Lemdro.id

17 points

3 months ago

the swastika was originally a religious icon used and still used in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jianism, i wouldn’t consider them Nazis… Context matters

report

Sidyctism2@discuss.tchncs.de

[ - ]

4 points

3 months ago

Its even older than that actually. The oldest recorded use of the swastika is from around 13.000 BCE. Here is a good article by the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210816-the-ancient-symbol-that-was-hijacked-by-evil

report

[ - ]

FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today

-26 points

3 months ago

Imagine unironically saying we should normalize nazi swastikas. If that’s not what it takes for you to reevaluate your stance, then you’re a lost cause.

report

[ - ]

9 points

3 months ago

the symbol predates Germany, initial findings date it back to 3300-1300 BC. you’re telling me all historical religious symbols in Asian countries should wiped of the icon because of Nazis misappropriating their symbol? you would literally deface ancient sites that predate nazis by thousands of years because you can only see it as a symbol of hate?

you can use context clues such as actual hate speech, nazi slogans and genocide to distinguish those that are actually racist. the whole point of nazism is to erase culture and replace it with only the “one true race”. by allowing nazis and white supremacists to appropriate symbols you’re actively giving them power.

report

[ - ]

FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today

-12 points

3 months ago

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.

report

[ - ]

6 points

3 months ago

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.

report

[ - ]

FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today

-8 points

3 months ago

Yes, again, I’ve read your comments and understood them. Maybe you’re the one having comprehension troubles, here?

I don’t see how this comment in any way argues against any of my statements. You either never disagreed with me to begin with about swastikas being bannable outside of specific religious contexts, or you want contextless hate speech to be allowed as a blanket rule. There is no in-between.

report

[ - ]

4 points

3 months ago

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.

report

[ - ]

1 point

3 months ago

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.

report