"Second Life does not allow Nazi iconography as it broadly offensive."

Talen, um, your arguments about Coke and Jackie O and Mom and Apple Pie might be uh a little more persuasive if you also would condemn the Nazis and what they stand for and what they did.

You seem unable to do that.

Instead, in the usual fashion of Nazi apologists and Holocaust deniers, which I don't think you'd like to be seen as, you're fishing, fishing, fishing for some "proof" that this symbol was used by such American icons as Coca Cola and Jackie-O.

No doubt some Nazi apologists worked very hard on the Internet and worked very hard with Photoshop in some cases LOL to come up with those gems.

None of those gems are typical of what Coca-Cola and Jackie-O stood for, and what they did, in the mainstream, and especially during and after World War II. You'd be hard put to find either of them carrying and producing and distributing that symbol after say, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland. Very hard put indeed. Because the swastika became associated with the Nazi cause, and remains associated with it, and that is why it is appropriate banned, and why education against its celebratory use is in order.

It represents the mass murder of millions of our fellow human beings.

Trying to sanctify masss murder by backdating its symbol and fishing around on Indian dresses and old Coke ads and "volkishche" magazine covers (like THAT is a good ideology we should be promoting???) really can't fly here. It's misleading, tendentious, and generally up to no good.

No, Talen, in your quest for fuck-you hedonism, you don't get to do what you want -- always -- when it means celebrating Nazi insignia.

The mass murder of millions -- the desire of at least some human beings to go on remembering that, being horrified at that, and respecting what that means -- is indeed going to stand in your way.

I did...try reading all my posts not just what you wish to use.



Again I did. I believe that anyone using such symbology in a bigoted or racist manner to inflame and or agitate should be suspended/banned.



America and American companies did use the swastika as it was intended...a sysmbol of good luck. I don't apologize for nazi's or nazi sympathizers period...But I won't apologize for a symbol that has been around for thousands of years and means good luck.



you are a fool...these images I have provided are not photoshopped or made up ...call coco-cola and or the Smithsonian and you'll find out they are very real...the symbol means good luck and was used as such by the American government.



of course they are ...Jackie o was wearing a native american garb The symbol is highly used among native americans...perhaps a history class would suit you.



at best the nazi rendition represents the nazi party



I can't help it if you are ignorant and uneducated....these images I posted are real and have nothing to do with mass murder.



well...you got the fuck you part right anyway...I can'yt believe just how uneducated you are...


Your intellectual prowess has yet again eluded you. Again I suggest you learn before you speak because you come off as very ignorant and highly retarded.

This isnt true as I used to know people from the US who work in that city. Although I am not sure if they are allowed near the area where the bomb exploded.

----

This all does bring up a good point. I belief the intended use of the idea, was more a "S&M porno" style of Hogans Heroes to the extent that it was involved with the Nazi's. My memory might be wrong but I do not remember them discussing actual death camps in that Show.

What happened in the years prior and during World War 2 is a horrific example of how much a governement can change the actions of its people. The Nazis and their "final solution", The Invasion of much of Eastern Asia by Japan. Prof is right much of what Stalin did was comprable and is evidence of this same ability of a State to attack basic tennants of humanity. In fact more people died in the "peace" before world war two in Soviet Russia than America has ever lost in all its wars combined.

Yet, the typical person in any of these countries was much like you or I, and their soldiers not so much different then the soldiers of the United States , or Canada , or any other country.

The real problem was the governments of those countries and the ruthless people who ran them and to what means they went and what ends they were willing to achive.

The Nazi Flag, and Nazi imagry symbolize that .. Mass murder, a baisc breakdown in the value of human life, The ability of the state to dehumanize it's own citizens to commit and allow committed these acts.

So , Linden Labs has every right to ban it.

The poster about the sex themed roleplay should find some other outlet of erotic expression.

I suggest you read the post by sox and profoky ....they are highly against any form of swastika and have said so....I am merely pointing out to them that this symbol was used before nazi's used it and by our own government...they don't care what form it comes in they want it banned.....this has gone past nazi iconography because they believe that this symbol can only be attributed to mass killings now.

I read all the posts. The post of yours I responded to was vague in it's targetting. My apologies if I misinterpreted it and other posts by you as an attempt to lessen the impact of the Nazi swastika. We can post non-Nazi swastikas all day, it's still not going to solve the issue of whether or not LL should be banning it.

I do now realize you are trying to educate Sox and Prokofy. I must say, however, that they make some damned fine points in their posts, and I don't have to agree with everything they said to appreciate that fact. Also, I think that both Sox and Prokofy are quite aware of the historical (pre-Nazi) use of the swastika, and that I think you're not likely to change their minds if they do indeed think all forms of the swastika should be outlawed. For the record, I don't.

For me Talen, this issue raises more questions than it does answers.

On one hand, I see the horrific pictures of holocaust survivors standing in front of barb wire fences and buried behind them are thousands upon thousands of dead in pits. The horrors of Auschwitz, Birkenau, Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, Dachau, Buchenwald, Mauthausen and Nordhausen are not that far behind us. There are people still living today that have numbers tatooed on their wrists.

Personally, I could not imagine adding to their great pain by displaying a flag or a uniform symbolizing an ideology that cost them so much.

On the other hand, a quote by Helen Keller in Time Magazine in response to Nazi youths burning books:

“History,” she wrote in an open letter to German students, “has taught you nothing if you think you can kill ideas. Tyrants have tried to do that often before and the ideas have risen up in their might and destroyed them…. I deplore the injustice and unwisdom of passing on to unborn generations the stigma of your deeds.”

In other words, killing the symbol does not kill the ideology that it has come to represent.

If one symbol is banned because it has potential to take on a vicious life of its own, then others should be as well.

So how far should this go? The Cross, the Red Star and the Hammer and Sickle, The Confederate Flag, a Che Guevarra symbol, the Star of David, the Pentagram, Kolopeli?

Linden Labs is not the only one struggling with this question, so is the European Union:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/02/03/pf-919280.html

Some of the best minds in the world are struggling with this issue, I don't expect it to be a slam dunk for Linden Labs or the SL Community. The best solution would be to evaluate each issue on a case by case basis to determine whether or not the symbol was used in support of an egregious ideology or for some other, benign purpose like education.

The problem with this solution lies in LL having the manpower to address each issue, their ability to make a fair judgement and whether or not the decision to do this would adversely affect their position in the European market.

For them, I think it's easier to simply ban the symbol.

.

Hitler killed an est. 11 million Jews and "others".
Stalin killed an est. 43 million of his own countrymen.

Why not make the Hammer and Sickle a bannable icon?
It's fair right? And who here isn't broadly offended by a regime murdering millions of its own people?

Hey prok, thought you might like the below images as well...they are from the boyscouts. Before 1930 they used the swastika as their flag...on their handbook, on arm bands, and on at least one medal given out. They also printed it on post cards.

While Linden Labs can ban anything they see fit, I think they'd be on shaky ground banning swastikas that are clearly not in a Nazi context, particularly if they were in an appropriate Hindu, Buddhist or Native American context. It's still their perogative to do so, but if they wanted to be even-handed they would also have to ban the cross, the Star of David, the Islamic crescent, and any other symbol with a potential religious connotation.

I'd rather they approach the situation on a case-by-case basis.

They weren't only his own countrymen. Many were folks from eastern European and southern Asian sovereign nations that were trampled over and occupied by Stalin's regime.

It is a valid point therefore. Had these atrocities been only enacted upon Russians, I might think differently. However, being that these transgressions were enacted against many non-Russians, why not ban the Soviet icon too?

I would never try to lessen the Nazi Swastika ....but I do understand the reasoning behind why hitler used it and why it has become an outrage to see.

There points are non existant on the symbol as it relates to any other place in society. Yes, the nazi form of this symbol is a slam dunk...it should never be shown....but it should never be erased from history so future generations kn ow what it stood for relating to the nazi's.

As for the American indian, American government, Hindu, greek, and myriad of other users of the symbol....those shouldn't be disparaged and have nothing to do with mass murder or evil people.

I was composing as you were posting, and our thoughts were vibrating in synch with the same cosmic string. Good post!

Case by case, aah yes well put, good idea. Again it comes down to CONTEXT and RELATIVITY just as I been saying.

so, to sum up so far:

Red flag w/ white circle and a clockwise pointing swastika = Nazi Iconography = banned.

All other forms of the swastika = not banned (at least to date!)

Then we agree.

I had to read "The Diary of Anne Frank" in 9th grade, then we watched the movie. After that, we were given a choice of assignments: A book report or a project. I chose the project. I made a 3d model of Dachau (I knew that Anne and her family did not end up in Dachau, it was just that my dad had found an overhead diagram of Dachau for me to work with, we didn't have the net back then ) from things I found in my dad's workshop. I received an "A" for it, not to mention a bit of acclaim (or notoriety) for it, some of it negative. I was called "Hitler" by some kids and even one science teacher (it probably didn't help that I speak German). I shrugged it off. Sometimes you have to simply shrug off that type of mentality. I knew, at 14, that you cannot change some folks views on hot button issues. What can you do?

great post...and I truly understand when it comes to the nazi symbol. Although I think banning it is scary for other reasons.

Germany has banned the symbol and other contries will follow suit.....maybe one day in the future no one will allow it and everyone will forget what it looks like and what it stands for.....and then maybe one day it will return and be used again. People should never forget what the nazi emblems look like and what they stood for and how many people died.

The nazi swastika is and should be the only issue. 3000 years od swastika symbology shouldn't be erased because one fuckwit with a damaged brain and delusions of grandeur.

Would a "new" Nazi Party be acceptable I wonder.

Yes, we are Nazis. No, we do not have anything against any race or creed. And we openly state, as strongly as any non-Nazi, that the acts commited in the Holocaust defy description.

You can identify us by our Blue swastikas. We do not wear the red or black, which is commonly associated with the Holocaust and the SS.

We do, however, firmly believe in protecting the interests of anglican Germans. We believe our way of life is becoming lost in the wash of eastern and euro influences that most people seem to generally accept as being "that's the world today". We advocate funds and initiatives that support anglican German efforts to find jobs, obtain loans, and so forth. The politics and business of our membership reflects this in a variety of legal ways.

We do not perceive the world as being just a bigger mix of cultures. We perceive the west as becoming more heavily influenced by eastern and african cultures, to the extent that we are losing our ability to state that we are proud to be anglican, and are proud of our heritage. Our children are silenced in classrooms when stating this pride, the world as a whole provides no ourtight benefits to our race (species whatever) based entirely on "compensation for the past", and we believe it is time to change that in a peaceful and legal, though deliberate, fashion.

We are not responsible for the sins of our fathers and mothers.

Pride in this is no different than an American's pride in their country and history, which is tainted by the conquest of the very land they now, for a relatively short time, have claimed as their home and birthright.

ANY member of the new Nazis shown to be in conflict with these policies in any way, including but not limited to hate speech or justification for the holocaust, will be immediately expelled and denied any of the benefits of membership.

I wonder how people overall would react.

You know what? There's probably about ZERO likelihood that someone would want to create a swastika symbol as part of an Indian display, educational or otherwise.

And even if they did think to do that, the swastika would still be only a VERY TINY part of such a display, since it was only a very tiny part of all things Indian.

Whereas the swastika WAS the central visual sign of Naziism. When people see it, they think Nazi - and all that connotates. Not "American Indian" or any other usage.

Doubtless a result of that, the fact is, most people wanting to display the swastika wish to do so in the context of Nazis. And in the case of the original discussion, in the context of getting off to sadomachism, Nazi-style. And in probably in all cases, in a context other than educational.

So all this argument for allowing the depiction of the swastika is smoke and mirrors, based on possibilities that aren't even going to take place.

What really is going to take place, has taken place, and is still being talked about for taking place in the future, and the overwhelming public understanding of same (i.e., having more to do with Naziism than Indians) is why LL banned the swastika in the first place, as well they should have.

Those who view all this as evidence of having "tiny minds" flatter themselves tremendously.

coco

Yep. They plastered all over everthing. Their caps, their collars, their arms, walls, schools, businesses, you name it, they did it. It was the central icon. Great points Coco.

LL didn't ban the swastika...they banned nazi iconography...big difference. There are at least 4 indian tribes that used the swastika as the central visual sign of their tribes. 3 tribes were wiped out and the fourth stopped using the swastika during the early 40's due to people misunderstanding the symbol as it related to them.

How exactly do you know what possibilities will or won't take place in a world that is created by its populace?

The having small minds that I spoke about were people refusing to believe that the swastika could be anything other than a symbol of evil and the nazi party.

Ya know, I'm not gonna answer Eggy's questions directly, because the answer isn't that simple.

Regarding the "The swastica has other meanings" arguement. Yes, it absolutely does. No question. But. But but but. This arguement is misused so horribly I give it very, very little credence anymore. Most times I hear it used it sounds like the little 7 year old kid who has just learned that "bitch" or "hell" or "damn" have connotations that aren't considered vulgar, so they think they have free reign to shout them out all they want. That is to say, it's an excuse, and an attempt at justification. This doesn't mean that if I say "She's a doberman bitch" or something like that, I'm excusing vulgar language. But that people TRY to excuse it. So don't read this as me saying that ANY claim to this nature is bogus. But when (this is drawn from an event I witnessed in real life) a 13 year old kid, in rural america, christian upbringing, and aboslutely NO interest in other cultures draws a huge three-foot swastica on the blackboard before class, the excuse "But it's a symbol of life!" doesn't work very well.

This gets into a second, related issue: Likelyhood of intent. If you find a swastica on a piece of pottery or engraved in a complex, ornate wood carving, you can accept that it may have other meanings. When you find a huge, rotating, glowing red swastica floating in sandbox, it's a bit harder to pass it off as anything but a rather vulgar act. And if it's on a busty fetish outfit that looks like a wet-dream fantasy of an SS uniform... well, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Now, there is also the issue of responsibility. This is too often ignored in free speeh arguements. I'm all for free speech, but I think that it has to go hand in hand with responsibility. Someone (probably several someones, I stoped reading) in this thread said that censorship is always wrong. I agree with this mostly, but the problem is that particularly on the internet, you can't count on people do hold up their end of the free-speech equation.

That said, to answer Eggy as best I can: No, the symbol doesn't offend me. But symbols are just ink or pixels, to me. I'm not offended so easily. It's the intent behind the symbol that offends me. If it's used in hate, or disrespectfully, or making light of someone elses pain, or if it's used in ignorance, the ignorance or hate or whatever offends me, but not the symbol.

Talen, I respect your opinion, in all honesty, and more importantly than the respect for your opinion itself, I respect your right to have your own.

With that said... There IS a difference. And no one said swastikas were banned - what was said is that "Nazi iconography" is banned.

The problem, though, is that however unfortunate it may be for a symbol that never originated as one for hate, it HAS been forever tainted by Hitler's use of it. People don't pay attention to whether it faces left or right. People don't pay attention to whether it is blue, pink, purple, green with yellow polkadots ... or black on white on a field of red... Unfortunately, Hitler's use of the symbol tainted its many incarnations. Maybe not to you, Talen - maybe not to MANY people. But, the majority of folks? They see a swastika and they are immediately reminded of Nazis. Of hate. Of fear. Of the loss of millions of lives on the whim of some truly sick individuals.

Now, this swastika seems to have a special meaning to you, and I respect that. When you use it, your intention is not to remind people of Hitler, the Holocaust, or Nazis at all, correct? It's merely to use a symbol that has a special meaning to you, or one which you like, and which has no negative associations for you... yes? But your intentions are certainly not bad. It's a symbol of good luck, right?

So, therefore, it doesn't matter that it DOES remind people of Hitler. It doesn't matter that it DOES remind people of the Holocaust. It doesn't matter that it DOES remind people of the deaths of millions of people. Because those aren't your intentions.

You can pass it off and say that if that's what they see when they see ANY swastika, that's their problem. You can say it's not yours at all. But, if you choose a symbol of some sort because of its positive meaning, would you not RATHER have it share the same positive meaning with everyone who comes by? Just a thought.

As I said before, I don't think that swastikas SHOULD be banned - I don't even think that "Nazi iconography" should NECESSARILY be banned - it depends, as Sox has mentioned, upon context for me. Is a Holocaust Museum a bad thing? Well, no. While it depicts some atrocious events, it doesn't do it just for shock value. Its INTENT is to educate.

It's VERY unfortunate, Talen, that a symbol with positive meaning was so greatly changed by a twisted individual, but in fairness, for many - for many, many people - it was, and has been, and may always be.

I think it would be quite sad if we began to think "those people" (insert racial group here) were to blame for things not being like the olden days, and youngsters not respecting their elders.

I think the point those wrinkly old grandmas and granddads are making when they do their lame WW2 rememberance days and stuff over and over, is that they aren't wrinkly grannies and granddads, they are young men and women of about 21, who are in a group of say 30, who went to war in the here and now, and who saw most of their friends killed.

Their friends were killed because people decided one racial group was better than another, and one or more racial groups were to blame, and the idea grew, and yes it did lead to a war and more than 6 million people exterminated in mass genocide.

What an idiot I'm being, going on like this. Six million people killed in Genocide? What kind of talk is that. I mean, it's not like that could really happen, six million people. But it did happen, to people our age, in a world a lot like ours.

So how dumb would we be to start thinking exactly like the Germans did before world war two? It's freedom of speech when someone says "Hmmm, too much immigration", but when people start to say "It's the asians" or "It's the africans" how far is that from Germany in say, 1928?

I'd have to say that devoid of ANY context, you'd have to assume the worst about a swastika.

I'd also have to say that you can design a perfectly delightful kinky authoritarian uniform with no Nazi denotations whatsoever. Take a cue from Star War's evil Empire and design your own iconography. Associating yourself with one of the darkest chapters of human history is really kind of a turn-off.

And so did every other neutral country, as well they should.
I refuse, however, to acknowledge any responsibility for the unilateral actions of a dictator that held the good portuguese people hostage for 58 years, murdering and torturing anyone who so much as uttered "freedom".
You masterfully neglected, of course, to include the part about our involvement with the allies, namely the fact that to this very day the USA still has a base in the Azores, etc.
Thank you for the thinly veiled attack on my country, btw. Very mature of you.
Need I elaborate on the extremely long and growing list of american-committed atrocities?
I didn't think so. But thanks for playing!

I personally have never used this symbol in any way....but I don't think the symbol should be degraded , nor groups, that used it in a very positive way for so long....many still don't realize that this symbol was used quite frequently in American history...specifically in the 1920's.

What I don't get is ...why just this symbol? The cross itself is a positive symbol even though a man was nailed to it and many have died for not accepting the religion this symbol signafies. During the crusades and specifically during the inquisition people were tortured and mutilated by those that carried the sign of the cross.

Does this mean in 2000 years or less that it will be acceptable to wear the nazi swastika without recrimination?