Oh man, edit-posting? Alright, I guess I have to respond now-- if only because I'm sorely hungering for some good old-fashioned argumentativiting (sic).
Longshot said:
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.
I hate relativity so hard. That being said, I agree with you-- to a point. I believe there are a universal set of ethics and morals, but that they are incredibly simple, and incredibly easy to circumvent.
Just pulling this one out of my ass: "Murder of another human being is wrong."
This can easily be circumvented in one of two ways: "The person I'm killing is sub-human (vis a vis Nazi's to everyone else), so what I'm doing is perfectly moral," or "if I don't kill person X, more people will die. What I am doing is unethical, but it is
necessary."
Granted, the above point is a
general statement-- I think this chunk of text has little I can argue with in regards to the OT.
Longshot 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.
Note that "they are a business" and "idealis[m]" are often incompatible. Businesses are designed to make money; the actions taken in pursuit of money rarely intersect with anything "ideal," given that by the very moment they are given money, someone else is losing money.
What I was saying in my quoted portion was not "Treyarch is trying to protect their customers," but "Treyarch is trying to
keep their customers." If banning the swastika allows them to keep one more customer on "their side," they will do it, regardless of how offensive/inoffensive the swastika is. My point is largely that their interest is not in protecting the customer, but protecting their income.
On a note unrelated to the OT-- I believe it will take a small handful of years before some other symbol has ramped up enough "offensive credits" to outweigh the swastika. It's been mentioned already that the Hammer/Sickle is some incredible Bad Medicine in Eastern European countries-- but for a more modern example, why not the symbol of the Muslim religion? Regardless of your opinions on Islam, it's an undeniable fact that Islamophobia is an
incredibly potent force in America; I'd suggest that if our jingoist attitudes remain unchecked, the associated symbol will become more hated than the Swastika.
To clarify something, briefly: I am not suggesting that Islam is a religion of evil. I do not believe the associated symbol is something to fear. But much of the fear of Americans is founded on misconceptions; something already discussed to death by the historyphiles in the forum.
Longshot 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.
That may no longer be true. Given that Treyarch is an American video game company, and the American Supreme Court recently gave companies and corporations the same rights (by legal definition) as citizens (I can't remember the case name; can anyone figure that out for me?), Treyarch and XBL may eventually have to uphold the concept of free speech (with all its exceptions) vis a vis the First Amendment. This may or may not happen, but I believe that it's certainly a point worth considering.
That being said: litigation is not my forte, so I could be waaaaaay off base here.
Longshot 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?
I hope I made myselv understandable. Watching Desert Bus has robbed me off sleep.
To be honest, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here-- I rarely take anything personally on the internet, due to the sole fact that the internet is populated largely by D-Bags. So: no, I was not inherently offended by the Swastika, having attributed it not to neo-Nazi's, but trolls; nor would I have complained to Treyarch about the presence of the Swastika in either in-game or multiplayer depictions. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit.
I'm still not entirely sure what this quoted piece means, but maybe it's confusing because
my original post is confusing. If that's the case, let me clarify the portion you quoted:
I really, really don't like someone saying "the Swastika is offensive," and following this up by saying "the islamic crescent moon is offensive." They are both offensive to different people. My advocacy is for consistency in treatment; in real world applications, I don't believe in censorship
period but, were there to be censorship, I'd like the censorship to be applied to
everything potentially offensive a la Harrison Bergeron.
"Consistency," here, is the point I'm trying to underline, highlight, make bold, italicize, and generally draw attention to.
Also: sleep well!
--Edit--
Re: "joke"-- yes, most certainly a joke. We were talking about Nazi symbolism and its place in a game about murdelation; I thought it was somehow appropriate to refer to Niemöller's poem. Further, it's worth noting the base joke behind the faux-poem; that when you get rid of all the bad people, nobody is left on the internet.
