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

Ok, apparently someone else said that they liked it and used it and I'm a little sleepy and you have my sincerest apologies for that misunderstanding, Talen.

I agree with you that I don't think that those that DO use it as a positive symbol should be degraded. Nor do I think the symbol itself should be. That's me, personally. I suppose my point is merely that regardless of what I personally think, the world at large sees a swastika and the FIRST thing that comes to mind is Nazis. Hitler. The Holocaust. And, while I would never tell someone what they personally should or shouldn't believe about a symbol, I do think that sometimes - just sometimes - you have to look at things from a sort of "needs of the many" perspective. If 2 people in a room of 40 see a symbol and to them it is positive, but the other 38 are repulsed and reminded of something truly horrific... well, then the symbol has not served its purpose at all, has it? Not if it was MEANT to be positive.

Typically, for me, I see a cross and I am reminded of the death and suffering of someone who, even if you don't see him as the Messiah, went about telling people to be good to one another - to love one another. Crosses, honestly, make me sad. But, being that the vast majority of the world does not view them the way that I do ... that I would be one of the 2 in a room of 40, where 38 saw it as a GOOD thing, but I didn't.... I take that into account and accept that MOST other people don't see it the way that I do.

Actually Lucas drew from nazi history to add more hate...hence stormtroopers...and a direct quoute from lucas below

"The Imperial officer's uniforms were patterned after the uniforms of Nazi officers to add to their "villainous" image."

it worked well too.

Where do you think Star Wars got it's inspirations?

My signature was pulled from that source to express irony purposefully. My friend is fine with my forum signature: as another person with a significant amount of education, he is familiar with irony. To make the irony clear, I put in (or get you starved to death faster). I adopted that signature as a result of the event funding changes that made it impossible for anyone in SL hoping to entertain people for a living to do so and actually make a profit. In other words, events hosts can work and work and work, but will not gain anything from the work but slow starvation.

If I at any moment EVER thought my signature were to offend anyone, I certainly would change it. Honestly, I don't believe I am a perfect human being. Like all of us, I am in my process learning as I go. If people are offended by my signature, I will respectfully change it. It was intentionally chosen to ironically look at a work ethic that is unworkable in the given climate for events venues.

The swastika is a symbol that is still in use by hate groups who hope to hurt and intimidate and is used (like the burning cross, which I have seen griefers use in SL) to stimulate fear by the use of aggression. Using intimidation tactics is aggression. Aggression has no place in Second Life. Not outside of some game within a game where people are roleplaying a particular situation for their own satisfaction. I believe I deserve the right to live free of other people's attempts to harm or intimidate me.

I don't think that my forum signature contradicts my feelings about swastikas as I am not using that signature to try to intimidate people. I use that signature to point to an ironical situation that exists for events venues.

Granted, but by shifting it to another context and removing the overt elements of the inspiration, you get an Empire that's fun to root against. Conversely, giving in to the dark side with a hunky Imperial interrogator (or a sexy busty one... I don't discriminate) gives the kinky kick of surrendering to play-evil authority without the baggage of very real, very somber atrocities.

Unless you're prone to get all angsty over the destruction of Alderaan...

I'm just pointing out that the proposal that sparked this whole brouhaha could be brought to fruition without any Nazi symbolism.

Actually, and no, unfortunately, I do not have a source on this anymore. I learned it years ago from a medieval history book. Anyway, actually, when Islamic people used to conquer countries/villages/areas, they used to give a choice to the conquered people. That choice was "Jewish? Christian? Islam?" They had to choose one of the three. It was only AFTER the Crusades that they began to hate and fight Christians. *shrugs* So I would imagine, wearing a cross through a town sixty years afterwards would probably have gotten you stoned, killed, etc etc. In fact, probably wearing a cross in some areas of Islamic culture today would still get you in serious trouble.

Between Mercury's thighs.

LOL..where do you think George Lucas got the idea for those Imperial officer uniforms from?? The SS.

Well..you do realize that most of the earth's population..a good majority, don't look at crosses and see a good thing. Despite what christian religious sects would have some believe, the number of non-christians far surpass the number of christians. And many people of other faiths view the cross either neutrally or with disdain and anger...

Yes..it's ok do display crosses to your hearts content...

Well, those Nazis had some damned fine fashion and branding ideas. Logo as lifestyle- and 40 years ahead of time! They're practically the fathers of Nike.

I must profess a (now un-)secret love of their fashion sense, although I don't dress like that.

I like the boots..and the long leather jackets....and think women look damn hot in the boots and with those little caps...and a whip...

Going back to the original question, displaying any symbol at all, with the intention deliberately to offend or insult anybody, in a public place where they are likely to come across it, is wrong.

If some palestinians built an SL replica of a palestinian village, placing an Israeli flag there to upset them would be wrong. An Israeli village, a palestinian flag would be wrong (unless it was a model of a village stolen from the palestinians within recent times, and celebrating that fact, in which case that itself would be wrong as a provocation).

Its the intentions that are wrong, not the symbols themselves.

If an SL resident had a RL child beaten to death with a candlestick, and someone deliberately placed a candlestick in her doorway (knowing this), that would be disgraceful. If the person just happens to see a candlestick as she passes by someones window, thats simply unfortunate.

I know its hard in some finely balanced cases to judge intention, but my guess is that in 98% of the practical situations we might encounter, common sense makes it pretty clear.
Looking at what it is, and where and how it is displayed, and near whom, will usually leave no doubt about the intentions of the displayer.

Yup. Strongly agree. Potter Stewart's definition of pornography for the US Supreme Court: "can't define it, but know when I see it."

It's the 2% that's the real problem, but people lose sight of that because there isn't much attempt to define what the 2% might be.

I offered an example of the 2% in a similar thread on censorship, btw.

Fashion macht Ubermensch.

**Freddie Mercury again**

Well..but therein lies another problem. What is pornography to some is art to others. What is offensive behavior to some is custom to others. What is patriotism to some, is facism to others.

To "force" your viewpoint on others is the real wrong, unless it's to stop harassment, hate crimes or other violence.

I had the chance to see Queen in concert one time, and to this day, think it was the best concert I ever attended. Incredible talent and 3 1/2 hours of just them, with no opening act.

But anyway, the nazi "style" of dress has been adapted all over the place is can be found even in top fashion designers work. As long as you leave off the swashtika it seems to be all good...

I don't think whips were standard issue. Or riding crops, either.

But for pure studly glamor, you can't beat an American bomber jacket from that era. I appreciate kink, but sometimes you just need a hero.

(Don't let me derail the serious discussion... I'll just be over here daydreaming).

Actually, I agree with you. The "What is pornography to some is art to others" generally fits into the 2%. Or 6% or 18% or whatever. The question is, what do you do with the 2% that people strongly disagree about.

It's hard to decide which is predominant in this thread - the latent antisemitism or the overt anti-Christianity.

Both disgust me.

coco

While I'm sure your intent is not to intimidate with your signature, I believe the cavalier use of Nazi iconography, or as in this case slogans is if not offensive then in exceptionally poor taste. Unfortunately this is all too common. I recall seeing during the last US Presidential election pictures of both major candidates 'superimposed' onto images of Hitler or similar Nazi propaganda. I understand the message is ironic - I still find it disrespectful in the extreme, not to the intended targets but to those who actually sufferred under, because of, and to defeat the evil regime those symbols and language represent.



Societally...or personally. Using Nazi slogans and icons as 'irony' is offensive to me because it implies that the issue at hand (in this case a disagreement about the rules of an online game) are in some way similar or relatable to the the lies told to those who were enslaved and murdered. This is offensive to me and I think to those people's memory. I support freedom of speech and yes the use of even such symbols and language in art - but to use it cavalierly is, as I have said, of the poorest taste.

My 0.02 Lindens.

Jimmy Page used to wear an authentic nazi officer's hat in concert.

I think it has to do with that symbol, as you alluded to. Style of clothing is one thing, a bright symbol of hate is another. Designers don't include it on their clothing for just this reason. There would be an instant call for boycotts and the like, because again, people see hate when they see a nazi swastika in a non-educational setting.

Yes, actually I'm aware of that. You do realize that I used the cross as an example specifically because it had been brought up more than once and compared with the swastika on a level or two?

I happen to be Christian - but I also happen to not view the cross as a particularly positive, uplifting symbol of faith. But, as I said in my example, I would be one of the 2 in a room of 40. And, let me clarify that by saying in a room of 40 Christians...

Hate the player, not the game.

I haven't seen any anti-semitism. Could you please quote an example?

And if you mean anti-christianity is displayed by pointing out historical and well-known horrendous acts in performed in it's name..then i guess do...

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press -- in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of LIBERAL excess during the past years."

-- Adolph Hitler; Taken from The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1, Michael Hakeem, Ph.D. (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871-872.


*Side Note: If you ignore who wrote this, it sounds not too far off from a Pat Robertson-type.