So then, you think Nazi Swastikas without context should be allowed without any repercussions. I saw your first comment, I don’t see why you think using more words to say the same thing would make it any different.
Here are some questions: How does punishing nazis for using symbols of hate and intolerance empower them? How does allowing them to do so freely harm them in contrast?
You do not need to use a nazi swastika. A world where they are not allowed in public is a world where people feel safe and comfortable. Just as you do not need to use the frog. The frog is unimportant and only continues to exist because people like you fight for it.
is English your first language because you either don’t understand what I’m saying or you are too ignorant to understand.
swastikas being bannable outside of specific religious contexts
that’s literally what i said. the context around the symbol is what is important. no one in south west asia sees a swastika and think Nazis because it’s part of the religious culture. just as no one sees Pepe and thinks nazis because no one normal participated in that shit subculture of 4chan except Nazis.
Let’s actually look at what happened with Pepe, he was created by an artist then appropriated by Nazis. The artist then posted that he was outraged and disappointed that it was taken over by Nazis. people listened and were also outraged and did everything to normalize and take it back from the Nazis, because again it wasn’t theirs to take in the first place. now you imagine the 12 year old posting it are nazis when they have no context of any of the events your talking about. go touch grass, your brain is rotting.
We should turn their name into an extreme political symbol symbol on the opposite side of their political spectrum. That way they’ll know that they’re also evil because they use that evil symbol.
So then, you think Nazi Swastikas without context should be allowed without any repercussions.
That’s incoherent. “Nazi swastika” and “without context” doesn’t mesh because “Nazi” is a context for “swastika”.
That aside, I’m going to take German law as an example: No, non-nazi swastikas are very much not outlawed. You can see them on stray Hindu temples or shrines in the country, for example. “Without” context they’re generally assumed to be Nazi ones over here because historical context, also, only Nazis draw random swastikas over here. You also see ones broken in pieces getting thrown in the trash or in a crossed-out circle, those come from the Antifa side.
Both the Hindu and Antifa uses are legal, the Nazi ones aren’t. That’s because German law doesn’t outlaw the swastika as such, it outlaws “using symbols of unconstitutional or outlawed organisations in a manner suitable to further their aims”. A Nazi painting a Swastika on a Jewish gravestone is considered furthering the aims of the NSDAP, which had the swastika as their logo. A Hindu chiselling a swastika into their gravestone is a completely different matter. (Do Hindus use gravestones? Anyway doesn’t matter it’s a hypothetical example).
In another country, where the historical context is different, those “without” context swastikas won’t be interpreted the same as in Germany. So even under German law those would arguably be legal, there.
So then, you think Nazi Swastikas without context should be allowed without any repercussions. I saw your first comment, I don’t see why you think using more words to say the same thing would make it any different.
Here are some questions: How does punishing nazis for using symbols of hate and intolerance empower them? How does allowing them to do so freely harm them in contrast?
You do not need to use a nazi swastika. A world where they are not allowed in public is a world where people feel safe and comfortable. Just as you do not need to use the frog. The frog is unimportant and only continues to exist because people like you fight for it.
literally my first comment said context matters. if you see an image with hate speech maybe its the speech that you should pay attention to.
Removed by mod
is English your first language because you either don’t understand what I’m saying or you are too ignorant to understand.
that’s literally what i said. the context around the symbol is what is important. no one in south west asia sees a swastika and think Nazis because it’s part of the religious culture. just as no one sees Pepe and thinks nazis because no one normal participated in that shit subculture of 4chan except Nazis.
Let’s actually look at what happened with Pepe, he was created by an artist then appropriated by Nazis. The artist then posted that he was outraged and disappointed that it was taken over by Nazis. people listened and were also outraged and did everything to normalize and take it back from the Nazis, because again it wasn’t theirs to take in the first place. now you imagine the 12 year old posting it are nazis when they have no context of any of the events your talking about. go touch grass, your brain is rotting.
We should turn their name into an extreme political symbol symbol on the opposite side of their political spectrum. That way they’ll know that they’re also evil because they use that evil symbol.
right? imagine some one came for Calvin and Hobbes. don’t come for my cartoons, the one pure thing in this world
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
That’s incoherent. “Nazi swastika” and “without context” doesn’t mesh because “Nazi” is a context for “swastika”.
That aside, I’m going to take German law as an example: No, non-nazi swastikas are very much not outlawed. You can see them on stray Hindu temples or shrines in the country, for example. “Without” context they’re generally assumed to be Nazi ones over here because historical context, also, only Nazis draw random swastikas over here. You also see ones broken in pieces getting thrown in the trash or in a crossed-out circle, those come from the Antifa side.
Both the Hindu and Antifa uses are legal, the Nazi ones aren’t. That’s because German law doesn’t outlaw the swastika as such, it outlaws “using symbols of unconstitutional or outlawed organisations in a manner suitable to further their aims”. A Nazi painting a Swastika on a Jewish gravestone is considered furthering the aims of the NSDAP, which had the swastika as their logo. A Hindu chiselling a swastika into their gravestone is a completely different matter. (Do Hindus use gravestones? Anyway doesn’t matter it’s a hypothetical example).
In another country, where the historical context is different, those “without” context swastikas won’t be interpreted the same as in Germany. So even under German law those would arguably be legal, there.