4 ms·
No sir, am I not. This is HN, give me the benefit of the doubt, please.
by crescentfresh 9y ago
No sir, am I not. This is HN, give me the benefit of the doubt, please.
- paines 9y agoThose aren't nazi symbols silly. They are buddhist symbols abused by the 3rd reich!
- Jaruzel 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
- darklajid 9y agoNot helpful. Sometimes technically correct isn't correct enough or good enough. The symbol was - in large parts of the world - tainted by the Nazis. By Germans (I'm one). Sorry for Buddhists that suffer in Europe, but I am a supporter of the ban of this symbol (and lots of other speech, Free Speech is a different concept from elsewhere).
- mjevans 9y agoThis definitely is a case where use and intent should matter. I agree with making the reverence of a /Nazi/ symbol something to censor for the public good. However, use in a historically accurate context? Or even an alternate history, either of which should present it as a symbol being used to spearhead hate and atrocities? I feel like that is a truthful non-worshiping view that should be retained. Uses outside of that context, such as the symbol's older geometric and religious meanings (probably identifiable by their lack of historically / physically WW-II ties) should be fine.
- gpvos 9y agoOn the other hand, a quick Google or Wikipedia search would have enlightened you fast enough.
- gpvos 9y agoI must say I am surprised by the number of upvotes this gets, and the number of downvotes crescentfresh seems to be getting (I actually upvoted GP). Not knowing about Wolfenstein is very understandable nowadays.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gsich 9y agodenied