, and more as a business strategy. Or, to put it simply: Treyarch's customers got pissed off, so Treyarch is taking action to save their little moneybags.
That said: my views on censorship have less to do with the appropriateness of the action, than the consistency of it. I like the concept of free speech-- but I wouldn't be complaining if the Cross symbol (an instrument for painful execution, and the representation of a religion that has, historically speaking, participated and started some of the bloodiest conflicts the world has seen), the Swastika (by and large understood-- whether fallacious or no --to be representative of a political party that did a whole crapton of nasty things), and the Penis (just kind of "icky") were banned from public usage.
But I find it somewhat annoying that a person will advocate for the censorship of something they personally find offensive (such as the Swastika), without advocating for the removal of items they somehow consider "less" harmful (such as the Sickle/Hammer)-- despite others find them just as bad, if not worse, than the first item.
Forgive me if I repeat someone's post-- but quite honestly, I can't be assed to read pages 2-7.
Mega awesome super +1 to Rubashov's post, both for remarking on the Soviet symbology and for the point on the ethics of banning "offensive" materials. Given that we're discussing a game where you are praised for slaughtering people over and over ad nauseum, I'm not sure it's appropriate to approach the "offensive" argument in anything short of a marketing discussion.
On that point-- I think it's worth noting that any symbols or actions Treyarch decide to censor will be considered "offensive" by the greatest majority possible. Note that, additionally, Treyarch is a business, trying to sell a product to the greatest majority possible. Maybe I'm a cynical bastard in regards to the operations of businesses, but I wouldn't be surprised if their actions were done less as an ethical approach to symbology, and more as a business strategy. Or, to put it simply: Treyarch's customers got pissed off, so Treyarch is taking action to save their little moneybags.
That said: my views on censorship have less to do with the appropriateness of the action, than the consistency of it. I like the concept of free speech-- but I wouldn't be complaining if the Cross symbol (an instrument for painful execution, and the representation of a religion that has, historically speaking, participated and started some of the bloodiest conflicts the world has seen), the Swastika (by and large understood-- whether fallacious or no --to be representative of a political party that did a whole crapton of nasty things), and the Penis (just kind of "icky") were banned from public usage.
But I find it somewhat annoying that a person will advocate for the censorship of something they personally find offensive (such as the Swastika), without advocating for the removal of items they somehow consider "less" harmful (such as the Sickle/Hammer)-- despite others find them just as bad, if not worse, than the first item.
There is an infinite number of offensive symbols that can be made. As long as there is a single player left in BO, there is room for him to be creative and depict something that can offend someone else.YuriHellsing said:
"If you do this, you must do that" is a shoddy argument. They took action against swastikas because they are extra offensive to a large body of people. It is a symbol that represents genocide and hated, based on birth. And it is used by many, and is an easy thing to rule out.
To thread in general:
I'm perfectly fine with this, because:
1. The schwastika is offensive to some people. Very offensive.
2. Sod off with it being hindu. Yes, you are right, it is, but even if you are Hindu, you know what that symbol means to people. You can be pseudo intelectual all you want and say "But look at wikipedia!" but fact is, most people think nazism when they see that symbol. And then it doesn't matter that there is more history behind.
3. Freedom of speach don't mean squat here. XBL is a privately owned platform. You don't have the right to exercise idiocy on XBL.
4. It's an emblem. On a small card. In a multiplayer component. Of a game. It means: NOTHING.
Meh, don't worry. Neither did I. but we do run the risk of someone comming and yelling ZOMG ALREADY ANSWERD DAT!evalyn said:I missed out on some super awesome debater action, it seems like.
Forgive me if I repeat someone's post-- but quite honestly, I can't be assed to read pages 2-7.
There is no such thing as universally true ethics or morals. Therefore, there is no way we can make an argument by saying something is "unethical". Of course, the good old "...in my oppinion" changes everything. But ethics and morals are not something one should present as arguments, for they are simply not universal in nature.evalyn said:
Of course. They are a business. However, if we were to be truly idealistic, and look out for the minorities, we would ban everyone on XBL. There will always be someone who thinks somethig is offensive. Pleasing the majority is the only realistic approach, and should weed out the worst things. Besides, the schwastika is something special; i don't think we have any other symbol that can represent as much evil as that can.evalyn said:
I don't disagree, but would simply like to add that free speach does not apply to XBL. Censorship is perfectly fine, we are not entitled to anything, we have no rights.evalyn said:
Why shouldn¨t they? That is the thing they understand. I will never be able to understand the emotions a jewish person may feel when looking at a swastika. Therefore, I simply never considered complaining to Treyarch about the swastikas I had seen. Swastikas do not offend me, and thus I don't really think about the fact that they might others. I am willing to bet that you wouldn't either, had ther enot been this discussion. The discussion forces us to think, but who many of us honestly think about what others might find offensive, on our own with no provocation?evalyn said:
I hope I made myselv understandable. Watching Desert Bus has robbed me off sleep.
They came first for the Racists,Longshot said:
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Bigot.
Then they came for the neo-Nazis,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a neo-Nazi,
Then they came for the Misogynists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Misogynist,
Then they came for the Trolls,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Troll.
Then they came for me,
and nobody was left to play BlackOps anymore.
While I understand that you are probably joking here, I have to point out: That is what we call a slippery slope argument. And it is not proof of anything. These "One thing leads to another" are merely assumptions, and unless one has other arguments to back it up with, it will never be more. There is nothing that prevents Treyarch from banning swastikas, and then never ban anything else, ever again.evalyn said:
I'm pretty much on the fence on this one. Censorship is a real drag, but its also a drag to use an emblem that offends people, and maybe Xbox gamers could use a little polish on their reputations. Doesn't anybody have manners anymore? Is the FPS all just about being a jerk?
And that brings me to another point: isn't Black Ops about killing your enemy? Hardly a place to expect people to behave with any human decency. And wouldn't it be more fun if your enemy was some ignorant, crass half-wit with a swastika emblem?
And that brings me to another point: isn't Black Ops about killing your enemy? Hardly a place to expect people to behave with any human decency. And wouldn't it be more fun if your enemy was some ignorant, crass half-wit with a swastika emblem?