Poll: Do you agree with the Black Ops Swastika Ban?

Yagharek

New member
Jun 9, 2010
189
0
0
Tdc2182 said:
Yagharek said:
Tdc2182 said:
SNIP

This is where I think people tend to over think it. The argument is often "Well this object is evil, but if we get rid of it then we have to get rid of everything else."

Do we really? We can't just all decide that something is frowned upon and considered evil, but we all tell ourselves to deal with it?
I don't think that we can just all decide something is evil, as easily as you make out. Oh sure, I don't think there'd be an objection to the swastika falling into this "evil" category. However, as you pointed out with the hammer and sickle, it's not as easy as that for most things. Certainly, I think there are people who would find it offensive. How many of them do there need to be before it is evil? Should that even be discussed considering the millions of innocents that died under Stalin? Sure, he isn't the only person associated with that symbol, but he still is, and in a major way.

I suppose that what it comes down to is that I don't think censoring something is a good way of dealing with it.
I'll admit to saying that is a fair enough excuse, but that doesn't change the fact that you are saying you are fine with people flaunting Swastikas.
Personally, I'd prefer no emblems, but I find arbitrary censorship more objectionable. How anyone can possibly judge which attrocities are offensive enough to be censored and which aren't is beyond me, and I'd prefer no censorship to that.

I treat it the same way I'd treat someone on the street wearing a nazi swastika t-shirt. It's his choice but...what a dickhead. I think it's important that the choice exists though. I wouldn't want it censored elsewhere, why should it be different online?

If people can't choose to be offensive, where is the value in choosing not to be anyway?

I also think that we can't just ignore all the flaws in our society(and people using the swastika to troll are definetely that), because it does nothing to actually adress the problem.
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
Hairetos said:
You're on the same high horse, claiming that your moral compass is better and that it's undeniably wrong to allow someone freedom of expression.

Honestly, nobody has the right to draw lines of offensiveness, since it's ENTIRELY subjective.
And there goes another one, off to hide behind Freedom of Speech. The magical amendment that gives anyone the right to do anything. Because as soon as they add that to the Equation, anything is possible.

Yep this debates over.
 

AKmontalvo

New member
Nov 19, 2009
85
0
0
Hairetos said:
AKmontalvo said:
Iwata said:
If you ban the swastika, then you also have to ban the hammer and sickle, no if's, ands or buts. Double standards much?
Except for the hammer and sickle wasnt exclusive to Stalin or the USSR the way the swastika was to the Nazis so there is an if/and/but. Its the symbol of the labor party (the proletariat) , focused on by Karl Marx's design of communism which had nothing to do with stalin or the Soviets when it was created (they didnt even exist at that time).
Except for the swastika wasn't exclusive to Hitler or Nazi Germany. It originated as a sacred symbol to the Hindu, Buddhist, and Jainist religions, amongst many others.

Cwutididthar?
Getting tired of explaining this to people, i study historical symbology. As far as symbology is concerned the two images are seperate each having distinguishing featers that differentiate the two (very similar but still seperate images).

The French flag is similar the the Netherlands flag but the two do not represent the same thing.
 

Iwata

New member
Feb 25, 2010
3,333
0
0
AKmontalvo said:
Iwata said:
If you ban the swastika, then you also have to ban the hammer and sickle, no if's, ands or buts. Double standards much?
Except for the hammer and sickle wasnt exclusive to Stalin or the USSR the way the swastika was to the Nazis so there is an if/and/but. Its the symbol of the labor party (the proletariat) , focused on by Karl Marx's design of communism which had nothing to do with stalin or the Soviets when it was created (they didnt even exist at that time).
I never said it was a creation of Stalin. The Communist party as a whole has been fond of bloody pogroms since its inception. The Communist Party and the Nazi Party are divided only by the difference between a victor and a loser, as they are two sides of the same diseased coin.

As for those talking about WWII in particular, it is often forgotten that the Germans and the Russians invaded Poland in 1939 TOGETHER, as part of a plan to divide it among themselves. That they would come to face each other later speaks only of the duplicious nature of both parties involved.

Ban one, ban the other. Or ban neither.
 

Hairetos

New member
Jul 5, 2010
247
0
0
Tdc2182 said:
Hairetos said:
AKmontalvo said:
Iwata said:
If you ban the swastika, then you also have to ban the hammer and sickle, no if's, ands or buts. Double standards much?
Except for the hammer and sickle wasnt exclusive to Stalin or the USSR the way the swastika was to the Nazis so there is an if/and/but. Its the symbol of the labor party (the proletariat) , focused on by Karl Marx's design of communism which had nothing to do with stalin or the Soviets when it was created (they didnt even exist at that time).
Except for the swastika wasn't exclusive to Hitler or Nazi Germany. It originated as a sacred symbol to the Hindu, Buddhist, and Jainist religions, amongst many others.

Cwutididthar?
First of all, The Nazi Swastika was exclusive to the Nazis. The Hindu, Buddhist, and Jainist religions symbol only shares a similar look, not to mention that some of them are actually tilted differently.

I don't even know why I am telling people that the Nazi Swastika was mutually exclusive to Nazi Germany. Is it really that hard to make the connection on your own?
Um, yes? Partly because the difference is in the tilt? And most, if not all of them, are simply titled "Swastika", with an adjective prefix denoting the religion. Did you actually read the fucking article, btw?

"Director of Xbox Live policy and enforcement Stephen Toulouse has taken to his blog to make sure that players know they can't use the swastika as an emblem despite its historical significance unrelated to the Nazi party."

It doesn't say "Nazi swastika" and he makes it very evident that any other religious representations of it will still receive a ban, which is part of the debate around this decision, asshole. Peaceful religions should be allowed to use their symbols as they wish.
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
Yagharek said:
Personally, I'd prefer no emblems, but I find arbitrary censorship more objectionable. How anyone can possibly judge which attrocities are offensive enough to be censored and which aren't is beyond me, and I'd prefer no censorship to that.

I treat it the same way I'd treat someone on the street wearing a nazi swastika t-shirt. It's his choice but...what a dickhead. I think it's important that the choice exists though. I wouldn't want it censored elsewhere, why should it be different online?

If people can't choose to be offensive, where is the value in choosing not to be anyway?

I also think that we can't just ignore all the flaws in our society(and people using the swastika to troll are definetely that), because it does nothing to actually adress the problem.
Well for starters they learn that being Racist gets them banned from their hobby.

And if people are going to choose to be racist dipshits, then they made their decision. They can get banned for their little joke. If they don't mind, more power to them. At least now I don't have to deal with them.
 

Hairetos

New member
Jul 5, 2010
247
0
0
Tdc2182 said:
Hairetos said:
You're on the same high horse, claiming that your moral compass is better and that it's undeniably wrong to allow someone freedom of expression.

Honestly, nobody has the right to draw lines of offensiveness, since it's ENTIRELY subjective.
And there goes another one, off to hide behind Freedom of Speech. The magical amendment that gives anyone the right to do anything. Because as soon as they add that to the Equation, anything is possible.

Yep this debates over.
"Hiding behind freedom of speech"? are you fucking kidding me? First off, "the amendment that gives anyone the right to do anything" is blatantly wrong. It gives them the right to say or express anything they wish, since everyone's opinions are their own. Stop building your strawmen.

I can't wait until someone does something abhorrent in the name of your symbol and it gets banned somewhere.
 

rekabdarb

New member
Jun 25, 2008
1,464
0
0
No, because some people are ignorant and don't understand what the swastika really means. If i have the PROPER use of it, i shouldn't be banned.

However Nazis have used it (they turned it sideways) so if people use that one... well i CAN understand why they ban them.

good.
Turn it sideways and remove the dots.
bad.
 

Rubashov

New member
Jun 23, 2010
174
0
0
AKmontalvo said:
Rubashov said:
AKmontalvo said:
Iwata said:
If you ban the swastika, then you also have to ban the hammer and sickle, no if's, ands or buts. Double standards much?
Except for the hammer and sickle wasnt exclusive to Stalin or the USSR the way the swastika was to the Nazis so there is an if/and/but. Its the symbol of the labor party (the proletariat) , focused on by Karl Marx's design of communism which had nothing to do with stalin or the Soviets when it was created (they didnt even exist at that time).
That's not really a fair objection. The swastika was a Hindu symbol when it was originally designed, and the Nazis (to echo your comments about the hammer and sickle and Stalin) did not even exist at that time. So the hammer and sickle is tied to the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union to roughly the same degree as the swastika is tied to Nazi Germany.
Its absolutly fair, as far as symbology is concerned the two images are seperate each having distinguishing featers that differentiate the two (very similar but still seperate images).

The French flag is similar the the Netherlands flag but the two do not represent the same thing.
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.

 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
Hairetos said:
Tdc2182 said:
First of all, The Nazi Swastika was exclusive to the Nazis. The Hindu, Buddhist, and Jainist religions symbol only shares a similar look, not to mention that some of them are actually tilted differently.

I don't even know why I am telling people that the Nazi Swastika was mutually exclusive to Nazi Germany. Is it really that hard to make the connection on your own?
Um, yes? Partly because the difference is in the tilt? And most, if not all of them, are simply titled "Swastika", with an adjective prefix denoting the religion. Did you actually read the fucking article, btw?

"Director of Xbox Live policy and enforcement Stephen Toulouse has taken to his blog to make sure that players know they can't use the swastika as an emblem despite its historical significance unrelated to the Nazi party."

It doesn't say "Nazi swastika" and he makes it very evident that any other religious representations of it will still receive a ban, which is part of the debate around this decision, asshole. Peaceful religions should be allowed to use their symbols as they wish.
Yeah, you completely missed the point of what I said. And currently, I don't care to much to repeat myself seeing how I have said it to about 10 other people in this thread alone.

You come tell me when you find the person using the using the Buddhist Swastika. It has been out dated for the past 300 years.
 

Rubashov

New member
Jun 23, 2010
174
0
0
Iwata said:
The Communist party as a whole has been fond of bloody pogroms since its inception.
Which Communist Party? There have been quite a few of of them.
 
Apr 16, 2009
101
0
0
Hairetos said:
"Hiding behind freedom of speech"? are you fucking kidding me? First off, "the amendment that gives anyone the right to do anything" is blatantly wrong. It gives them the right to say or express anything they wish, since everyone's opinions are their own. Stop building your strawmen.
Actually, you do have the right to say anything you wish, but they do not have to give you a platform to say it on. You are perfectly allowed to like Nazis all you want, but it is completely unrelated to the First Amendment in the situations where a group disallows you from expressing certain thoughts under their means. Example: you can be fired by Best Buy if you tell the customers that come in to go shop at the store around the corner.

Also, the law isn't an absolute "say or express anything you wish" law, there are tons of situations where your expression is restricted (slander, libel, false advertising, the "shouting fire in a crowded movie theater", etc.
 

Hairetos

New member
Jul 5, 2010
247
0
0
Tdc2182 said:
Hairetos said:
Tdc2182 said:
First of all, The Nazi Swastika was exclusive to the Nazis. The Hindu, Buddhist, and Jainist religions symbol only shares a similar look, not to mention that some of them are actually tilted differently.

I don't even know why I am telling people that the Nazi Swastika was mutually exclusive to Nazi Germany. Is it really that hard to make the connection on your own?
Um, yes? Partly because the difference is in the tilt? And most, if not all of them, are simply titled "Swastika", with an adjective prefix denoting the religion. Did you actually read the fucking article, btw?

"Director of Xbox Live policy and enforcement Stephen Toulouse has taken to his blog to make sure that players know they can't use the swastika as an emblem despite its historical significance unrelated to the Nazi party."

It doesn't say "Nazi swastika" and he makes it very evident that any other religious representations of it will still receive a ban, which is part of the debate around this decision, asshole. Peaceful religions should be allowed to use their symbols as they wish.
Yeah, you completely missed the point of what I said. And currently, I don't care to much to repeat myself seeing how I have said it to about 10 other people in this thread alone.

You come tell me when you find the person using the using the Buddhist Swastika. It has been out dated for the past 300 years.
Really? Wanna bother googling it? I googled "swastika use today":

http://www.demotix.com/news/419172/use-swastika-symbol-mongolia-and-north-west-china

"It remains widely used in Eastern religions and Dharmic Religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism."

http://www.porchlight.ca/~blackdog/swastika.htm

"Yes, the swastika still continues to be an extensively used auspicious sign in Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism."

Then I googled "swastika outdated"

I got nothin'.

Maybe you should check before you make blanket statements about people's usage of religious symbols.
 

Iwata

New member
Feb 25, 2010
3,333
0
0
Rubashov said:
Iwata said:
The Communist party as a whole has been fond of bloody pogroms since its inception.
Which Communist Party? There have been quite a few of of them.
Yeah, and at least four of them have been responsible for some massacre(s) and other atrocities.

It only took us one Nazi party to learn that lesson, so I guess we're not very good learners.
 

Hairetos

New member
Jul 5, 2010
247
0
0
Wow they sure are generous with the usernames said:
Hairetos said:
"Hiding behind freedom of speech"? are you fucking kidding me? First off, "the amendment that gives anyone the right to do anything" is blatantly wrong. It gives them the right to say or express anything they wish, since everyone's opinions are their own. Stop building your strawmen.
Actually, you do have the right to say anything you wish, but they do not have to give you a platform to say it on. You are perfectly allowed to like Nazis all you want, but it is completely unrelated to the First Amendment in the situations where a group disallows you from expressing certain thoughts under their means. Example: you can be fired by Best Buy if you tell the customers that come in to go shop at the store around the corner.

Also, the law isn't an absolute "say or express anything you wish" law, there are tons of situations where your expression is restricted (slander, libel, false advertising, the "shouting fire in a crowded movie theater", etc.
Oh, yes, I'm well aware. And I do defend their right to ban the swastika while people are playing their game or people work for their company. I'm just saying that I disagree with it morally.

I shoulda clarified that.
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
Hairetos said:
"Hiding behind freedom of speech"? are you fucking kidding me? First off, "the amendment that gives anyone the right to do anything" is blatantly wrong. It gives them the right to say or express anything they wish, since everyone's opinions are their own. Stop building your strawmen.

I can't wait until someone does something abhorrent in the name of your symbol and it gets banned somewhere.
No shit, It was a purposeful exaggeration to make my point. The point being is that you role out the "whoops, you are trying to denounce someone's opinion, you lose this one."

Stop building your strawmen.
And surprisingly enough, here is the suspiciously hazy Straw man accusation!

My ignore list is getting a good amount of friends tonight.
 

Rubashov

New member
Jun 23, 2010
174
0
0
Iwata said:
Rubashov said:
Iwata said:
The Communist party as a whole has been fond of bloody pogroms since its inception.
Which Communist Party? There have been quite a few of of them.
Yeah, and at least four of them have been responsible for some massacre(s) and other atrocities.

It only took us one Nazi party to learn that lesson, so I guess we're not very good learners.
And plenty of others have been responsible for neither. Similarly, quite a few pro-capitalist governments have been responsible for some massacres and other atrocities. Does it therefore follow that supporters of capitalism have as a whole been fond of bloody pogroms since their inception?
 

AKmontalvo

New member
Nov 19, 2009
85
0
0
Iwata said:
AKmontalvo said:
Iwata said:
If you ban the swastika, then you also have to ban the hammer and sickle, no if's, ands or buts. Double standards much?
Except for the hammer and sickle wasnt exclusive to Stalin or the USSR the way the swastika was to the Nazis so there is an if/and/but. Its the symbol of the labor party (the proletariat) , focused on by Karl Marx's design of communism which had nothing to do with stalin or the Soviets when it was created (they didnt even exist at that time).
I never said it was a creation of Stalin. The Communist party as a whole has been fond of bloody pogroms since its inception. The Communist Party and the Nazi Party are divided only by the difference between a victor and a loser, as they are two sides of the same diseased coin.

As for those talking about WWII in particular, it is often forgotten that the Germans and the Russians invaded Poland in 1939 TOGETHER, as part of a plan to divide it among themselves. That they would come to face each other later speaks only of the duplicious nature of both parties involved.

Ban one, ban the other. Or ban neither.
They are divided in far more than victor and loser, their political structure and social veiws contradicted one another in most areas (though i will not arguee with you that they are both bad, that we can agree on)

But the bigger topic (and i believe you point) is that both committed horrific acts yet only one seems to have a lasting negative stigma. But we have to just accept that, despite historical facts, one symbol offends people far more than the other. In that case it makes sense to only band the symbol that seems to upset people. That and the swastika is still an effective 'visual slur' agaist the people hitler was trying to irradicate. If your a jew, gay, etc. you can still be offended by that symbol (that and the swastika is still being used today as a banner for hatred by the AB and KKK). The Hammer and Sickle doesnt reach most present day people on that kind of personal level (and is not currently in use as a hostile banner by any significant group that i can think of)
 

mitchell271

New member
Sep 3, 2010
1,457
0
0
Iwata said:
If you ban the swastika, then you also have to ban the hammer and sickle, no if's, ands or buts. Double standards much?
the hammer and sickle is, however not offensive. if a man got a hammer and sickle tattoo on his forehead, some people might think it is offensive but if he gets a swastika tattoo, he will beat up, put on newspapers and burned at the stake. there is a reason that germans like to pretend 1939-1945 did not exist
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
Hairetos said:
Tdc2182 said:
Hairetos said:
Tdc2182 said:
First of all, The Nazi Swastika was exclusive to the Nazis. The Hindu, Buddhist, and Jainist religions symbol only shares a similar look, not to mention that some of them are actually tilted differently.

I don't even know why I am telling people that the Nazi Swastika was mutually exclusive to Nazi Germany. Is it really that hard to make the connection on your own?
Um, yes? Partly because the difference is in the tilt? And most, if not all of them, are simply titled "Swastika", with an adjective prefix denoting the religion. Did you actually read the fucking article, btw?

"Director of Xbox Live policy and enforcement Stephen Toulouse has taken to his blog to make sure that players know they can't use the swastika as an emblem despite its historical significance unrelated to the Nazi party."

It doesn't say "Nazi swastika" and he makes it very evident that any other religious representations of it will still receive a ban, which is part of the debate around this decision, asshole. Peaceful religions should be allowed to use their symbols as they wish.
Yeah, you completely missed the point of what I said. And currently, I don't care to much to repeat myself seeing how I have said it to about 10 other people in this thread alone.

You come tell me when you find the person using the using the Buddhist Swastika. It has been out dated for the past 300 years.
Really? Wanna bother googling it? I googled "swastika use today":

http://www.demotix.com/news/419172/use-swastika-symbol-mongolia-and-north-west-china

"It remains widely used in Eastern religions and Dharmic Religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism."

http://www.porchlight.ca/~blackdog/swastika.htm

"Yes, the swastika still continues to be an extensively used auspicious sign in Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism."

Then I googled "swastika outdated"

I got nothin'.

Maybe you should check before you make blanket statements about people's usage of religious symbols.
I'll actually give you that one because I didn't exactly clarify the certain Swastika which the Nazis picked up which became outdated.