user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : The hindus should win out, don't censor the swastika
For a couple of reasons.
1) I oppose government censorship on moral grounds, even for things like this.
2) Banning these symbols is mostly an empty gesture. Not being able to legally wear a swastika isn't going to make a skinhead a peaceful, tolerant person. No more than taking Robert Byrds hood away made him any less of a racist. In fact, if people want to brand themselves in such ways it saves time for the rest of us. Ideally there wouldn't be neo-nazis around, but since there will be they might as well be able to label themselves so the rest of us can segregate them from polite society.
Voted : The hindus should win out, don't censor the swastika
A symbol of peace for thousands of years versus a symbol of tyrrany for twelve years.
No matter who's pulling their strings, those Germans think the whole world revolves around them.
Voted : The EU should win out, ban the swastika
Ban it. Even if its primordial symbolism was one of peace, nazism changed all that. Nazi references are extremelly offence to the vast majority of Europeans (Germans in particular) and the indian community have got to understand that.
*has got*
Seamus: the cross was adopted by the klan and used as a symbol of hate. Do you think images of a cross should be banned?
Voted : The hindus should win out, don't censor the swastika
I think that anybody should be allowed to use the swastika in any fashion they want because that is a part of their freedom of speech.Everytime Europe puts another limit on freedom of speech it inches closer to fascism.
A burning cross was the symbol of hate, not regular crosses. That makes all the difference and as far as i know no one burns crosses these days...
Besides the two situations arent really comparable. The klan conducted "sporadical" lynches whereas nazism originated the wwII. The impact of nazism on society was much greater.
Also, the swastika was artificially adopted with specific syncronic iconographic purpose. Before Hitler it bore no cultural or sociological meaning to Germany.
Corrupt, neo-nazis are using the freedom of speech to polute europe with hate, racism and violence. Ironically they want to use it as a means to exterminate it. And again i ask, why is it that everyone is making the nazis victims of lack of freedom of speech and not a word is said about the people who feel anguished and disgusted by this? Doesnt the majority have the right to feel offended by the "excesses of freedom"?
Besides, i dont think the hindus have got nothing to fear. The idea here is, i believe, to ban it when it's associated with nazism. I doubt there are many hindus who profess aryan supremacy...
Voted : The hindus should win out, don't censor the swastika
To the Muslim world, the Christian Cross represents invading armies in the form of Crusaders." Yet, to the Billion plus Christians in the world, it is the center of their very religion. So what would we do if people of the Muslim faith demanded that we ban the Cross as a symbol? That's just one example.
The Nazis gave the Swastika a horrible name and it has come to mean terrible things for modern man; but, if it has been a symbol of peace for Hindu's for thousands of years, that matters more I think.
Ofcourse the majority has a right to feel offended by hate speech but that does not give the majority the right to censor the offensive speech since doing so limits the freedom of the individual and creates a tyranny of the majority.I ask you what if the majority of Europeans were offended by Judaism should they then have the right to ban the star of David and practicing the Jewish faith?If we allow all and any idea be expressed sure some will be offended and hurt but none will have their natural rights violated.
Europeans have a good reason to hate nazism not judaism or its symbols.
This may be a bit off topic, but allow me to ask you american chaps the following question: if you claim that all iconographic liberty should preserved no matter where or what, why in blazes do you get so pissed off when mexicans display their flag in us soil? if i'm not much mistaken there were ballots made here lambasting the mexicans for that.
Voted : The hindus should win out, don't censor the swastika
Even if it were not a thousand year-old symbol of peace, it would violate people's rights to freedom of speech to ban the swastika and Holocaust denial.
And I don't really care what flag people flies. Seems to me that there are more important things than that.
"... what flag people flies."
lol, it's early, I meant to say "what flag one flies."
^Well the outrage over Mexicans carrying their national flag in our nation stems from the fact that those people were illegal immigrants who were using the flag to protest America and any attempt to secure our borders.Many Americans saw the protest as sending a message that America should surrender her sovereignty over the borders and allow Mexicans to do as they please.However even though the public was outraged by the flying of Mexican flags in protest of America no politician every suggested that it should be illegal to wave a foreign flag in protest.
Seamus: research the klan, they use Christian religious icons all the time, not simply by burning them.
So there is a very clear comparison.
" Besides the two situations arent really comparable. The klan conducted "sporadical" lynches whereas nazism originated the wwII. The impact of nazism on society was much greater."
And those nazis were all killed off and driven from power. The people this measure is aimed at are neo-nazis, a group very similiar in many ways to the klan, committing random acts of violence. Unless they are currently shoveling jews in to the ovens at a prodigious rate then the situation is really very similiar.
" Also, the swastika was artificially adopted with specific syncronic iconographic purpose. Before Hitler it bore no cultural or sociological meaning to Germany"
So it's ok to ban foreign cultural icons?
And as to the Mexican flag comparison, that is a very poor analogy.
You'll note I never said they should be encouraged to fly the swastika, nor should it fail to evoke negative reactions from those around it. People should be free to criticize neo-nazis all they want, they just shouldn't be free to censor them (not as an instrument of government policy anyway).
In exactly the same way mexicans are free to fly their flag here, in that I wouldn't support a government ban on mexican flags. But, like neo-nazis, when they hold their rallies I will criticize them. So I, and others, are being absolutely consistent on this issue.
You're free to make a fool of yourself, not free from criticism.
they'll never be able to do anything about the swasticka i have tattooed on my ass.
I'm voting neither way. t's not the gutless-bastich way out, mind you. It's because the concept of the thing, for good or ill, isd something that has to be dealt with by each person who encounters it in his/her own way.
For me, this fall as roughly analogous to the Stars and Bars here in the Lil' Ole Souf. Many Sons of the South, both White and Black, see it as a proud reminder of their grand heritage. Myself, being the son of a man from Norht Carolina and a mother from Virginia, see it as nothing more than a symbol of hate and fear. That's because I had the pleasure of seeing one sprawled out on a friend's lawn as a cross burned just in front of it, a message to my friend for the unpardonable crime of dancing with a White girl during a celebration in which he scored the winning touchdown.
It is an important symbol in Hinduism and other religions and cultures so this doesn't surprise me.
Voted : The EU should win out, ban the swastika
Although it is an historic symbol for some, Europe ought to able to make its own laws instead of kissing everyones ass. As I said in another ballot, this symbol brings up very painful memories. It is certainly understandable why Europe or Germans would want to ban this symbol.
Voted : The hindus should win out, don't censor the swastika
Censorship is the greater evil, although I can see why Germans are more concerned about that sort of thing. I don't like symbols of hate, but I don't think they should be banned.
Voted : The hindus should win out, don't censor the swastika
"Europe ought to able to make its own laws instead of kissing everyones ass."
Yeah,mental strightjackets are a telling sign of tyranny and backwardness.Screw those autocratic,control-freak "revisionist" laws while we're at it too.
Actually this banning of symbols mentality recalls book burning of yore.It simply has NO PLACE in the west.
“(…)neo-nazis, a group very similar in many ways to the Klan, committing random acts of violence.”
Wrong. I can assure you that if you try to establish that correlation in front of a neo-nazi he’ll shove his Dr. Martens boots up your sphincter.
First off, the neo-nazis are extremely well organized and funded. They’ve managed to establish an international web of mutual help which even contemplates sophisticated military training. They’ve also been able to form or lobby populist political parties which are considered legal despite promoting hate, segregation and ironically a severe control over the media and freedom of speech in general. This status allows them to elect MP to their local and national parliaments. Even the European Parliament has some of these racist populists.
They commit frequent and organized acts of violence. In Russia, for example, far-right extremist groups already control parts of Moscow. It’s known that there have been attempts to form European and trans-atlantic brigades whose mission would be to depose liberal (for them liberal is the same as democratic) governments.
The Klan, albeit the 8 million members at its prime, was never more than a bunch of yobs (includes the local authorities) with no “philosophical” background or inspiration other than their blind hatred for blacks. They were mostly successful by inspiring fear rather than being the type of menace some people made them out to be. Their operations were put to an end by the American authorities with not much difficulty which tells a lot about their level of commitment and organization.
“So it's ok to ban foreign cultural icons?”
They are not banning foreign cultural icons nor is this a Germany vs Hindus K1 match as this ballot options seem to indicate. It’s Germany vs neo-nazism and the iconography which supports its message.
Ask any German you want, even a scholar, what’s the first thing that comes to his mind when he/she is confronted with a swastika. The answer will invariably be Nazism. I really doubt the ordinary German Joe Bloke knows much about what the symbol means to the Hindus and even if they do it’s impossible for them to dissociate it from a Hitlerian ritualistic celebration. The swastika constituted the highest icon of the 3rd Reich, it transcends its original meaning. The same cannot be said about the Christian cross and the Klan.
And now I ask you, when you see a swastika, what’s the first thing that comes to your mind? An Hindu peace symbol or the hakenkreuz?
You see, it is not that Germans define themselves entirely through WWII and its icons. It is more the rest of the world which does that and it hurts them deeply as a nation, in a way I believe no one else can understand. Therefore if I have to choose between the alleged right a violent group has to disseminate a message of hate and the right the majority claims to feel indignated by that same message I wont hesitate for a second to give the latter my full support. Just like a heart needs mending after an amorous disappointment Germany needs closure on its saddest historical episode. And she won’t be able to accomplish that if she keeps bumping into the “older lover”, now will she?
Regarding the Mexican flag story, what strikes me as surprising is the eagerness with which you lot expressed your solidarity to the Nazis right to speak their minds, no matter what, and become so worked up when pacific Mexican demonstrators flied their flag. It doesn’t sound that much consistent to me.
Voted : The hindus should win out, don't censor the swastika
It is also a symbol for some forms of Buddhism.
I side with the Hindus because the symbol has indeed for thousands of years meant something harmonious. The Nazi side is but a very small timeframe of history relatively speaking.
The Swastika is also a symbol of Jainism I think.
Anyway, there are specific differences between the Nazi swastika and the one for Hindus, Buddhists and Jains.
The Nazi swastika points toward the right, but the swastika for the Hindus, Buddhists and Jains points toward the left. Perhaps the ones that point right can be banned (as that is the specific swastika that represents Nazism), whereas the the ones that point left in their respective religious context should be permitted?
Voted : The hindus should win out, don't censor the swastika
No symbol should ever be banned.
Seamus: the neo-nazis aren't not well organized, they're a punch of hatefilled punks, just like the klan. It doesn't take "an international web of mutual help" to get drunk one evening and go out with your buddies to smash some guys skull in. Which so far is all they have ever really accomplished. They don't represent any political party or mainstream movement and their ability to enforce their will on the community at large is limited to only random and scattered acts of violence. They represent a minor threat these days to society as a whole and aren't the all powerful supermen you seem to believe they are.
And as I explained, there is no inconsistency between this and the mexican flag issue. In both cases I defend their rights, in both cases I criticize their motives. You can support someones right to free speech without agreeing with what they say. You seem to be european, so this could possibly be where the confusion is coming from. Europe has long struggled with the concept of free speech (hence this article), incorrectly believing that tolerating the rights of another is the same as condoning their actions. It isn't. You are free protest (for example) abortion clinics and say all abortions are an abomination. I would absolutely defend your right to do so, all the while criticizing your beliefs.
Do you understand now?
And do you really believe that banning the swastika will make these skin-heads rethink their lives, give up racism, and go sing kumbaya with a bunch of gay black jews? Because I have my doubts.
|
|
