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.Tdc2182 said: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.Yagharek said: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.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 suppose that what it comes down to is that I don't think censoring something is a good way of dealing with it.
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.