NationStates Jolt Archive

oh god i'm tired - Hey Ackbar - can you quote the anti-hate law part that excludes the internet from the French anti-hate law?

Darned if I can see it.

Put thy money where thy mouth is.

Show me the law...

Anyone who feels different - post your entire music collection online for free downloads.

This is a different matter as it is covered by the Berne Convention, which states that copyright in one nation applies in all nations (Except Taiwan and maybe East Timor still).

As for French anti-hate law not covering the world, I won't vouch for the world (as there is not enough history of court cases to make such statement about the majority of the world), but it didn't fly in the US (see: Yahoo court ruling).

oh god i'm tired - Hey Ackbar - can you quote the anti-hate law part that excludes the internet from the French anti-hate law?

Darned if I can see it.

Put thy money where thy mouth is.

Show me the law...

Firstly, I am all about the reference of law on this issue, so I applaud you for that. That said, this has to have been one of the weakest sources you could have drawn from.

France
The swastika flag is banned in France by an explicit text in the anti-racist law.
Philippe Bondurand, 06 Dec 1997

If you want to quote and claim to know international law so well, use better source material.

As has been mentioned, I have not disagreed that France has Anti-hate laws. What the Anti-hate laws tightly decree is that paraphernalia and demonstration of Nazi regalia is illegal in the country.


If you want to go by a countries set of laws, you would note that in a true Muslim culture it would be against the law of the land for males and females to mix without chaperones. But the issue in this game should not be following every law of culture in the world. The issue should be to follow the laws as they applicable to Max.

Yahoo Auctions were sued, this I know. I know of no individual suit against Yahoo for listing a site. Someone earlier mentioned that the suits against Yahoo were decided to be in the favor of yahoo, so maybe it would be legal for Max to sell Nazi flags to Germans over the internet if he wanted to. But aside to the only court cases I know to challenge international use of Nazi symbols, the case of Germany Vs. Yahoo Auctions, I know of no case in which it is even implied that is illegal for a search engine of sorts to post flag images such as were used with the Nazi party.

violet does have a point. but then again he doesnt. the swastika was taking from the monestary that hilter was at. when he was trying to become a priest. when he slowed gained power he used the swastika that was all over the monestary. and still today the swastika is the offical symbol of the monestary.so he didnt rip it off the buddist or who ever. and it is also a reminded of the holocaust. would you want it to be forgotten. i know i wouldnt because if it was we would be forgetting a major mistake is history. and the only reason why people think of the holocaust when they think of the swastika is because of how our american government has twisted it. and i say if the swastika gets banned then so should the star of david. by banning the swastika is does show that you want a part of history forgotten. well the best way for it to be forgotten is to also get rid of the star of david and the gay pride symbol and signs that gypsys use.because the holocaust did include the jews, gay, and gypsys. many people may now say i am support the nazi party. that is not the case at all. i support history. what has happend has happend. we should not forget it but take it and learn from it. hitler was a very smart man in the battle feild. i admire his work on the battle feild, but i do not admire his work any where else. people take his work with the holocaust and hate him. and ignore everything else. so if you ban the swastika you are just trying to forget history.

Correction, French law is not world wide law, I would like you to point out exactly where it says in international law that whatever laws the French have the US must follow. Posting your music collection is not a good example. If you posted music online while your server is based in the US you would be laible for whatever the record companies can nail you for. However, if your server was based in, say, Cuba, you can make like MC Hammer.....can't touch this! 8)

I'll reply after I get a good nights sleep.

Apparently - there's still some folks that don't understand that Max is liable for content on his forum and game.

When you have a worldwide game - you end up being controlled by worldwide laws.

Anyone who feels different - post your entire music collection online for free downloads.

I'd post my collection, but it'd take too damn long just to list the disc titles, let alone actually posting the MP3s. Hells, I'd probably need a small RAID tower for that.

Anyway, back on topic...

Oh, wait, I don't have anything to add, as it essentially boils down to:

"So it was written, so it shall be."

and the only reason why people think of the holocaust when they think of the swastika is because of how our american government has twisted it. . Either that, or it could be that the folks who used it as their logo some sixty years ago KILLED MILLIONS OF CIVILIANS IN THEIR FRICKEN' OVENS!

It is one thing to remember history, but it is quite another to celebrate mass murderers. I am not saying wether we should ban the swastika or not, I am just pointing out a bit of what I dare say is utter and unmitigatable stupidity in a great big sea of it. I guess that you would like to see a line of goosestepping brownshirts on holocost memorial day :roll:

There are plenty of nasty things that the American government is primarilly responsible for, but I am glad to say that this is not one of them.

From the mouth of Ward Churchill over a decade ago in his article "Deconstructing the Columbus myth: was the 'great discoverer' Italian or Spanish, Nazi or Jew?" in the summer '92 issue of Social Justice.

The whole notion of the "uniqueness of the Holocaust" serves both psychic and political purposes for Jew and German alike, or so it seems. The two groups are bound to one another in a truly symbiotic relationship founded on the mythic exclusivity of their experience: half the equation simply completes the other in a perverse sort of collaboration, so that each enjoys a tangible benefit.

For Jews, at least those who have adopted the Zionist perspective, a "unique historical suffering" under Nazism translates into fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy that they are "the chosen," entitled by virtue of the destiny of a special persecution to assume a rarefied status among -- and to consequently enjoy preferential treatment from -- the remainder of humanity. In essence, this translates into a demand that the Jewish segment of the Holocaust's victims must now be allowed to participate equally in the very system that once victimized them and to receive an equitable share of the spoils accruing from it. To this end, Zionist scholars such as Irving Louis Horowitz and Elie Weisel have labored long and mightily, defining genocide in terms exclusively related to the forms it assumed under Nazism. In their version of "truth," one must literally see smoke pouring from the chimneys of Auschwitz to apprehend that a genocide, per se, is occurring.(1) Conversely, they have coined terms such as "ethnocide" to encompass the fates inflicted upon other peoples throughout history.(2) Such semantics have served, not as tools of understanding, but as an expedient means of arbitrarily differentiating the experience of their people -- both qualitatively and quantitatively -- from that of any other. To approach things in any other fashion would, it must be admitted, tend to undercut ideas like the "moral right" of the Israeli settler state to impose itself directly atop the Palestinian Arab homeland.

For Germans to embrace a corresponding "unique historical guilt" because of what was done to the Jews during the 1940s is to permanently absolve themselves of guilt concerning what they may be doing now. No matter how ugly things may become in contemporary German society, or so the reasoning goes, it can always be (and is) argued that there has been a marked improvement over the "singular evil that was Nazism." Anything other than outright nazification is, by definition, "different ... .. better," and therefore "acceptable." ("Bad as they are, things could always be worse.") Business as usual -- which is to say assertions of racial supremacy, domination, and exploitation of "inferior" groups, and most of the rest of the Nazi agenda -- is thereby freed to continue in a manner essentially unhampered by serious stirrings of guilt among the German public so long as it does not adopt the literal trappings of Nazism. Participating for profit and with gusto in the deliberate starvation of much of the Third World is no particular problem if one is careful not to goose step while one does it.

By extension, insofar as Germany is often seen (and usually sees itself) as exemplifying the crowning achievements of "Western Civilization," the same principle covers all European and Euro-derived societies. No matter what they do, it is never "really" what it seems unless it was done in precisely the fashion the Nazis did it. Consequently, the Nazi master plan of displacing or reducing by extermination the population of the western USSR and replacing it with settlers of "biologically superior German breeding stock" is roundly (and rightly) condemned as ghastly and inhuman. Meanwhile, people holding this view of Nazi ambitions tend overwhelmingly to see consolidation and maintenance of Euro-dominated settler states in places like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, the United States, and Canada as "basically okay," or even as "progress." The "distinction" allowing this psychological phenomenon is that each of these states went about the intentional displacement and extermination of native populations, and their replacement, in a manner slightly different in its particulars from that employed by Nazis attempting to accomplish exactly the same thing. Such technical differentiation is then magnified and used as a sort of all-purpose veil, behind which almost anything can be hidden, so long as it is not openly adorned with a swastika.

Look, while banning the Nazi flag in a pitty-pat nice way appeases those who openly whine about it, you should start moving on to every flag ever associated with any kind of mass racial slaughter. It's been said enough times, and it's the truth. Additionally, I don't get the banning of the correctly-oriented swastika. It's a religious symbol, often though of as a mark of good luck, and is likely unfortunately discriminatory to prevent the use of its traditional forms by religious sects to which it is of some significance.

Additionally, coddling the anti-swastika advocates is sending the message that representations once used to identify any other group which sanctioned genocide are now acceptable. You give the perception that the senseless deaths of countless others are "not as bad," and "more justifiable." If it's going to be a ban on the symbols of heinous hierarchies and symbols which look similar, it's time to do it in a non-discriminatory manner...

I guess that means Galdago's flag needs to be recut then I suppose?

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/galdago.jpg

That sun certainly does bear some sort of STRIKING resemblance to that of imperial Japan. I mean, my goodness, the sun is certainly off center to the left and has many rays... he MUST be condoning the actions of that radical regime. It's a ridiculous double standard that I find wholly intollerable, just as much so as those who would advocate recreation of the Nazi agenda. Neo-nazis are utterly reprehensible to me, but I'm not for banning their representations of their ideologies. There will always be lurkers who will hold feelings in their hearts that mimmick those of Hitler, Himmler, and every other Nazi bastard who ever crawled the face of this planet. Just because we can't "call them on it" is not a reason to take this kind of punitive and discriminatory action. I'm all about equity, even if these slime are not, and I'm not about to question specific instances of this kind of representation without questioning them all without prejudice.

As for a potential suit against Max Barry... #1) legal disclaimer? Hello? #2) how the hell do you sue someone for THAT and win? Honestly?

That Ward Churchill piece was truly awesome. Just a little tidbit though, not really a significant one, but, the Nazis also used correctly-oriented (that is to say, not tilted) swastikas on banners and the like, occasionally.

One more thing: While I am in complete agreement with Churchill's sentiments, I must point out one thing. The reason Nazism is considered, broadly, to be historically unique is, indeed, quite psychological. That, however, does not completely discount its validity. There are two reasons that I find to be prevalent in this psychologically-derived distinction; Nazism is more tangible, because it is more contemporary and large scale than any other genocide. In addition, it was not combat-oriented, and it was quite systematic. Whereas genocide has occurred many, many times throughout history, it has almost exclusively taken place through war, which is somehow perceived to be more "fair." The victims of the Nazi concentration camps were not shot on the battlefield, they were exterminated in facilities, designed for the purpose of extermination.

for your nice analysis!

-------------------------------
A Muslim may obey the Shari'ah, but all his giving of Zakat, all his Salat and ablutions, all his pilgrimages to Makka, are as nothing if a Russian eye looks upon them. Your marriages are unlawful, your children bastards, while there is one Russian left in your lands!

La ilaha illaLlah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We Chechens never shoot a man in the back

The whole notion of the "uniqueness of the Holocaust" serves both psychic and political purposes for Jew and German alike, or so it seems. The two groups are bound to one another in a truly symbiotic relationship founded on the mythic exclusivity of their experience: half the equation simply completes the other in a perverse sort of collaboration, so that each enjoys a tangible benefit.

"Those damn jews! How dare they be slaughtered by millions and keep talking about it. Sure must have some benefit from it - you know, the jews know how to make money."

I really get nothing out of your text than these rather archaic antisemitic stereotypes. Sorry.

The whole notion of the "uniqueness of the Holocaust" serves both psychic and political purposes for Jew and German alike, or so it seems. The two groups are bound to one another in a truly symbiotic relationship founded on the mythic exclusivity of their experience: half the equation simply completes the other in a perverse sort of collaboration, so that each enjoys a tangible benefit.

"Those damn jews! How dare they be slaughtered by millions and keep talking about it. Sure must have some benefit from it - you know, the jews know how to make money."

I really get nothing out of your text than these rather archaic antisemitic stereotypes. Sorry.

Then you should read it carefully again before becoming polemic

-------------------------------
A Muslim may obey the Shari'ah, but all his giving of Zakat, all his Salat and ablutions, all his pilgrimages to Makka, are as nothing if a Russian eye looks upon them. Your marriages are unlawful, your children bastards, while there is one Russian left in your lands!

La ilaha illaLlah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We Chechens never shoot a man in the back

Let's make a poll about the possible offence hammer and sickle does,
then about crosses, ......

As it was said on another page banning swastikas is the first step to censorship if the admin's policy is consistent!

The West is mollycoddled. That's clear.
BUT not only: Sentiments are valued higher than freedom of speech. That's pretty esoteric.

-------------------------------
A Muslim may obey the Shari'ah, but all his giving of Zakat, all his Salat and ablutions, all his pilgrimages to Makka, are as nothing if a Russian eye looks upon them. Your marriages are unlawful, your children bastards, while there is one Russian left in your lands!

La ilaha illaLlah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We Chechens never shoot a man in the back

for your nice analysis!

-------------------------------
A Muslim may obey the Shari'ah, but all his giving of Zakat, all his Salat and ablutions, all his pilgrimages to Makka, are as nothing if a Russian eye looks upon them. Your marriages are unlawful, your children bastards, while there is one Russian left in your lands!

La ilaha illaLlah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We Chechens never shoot a man in the back

:evil: :evil: Now this kind of speech should be deleted by the moderator. This has NOTHING to do with flag symbols or furthering the topic. Furthermore, not all Chechens believe in Shari'ah just as not all nigerians do either. the supporters of Shari'ah are a minority wherever they live. Chechnya is a tragedy for the for the reason that it has been hijacked by the wahhabist Al Qaeda and left no independant voice for itself. Because of this, if you dont support the iron fisted Putin government (which makes W Bush look like Jimmy Carter) you're supporting a TERRORIST.
There are no good guys in Chechnya. that's my 2 cents. I hope that Shamil's post is removed.. and once that is done you can remove mine as well as it will be moot.
The racism in his post is obvious. It does not speak for the will of Allah and I'm disgusted to see it on this BBS.

As a Russian I find that sig offensive. As a Russian Jew I can see where he is coming from. :wink:

But alas oportunistic terrorist thugs have used Chechnia's plight to add that noble nation to their ranks: Al Queda's brand Wahadiism is perhaps even more foreign to that land than the Russian imperialist is.

hitler was a very smart man in the battle feild. i admire his work on the battle feild, but i do not admire his work any where else.
I wish to discuss this statement alone and be silent on the rest of your message.
In the post-war years, the American army held prisoner many senior staff from the German armed forces. They commisioned these staff officers to write their memiors and after action reports about the war. Among these two are General Heinz Guderian and Marshal Erich Von Manstein. I have read their books and spoken to current officers of the American and German military about them. Guderian is famous as the man who taught the german army how to use tanks in blitzkrieg tactics. That did not come from Hitler, who favored using tanks only as infantry support. Manstein is famous for his senior leadership of the war against the USSR. He argued with Hitler for years about the offensive and then the retreats after Stalingrad. He eventually destroyed his career and risked his life to oppose hitler and save lives. (ok they were german lives, but it's still humane).

Hitler held back Guderian's advance in france, thus allowing more deaths in the german army, and the escape at Dunkirk. He lengthened the offensive unnecessarily by his "micro-managing" ( a term coined for LBJ's behavior during the vietnam war ). Hitler lost the ability to capture moscow by demanding a broad front strategy rather than a single thrust at Moscow. The german armored divisions were spread out and unable to neutralize the large soviet counter-attacks.
In the defense of Konigsberg in december 1944 the field commander requested a defense in depth, giving up land as necessary, to avoid the large number of guns in the Soviet army. Hiter overruled that request and commanded the battle himself. He stacked the entire german force up within 2 miles of the front. Thus the germans were blasted by the Soviet artillery. Their line was broken. They were almost encircled and Konigsberg fell to the Soviets.
Mannstein wrote that he always believed, if Hitler had kept his hands off the battle and listened to his field commanders, they might have fought to a stalemate in Russia and signed a peace with them. I will use H Norman Schwartzkopf's statement about Saddam Hussein ( who managed his army command the same as Hitler did ). He did not graduate from an Army staff college. He [was] neither an experience officer, a trained strategist, or a tactician. Other than that, he was a (chuckling) brilliant general.

I agree. Hitler was a great leader, look at what he did to Germany in a few years...turned the nation around and started a second world war which could have been run if he had not interfered. However, if you'll recall your history, late in the war, the Allies actually stopped attempting to assasinate Hitler because he was such a terrible stragetist.

for your nice analysis!

-------------------------------
A Muslim may obey the Shari'ah, but all his giving of Zakat, all his Salat and ablutions, all his pilgrimages to Makka, are as nothing if a Russian eye looks upon them. Your marriages are unlawful, your children bastards, while there is one Russian left in your lands!

La ilaha illaLlah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We Chechens never shoot a man in the back

:evil: :evil: Now this kind of speech should be deleted by the moderator. This has NOTHING to do with flag symbols or furthering the topic. Furthermore, not all Chechens believe in Shari'ah just as not all nigerians do either. the supporters of Shari'ah are a minority wherever they live. Chechnya is a tragedy for the for the reason that it has been hijacked by the wahhabist Al Qaeda and left no independant voice for itself. Because of this, if you dont support the iron fisted Putin government (which makes W Bush look like Jimmy Carter) you're supporting a TERRORIST.
There are no good guys in Chechnya. that's my 2 cents. I hope that Shamil's post is removed.. and once that is done you can remove mine as well as it will be moot.
The racism in his post is obvious. It does not speak for the will of Allah and I'm disgusted to see it on this BBS.

First it's a game. Second in Chechnya there is neither good nor evil (as it seems to be that these are the main American parameters in international relations - officially).
Third the same you can say about GRU if you know what this is??? But I guess not, because your utterances show your non-acquaintance with the topic! Fourth my message was resembling another message (have a carefully look again) PONYAL? SILNO SOMNEVAYUS!

Yours sincerely IMAM SHAMIL (have a look who this guy was, not a terrorist like SHAMIL BASSAYEV, or DUDAYEV)

As a Russian I find that sig offensive. As a Russian Jew I can see where he is coming from. :wink:

But alas oportunistic terrorist thugs have used Chechnia's plight to add that noble nation to their ranks: Al Queda's brand Wahadiism is perhaps even more foreign to that land than the Russian imperialist is.

Nu, otlichno! Rossiyskiy evrey!
Slushai, posle togo shto bolsheviki unichtoshili religiyu, tolko yasno shto bednym chechentsam vakhabisma blizko. No smotri Kadyrov on ne vakhabit!
S uvazheniem

Tvoy Gojim

I agree. Hitler was a great leader, look at what he did to Germany in a few years...turned the nation around and started a second world war which could have been run if he had not interfered. However, if you'll recall your history, late in the war, the Allies actually stopped attempting to assasinate Hitler because he was such a terrible stragetist.

Well, he was great for Germany at the time, he would have failed most any time. The best thing for Hitler was the Diktat gov't that was forced on the German people after WWI... you push people down far enough, and they will follow a radical. That said, to just dismiss Hitler as lucky, would be dumb.

In different forums (UN, Technical and here) there are plenty of discussions about the ban of swastikas in nationstates' flags by the admin.

Why did the admin ban swastikas?

This I asked me quite a long time. It can't be a legal issue since the server is not situated in countries where swastikas are forbidden by law (I presume that it is in the US .net......)

Then I thought that it might be because of the possible hurted sentiments of some players. But then what about HAMMER and SICKLE, the CROSS,.... Where to beginn and where to end? And think about nation names......

Therefore, I think, that it might be based on Political Correctness. And that may be this move should have an educative character.

BUT if you ban something, it becomes interesting - especially for juveniles. Therefore I think Political Correctness has a converse effect in education. Of course you can try to educate, but by banning swastikas your possible audience for education will be different. You won't reach the most problematic cases anylonger.

THINK about that!!!!! ....

I agree. Hitler was a great leader, look at what he did to Germany in a few years...turned the nation around and started a second world war which could have been run if he had not interfered. However, if you'll recall your history, late in the war, the Allies actually stopped attempting to assasinate Hitler because he was such a terrible stragetist.

Well, he was great for Germany at the time, he would have failed most any time. The best thing for Hitler was the Diktat gov't that was forced on the German people after WWI... you push people down far enough, and they will follow a radical. That said, to just dismiss Hitler as lucky, would be dumb.




I realize that this is probably quite off-topic, but I can't resist.




And the German Empire; very organised, always build an empire: ein, zwei, ein, zwei, build-an-empire - very Prussian... then they'd celebrate with a world war! Then lose the whole f*****g empire by the end of the war... In the Thirties; Hitler - Czechoslovakia, Poland, France - Second World War, Russian Front - not a good idea... Hitler never played 'Risk' when he was a kid... 'Cos y'know - playing 'Risk', you could never hold on to Asia; that Asian-Eastern European area - you could never hold it, could you? Seven extra men at the beginning of every go, but you couldn't f*****g hold it... Australasia - that was the one! Australasia... all the purples; get everyone on Papua New Guinea and just build up and build up and build up...

And Hitler ended up in a ditch, covered in petrol, on fire. So... that's fun. I think that's funny. 'Cos he was a mass-murdering f***head. [...]

And he was a vegetarian and a painter.. so he must've been going, "I can't get the f*****g trees-- D*mn, I will kill everyone in the world!!"

[...]

So, America did well, Russia did well, and deservedly so, because half a million American soldiers died, half a million British soldiers died, and about twenty six million Russian soldiers died. Soldiers and civillians. And that's just fifty times as many. It's just un-f*****g-believable. And you know, no one mentions this, this is just figures I discovered. [..] I mean, Napoleon had been steaming in there a hundred years before, "Oh, I'm gonna kill them, gonna kill them-- Oh, it's a bit cold, it's a bit cold... okay, okay.. bad idea." And then Hitler, "I've got a better idea, I've got a better idea-- Oooh, it's the same idea, it's the same idea..." So no wonder they set up the Eastern block, they wanted a buffer zone. It wasn't fair, but that's what they did. So they're kind of... you know, that's where they're coming from.

And about twenty million Nazi Germans died, but they did start it... they did start that one... And France hated them all, because southern France was collaborating with the Germans-- embarassing. So since then, they've been kind of spiky and kind of... French. I'm very positive on the French, my family, way back, was French, so I'm just.. I go with it... but they are kind of.. f*****g French at times... "All of Europe, you must do this!" "Weeeell, we're not gonna. We're gonna have a sandwich."

And Germany and Japan... they do seem to have a natural instinct in a very generalized way for organization and being military, but you know, there's a very strong green party there now, there's kids with beards; it's getting okay. And I just think that Japan and Germany should be the peacekeepers of the world. They should be parachuted in whenever something breaks out; parachute Germans and Japanese in, they'll go, "Look, we've done this before, we've done the killing! Hello? Just take it from us, chill, chill out! All right?" And then they organize peace really efficiently, really quickly, "All right, peace, peace, peace!" Peace is organized. It'd be brilliant if they could do that. It's their destiny... Yeah...







Like I said, way out there.



Now that people have had a laugh, will everyone please take a breath and put the tempers aside? I can see a number of them that're starting to show. It isn't pleasant. :P

I'd love to see continued debate without hostilities.

<-- still greatly enjoying watching this... still not gonna state personal opinions on this, since others have already mentioned most of those points anyway...

Peace, people. 8)

Here's an idea for you swastika users:

If I'd been affected by the swastika ban, I'd simply change My flag to something REALLY offensive--like some photos from the Holocaust.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

and that would be acted upon as well Satan.

Here's an idea for you swastika users:

If I'd been affected by the swastika ban, I'd simply change My flag to something REALLY offensive--like some photos from the Holocaust.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan


yeah....

good plan.... :?

Here's an idea for you swastika users:

If I'd been affected by the swastika ban, I'd simply change My flag to something REALLY offensive--like some photos from the Holocaust.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan


Yes, that would be something Satan would do...

I agree. Hitler was a great leader, look at what he did to Germany in a few years...turned the nation around and started a second world war which could have been run if he had not interfered. However, if you'll recall your history, late in the war, the Allies actually stopped attempting to assasinate Hitler because he was such a terrible stragetist.

Well, he was great for Germany at the time, he would have failed most any time. The best thing for Hitler was the Diktat gov't that was forced on the German people after WWI... you push people down far enough, and they will follow a radical. That said, to just dismiss Hitler as lucky, would be dumb.




I realize that this is probably quite off-topic, but I can't resist.




And the German Empire; very organised, always build an empire: ein, zwei, ein, zwei, build-an-empire - very Prussian... then they'd celebrate with a world war! Then lose the whole f*****g empire by the end of the war... In the Thirties; Hitler - Czechoslovakia, Poland, France - Second World War, Russian Front - not a good idea... Hitler never played 'Risk' when he was a kid... 'Cos y'know - playing 'Risk', you could never hold on to Asia; that Asian-Eastern European area - you could never hold it, could you? Seven extra men at the beginning of every go, but you couldn't f*****g hold it... Australasia - that was the one! Australasia... all the purples; get everyone on Papua New Guinea and just build up and build up and build up...

And Hitler ended up in a ditch, covered in petrol, on fire. So... that's fun. I think that's funny. 'Cos he was a mass-murdering f***head. [...]

And he was a vegetarian and a painter.. so he must've been going, "I can't get the f*****g trees-- D*mn, I will kill everyone in the world!!"

[...]

So, America did well, Russia did well, and deservedly so, because half a million American soldiers died, half a million British soldiers died, and about twenty six million Russian soldiers died. Soldiers and civillians. And that's just fifty times as many. It's just un-f*****g-believable. And you know, no one mentions this, this is just figures I discovered. [..] I mean, Napoleon had been steaming in there a hundred years before, "Oh, I'm gonna kill them, gonna kill them-- Oh, it's a bit cold, it's a bit cold... okay, okay.. bad idea." And then Hitler, "I've got a better idea, I've got a better idea-- Oooh, it's the same idea, it's the same idea..." So no wonder they set up the Eastern block, they wanted a buffer zone. It wasn't fair, but that's what they did. So they're kind of... you know, that's where they're coming from.

And about twenty million Nazi Germans died, but they did start it... they did start that one... And France hated them all, because southern France was collaborating with the Germans-- embarassing. So since then, they've been kind of spiky and kind of... French. I'm very positive on the French, my family, way back, was French, so I'm just.. I go with it... but they are kind of.. f*****g French at times... "All of Europe, you must do this!" "Weeeell, we're not gonna. We're gonna have a sandwich."

And Germany and Japan... they do seem to have a natural instinct in a very generalized way for organization and being military, but you know, there's a very strong green party there now, there's kids with beards; it's getting okay. And I just think that Japan and Germany should be the peacekeepers of the world. They should be parachuted in whenever something breaks out; parachute Germans and Japanese in, they'll go, "Look, we've done this before, we've done the killing! Hello? Just take it from us, chill, chill out! All right?" And then they organize peace really efficiently, really quickly, "All right, peace, peace, peace!" Peace is organized. It'd be brilliant if they could do that. It's their destiny... Yeah...







Like I said, way out there.



Now that people have had a laugh, will everyone please take a breath and put the tempers aside? I can see a number of them that're starting to show. It isn't pleasant. :P

I'd love to see continued debate without hostilities.

<-- still greatly enjoying watching this... still not gonna state personal opinions on this, since others have already mentioned most of those points anyway...

Peace, people. 8)

Good.

Good post. Good tone. Good to quote Izzard. Good to encourage debate.

Please Telegram a link to me.


I want a pirate skull and crossbones. Only, istead of the crossbones I want pool sticks.

And instead of the skull, I want an 8-ball with a pirate skull on it instead of the 8.


Can anyone do this?

Please Telegram a link to me.


I want a pirate skull and crossbones. Only, istead of the crossbones I want pool sticks.

And instead of the skull, I want an 8-ball with a pirate skull on it instead of the 8.


Can anyone do this?

I have a flag ready for ya but my image host is down for the night.
Ill post it tomorrow.

the nazi flag is clock-wise, can we have them in an anti clockwise direction?

That would send the same evil, racist message.

the swastika backwards is a compleatly different thing. It is a flag from pacistan if i am not misstacken and has no connection at all to the holicost of natzi germany.

the nazi flag is clock-wise, can we have them in an anti clockwise direction?

That would send the same evil, racist message.

the swastika backwards is a compleatly different thing. It is a flag from pacistan if i am not misstacken and has no connection at all to the holicost of natzi germany.

And [violet] said "no" to it, back on page 3 or 4...

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

the nazi flag is clock-wise, can we have them in an anti clockwise direction?

That would send the same evil, racist message.

the swastika backwards is a compleatly different thing. It is a flag from pacistan if i am not misstacken and has no connection at all to the holicost of natzi germany.


I will kill you all, LEARN HOW TO SPELL!! And no matter what the swastika looks like, clockwise or counter-clockwise, it will always stand for the genocide committed by Hitler from 1939-1945. The swastika stands for hate, and it also holds responsibility for the death of SIX MILLION Jews!!

It appears that you are the one here who is not well-read. If you were, you would at least acknoledge that the Swastika was used as a good luck symbol by Indians and other non-German groups (particularly Jains and to a lesser extent Buddhists and Hindus)

I will kill you all, LEARN HOW TO SPELL!! And no matter what the swastika looks like, clockwise or counter-clockwise, it will always stand for the genocide committed by Hitler from 1939-1945. The swastika stands for hate, and it also holds responsibility for the death of SIX MILLION Jews!!

Swastikas killed Jews? And here I always thought it was Nazis. Or were they killed with swastika throwing stars used by the SS Ninjas?

Hey, did you guys know the Stars & Stripes killed Indians? And the Crescent & Star killed over a million Armenians & Kurds? Cool.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

And it is an unfortunate fact (IMHO) that flags do stand for such things (and as such some feel the need, thusly, to ban them)

Swastikas killed Jews? And here I always thought it was Nazis. Or were they killed with swastika throwing stars used by the SS Ninjas?

Hey, did you guys know the Stars & Stripes killed Indians? And the Crescent & Star killed over a million Armenians & Kurds? Cool.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

Satan, your inane remarks aside, I certainly hope that you are being sarcastic. The Swastika stood for who killed the Jews, just as the Confederate Flag stands for slavery. Flags are symbolic, and reflect on the nature of each nation that they stand for.

P.S. Satan, I feel sorry for you. Perhaps if you believed in God like I do, then he would help guide you in your attempt to comprehend what I said.

Cracka, please! Slavery existed under the Union flag long before seccession. Slavery continued under the Union flag even after the US Civil War.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

Swastikas killed Jews? And here I always thought it was Nazis. Or were they killed with swastika throwing stars used by the SS Ninjas?

Hey, did you guys know the Stars & Stripes killed Indians? And the Crescent & Star killed over a million Armenians & Kurds? Cool.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

Satan, your inane remarks aside, I certainly hope that you are being sarcastic. The Swastika stood for who killed the Jews, just as the Confederate Flag stands for slavery. Flags are symbolic, and reflect on the nature of each nation that they stand for.

P.S. Satan, I feel sorry for you. Perhaps if you believed in God like I do, then he would help guide you in your attempt to comprehend what I said.

Cracka, please! Slavery existed under the Union flag long before seccession. Slavery continued under the Union flag even after the US Civil War.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

Proof for the latter argument, please.

Swastikas killed Jews? And here I always thought it was Nazis. Or were they killed with swastika throwing stars used by the SS Ninjas?

Hey, did you guys know the Stars & Stripes killed Indians? And the Crescent & Star killed over a million Armenians & Kurds? Cool.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

Satan, your inane remarks aside, I certainly hope that you are being sarcastic. The Swastika stood for who killed the Jews, just as the Confederate Flag stands for slavery. Flags are symbolic, and reflect on the nature of each nation that they stand for.

P.S. Satan, I feel sorry for you. Perhaps if you believed in God like I do, then he would help guide you in your attempt to comprehend what I said.

Cracka, please! Slavery existed under the Union flag long before seccession. Slavery continued under the Union flag even after the US Civil War.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

Proof for the latter argument, please.

1. The Emancipation Proclaimation was more symbolic than anything. Issued in january 1963, it freed only those slaves in teritory not under Union control. Thus, slavery was still legal in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware, as well as various parts of the South that had fallen to Union troops. The Union at that point had no power or sovereign authority to enfore the Emancipation Proclaimation in the Confederacy.

2. The Civil War ended in April of 1965. Slavery continued in the Border States until December, when the 13th Amendment was ratified.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

Alright. At least you were not incorrect (I was merely checking your facts)

Holy Horse Poopie (had to edit it ma-self...lol) - Satan actually had somethin worth sayin...lol


I agree Satan. It's a little known fact that the Emancipation Proclamation didnt do crap. How could the President of one Nation free the slaves of another Nation (yes, the Confederacy was a sovereign nation during the Civil War - ask the Brits who supported 'em)?

Actually, it was a very smart political move on Lincoln's part. It made the civil war about slavery, rather than secession. This caused the Brits to withdraw their support of the Confederacy - which resulted in the Union prevailing as the South didnt have the ability to manufacture like the Union did.

1. The Emancipation Proclaimation was more symbolic than anything. Issued in january 1963

The Civil War ended in April of 1965.

I'm sure it's a typo, but for those of us who are not up on U.S. history, the years mentioned are wrong. should be 1863, and 1865 respectively.

I personally think it sad that people get offended by symbols, flags, etc. I think it is equally sad that people as a whole keep censoring them. Freedom of expression doesn't just cover the ideals you think are right, it also covers the opposite side of the spectrum. If someone wants to have a flag with a nazi symbol on it, let them. By censoring the symbols of the past that offend us, we are doing the same thing Hitler did back in the 1940's, eradicating what we dislike.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Taken from one of my earlier posts:

There is nothing wrong with the traditional swastika. Like the burning Christian cross under the Klan, or the crescent and star of Islam under fundamentalists the black Swastika under the Nazis is the perversion of a symbol that otherwise should be associated with good. I don't see how ending the use of a symbol will end the ideology or venomous hate behind it. It fails to accomplish really anything other than further stigmatizing a once revered ancient symbol. Lastly, though this has already been said before I will repeat it: If you're going to ban the swastika for its use by White Supremacists, you might as well ban the Celtic cross, Hammer and Sickle, Stars and Stripes or any other symbol potentially found offensive.

BUMP

1. The Emancipation Proclaimation was more symbolic than anything. Issued in january 1963

The Civil War ended in April of 1965.

I'm sure it's a typo, but for those of us who are not up on U.S. history, the years mentioned are wrong. should be 1863, and 1865 respectively.

Damned sloppy fingers!

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

ok, so what is the final ruling?

ok, so what is the final ruling?

The original ruling by [violet] - no swasticas at all.

]I was asked (a while back now) to make a judgement on whether swastikas are acceptable to use in nation flags.

After consideration, I've decided: No.


You can't be serious? I thought this game was nice because of the freedom to create your own flag and form your own country as you like. Seems I was mistaken, why it should be my problem if I have a swastika on my flag? Everyone has their own opinion about the swastika and although I agree that it reminds about the Holocaust and all that, it's only a symbol. I chose to use the swastika on my flag because it used to the symbol of finnish air forces, so it's just a salute to all the veteran pilots who kept our country free of the evil invading russians. :wink:

If swastikas are really banned then you can go ahead and remove my country. It seems to me that your actions have made you(the admins) more a nazi than anyone who uses a swastika in their flag. :cry:

- just my 2 <insert currency>

It would appear to me that you have (unfortunately) nominated yourself as a candidate for flag/nation removal by posting that fact ^^;;; I feel sorry for you.

It would appear to me that you have (unfortunately) nominated yourself as a candidate for flag/nation removal by posting that fact ^^;;; I feel sorry for you.

I thought it would seem pretty clear I don't wanna play a game which doesn't have freedom of choice because of some smallminded admin(s).

Have fun playing, I'm out.

Well, alright. Farewell. Sorry you had to lose your nation merely because of the APPARENT symbolism of your flag. (I side with you, but I'm not leaving)

the nazi flag is clock-wise, can we have them in an anti clockwise direction?

That would send the same evil, racist message.

the swastika backwards is a compleatly different thing. It is a flag from pacistan if i am not misstacken and has no connection at all to the holicost of natzi germany.

And [violet] said "no" to it, back on page 3 or 4...

Did he respond to the symbol of a swastika without the tilt?

the nazi flag is clock-wise, can we have them in an anti clockwise direction?

That would send the same evil, racist message.

the swastika backwards is a compleatly different thing. It is a flag from pacistan if i am not misstacken and has no connection at all to the holicost of natzi germany.


I will kill you all, LEARN HOW TO SPELL!! And no matter what the swastika looks like, clockwise or counter-clockwise, it will always stand for the genocide committed by Hitler from 1939-1945. The swastika stands for hate, and it also holds responsibility for the death of SIX MILLION Jews!!

It appears that you are the one here who is not well-read. If you were, you would at least acknoledge that the Swastika was used as a good luck symbol by Indians and other non-German groups (particularly Jains and to a lesser extent Buddhists and Hindus)

Ten points to the person who knows where Hitler first encountered the Swastika.....?

Swastikas killed Jews? And here I always thought it was Nazis. Or were they killed with swastika throwing stars used by the SS Ninjas?

Hey, did you guys know the Stars & Stripes killed Indians? And the Crescent & Star killed over a million Armenians & Kurds? Cool.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

Satan, your inane remarks aside, I certainly hope that you are being sarcastic. The Swastika stood for who killed the Jews, just as the Confederate Flag stands for slavery. Flags are symbolic, and reflect on the nature of each nation that they stand for.

P.S. Satan, I feel sorry for you. Perhaps if you believed in God like I do, then he would help guide you in your attempt to comprehend what I said.

Cracka, please! Slavery existed under the Union flag long before seccession. Slavery continued under the Union flag even after the US Civil War.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

Proof for the latter argument, please.

1. The Emancipation Proclaimation was more symbolic than anything. Issued in january 1963, it freed only those slaves in teritory not under Union control. Thus, slavery was still legal in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware, as well as various parts of the South that had fallen to Union troops. The Union at that point had no power or sovereign authority to enfore the Emancipation Proclaimation in the Confederacy.

2. The Civil War ended in April of 1965. Slavery continued in the Border States until December, when the 13th Amendment was ratified.

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

Don't forget the sever limnitation to slavery in the North at the time, though it was not as free prior to the EP.

Holy Horse Poopie (had to edit it ma-self...lol) - Satan actually had somethin worth sayin...lol


I agree Satan. It's a little known fact that the Emancipation Proclamation didnt do crap. How could the President of one Nation free the slaves of another Nation (yes, the Confederacy was a sovereign nation during the Civil War - ask the Brits who supported 'em)?

Actually, it was a very smart political move on Lincoln's part. It made the civil war about slavery, rather than secession. This caused the Brits to withdraw their support of the Confederacy - which resulted in the Union prevailing as the South didnt have the ability to manufacture like the Union did.


Good post. More right then wrong... Good understanding of history at least.

Well, alright. Farewell. Sorry you had to lose your nation merely because of the APPARENT symbolism of your flag. (I side with you, but I'm not leaving)

Seriouslt, the best thing about symbols is that you get to choose them. If it makes you so angry that [violet] bans the Swas that you want to quite the game, then that is rather sad.

Let the Supremiest simply be smarter. Let them create and rally around a new symbol.

Swastika can only be banned if the hammer and sickle are banned. I'd also ban the star. Those are all evil symbols if you ask me. How is the suffering in our country any less than the suffering in France or something? We were invaded by the Soviet Union! And we have to tolerate these oppressing hammers and sickles. Nooo..... (ok, what a load of crap.. no sane person is scared of a symbol, but I believe in equality and thus hammer and sickle must be banned!!)

Swastika is a cool symbol... kind of like a cross but used less and doesn't bring that dull "christian" feel. I see no point in banning it. Why not ban the flag of Iraq, too? Go ban everything and you'll find yourself banning your own country's flag for some war, you never even participated. :roll:

But.. it's your game... :wink:

As much as I support the idea of having whatever you want, whatever [violet] says goes. . .

I'm sure that (unfortunately) 99% of those who use swastikas on their flags don't use them because they wish to embrace the pre-Nazi German, eastern religious usage of the symbol.

They use swastikas because they are the most highly recognized symbol of Nazi Germany, and Hitler. Both the former and the latter are often associated with power, order, and domination. Then you have those who just use it because they want to spread hate around the NS world (IC and OOC) or just want to associate themselves with the holocaust.

I just feel it a shame that the 1% gets singled out because of the 99%. So much for paying attention to the minority =P

Ok, I wanna see the Star of David banned, why can the Jews use their symbol and we can't use the Swastika?

Ok, I wanna see the Star of David banned, why can the Jews use their symbol and we can't use the Swastika?

from: Page 1 post 1

The swastika is intricately associated with the Holocaust in public consciousness, and, as one of the greatest tragedies of the last century, it can reasonably be considered offensive for players to appear to endorse or celebrate it.


Star of David, not so much.

I find the Star of David offensive.

Excuse me, I hate to bring in enlightenment and knowledge to the subject, but only an ignorant fool would think that the Swastika is offensive. Does anyone know that the Swastika is a Buddha symbol for peace? Gee, real offensive. The American Flag is just as offensive then the Nazi flag is. For example, did you know that during WWII, more then 38 states in America had a law enacted that forced all mentally challenged people to be sterilized? They were FORCED to. It wasn't just the big old mean Nazis that had that law. And, most of the Japanese population was sent to 'Americanized' concentration camps, were many were brutally tortured and killed, while all lived in such poverty, that most dogs in America lived a better lifestyle. Perhaps you should review what is offensive, and what is childish. Don't be a hypocrite, when you claim that in the name of Tolerance and Open-mindness, you are forcing someone from expressing their personal views. If someone doesn't like it, no one is forcing them to play this game.

oh jeez, this could go on forever.

The swastika is offensive becuase the Nazis Hi-Jacked the symbol from whoever had it before and now it is a symbol that in 99% of the worlds population stands for the Nazi regime which killed millions of jews unnecessarily. Regardless of whatever it stood for before. It's the same reason I can't call a log of wood a fag anymore, the symbol got hi-jacked.

As far as America and her offenses, compare the numbers, of you can. Also, the nazis lost the war so didn't get a cahnce to re-write the history books like the winners did. Deal with it.

Sythia, I find your being offended at the star of david offensive. What now?

quietly asks everyone to just

S.T.F.U.!!!!!!!!!!!

the nazi flag is clock-wise, can we have them in an anti clockwise direction?

That would send the same evil, racist message.

the swastika backwards is a compleatly different thing. It is a flag from pacistan if i am not misstacken and has no connection at all to the holicost of natzi germany.

And [violet] said "no" to it, back on page 3 or 4...

Did he respond to the symbol of a swastika without the tilt?

Yes. Swastikas, reversed, inverted, stylized, etc. are all verbotten.

It's all in this thread, not to hard to look at earlier pages...

I personally think it sad that people get offended by symbols, flags, etc. I think it is equally sad that people as a whole keep censoring them. Freedom of expression doesn't just cover the ideals you think are right, it also covers the opposite side of the spectrum. If someone wants to have a flag with a nazi symbol on it, let them. By censoring the symbols of the past that offend us, we are doing the same thing Hitler did back in the 1940's, eradicating what we dislike.

]I was asked (a while back now) to make a judgement on whether swastikas are acceptable to use in nation flags.

After consideration, I've decided: No.


You can't be serious? I thought this game was nice because of the freedom to create your own flag and form your own country as you like. Seems I was mistaken, why it should be my problem if I have a swastika on my flag? Everyone has their own opinion about the swastika and although I agree that it reminds about the Holocaust and all that, it's only a symbol. I chose to use the swastika on my flag because it used to the symbol of finnish air forces, so it's just a salute to all the veteran pilots who kept our country free of the evil invading russians. :wink:

If swastikas are really banned then you can go ahead and remove my country. It seems to me that your actions have made you(the admins) more a nazi than anyone who uses a swastika in their flag. :cry:

I agree with both, and support Juzz' position. This is basically my problem with banning swasticas: it's an action more suitable to the ideology whose hate is supposedly "banned" by banning the symbol, than opposing it.
The crude wording "banning swasticas is more nazi than waving them" is not differentiated enough for my liking, but points the direction.

It's sad that some people believe in an ideology of hate. It's OK that they can talk about it and show their position, because this is the freedom they would not allow others. To allow them to speak and show their belief means opposing them in words and deeds.
Banning symbols, however, is acting like them. It's sad people with power over these forums (especially: the forum owner) takes this position and becomes like "them".

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I personally think it sad that people get offended by symbols, flags, etc. I think it is equally sad that people as a whole keep censoring them. Freedom of expression doesn't just cover the ideals you think are right, it also covers the opposite side of the spectrum. If someone wants to have a flag with a nazi symbol on it, let them. By censoring the symbols of the past that offend us, we are doing the same thing Hitler did back in the 1940's, eradicating what we dislike.

]I was asked (a while back now) to make a judgement on whether swastikas are acceptable to use in nation flags.

After consideration, I've decided: No.


You can't be serious? I thought this game was nice because of the freedom to create your own flag and form your own country as you like. Seems I was mistaken, why it should be my problem if I have a swastika on my flag? Everyone has their own opinion about the swastika and although I agree that it reminds about the Holocaust and all that, it's only a symbol. I chose to use the swastika on my flag because it used to the symbol of finnish air forces, so it's just a salute to all the veteran pilots who kept our country free of the evil invading russians. :wink:

If swastikas are really banned then you can go ahead and remove my country. It seems to me that your actions have made you(the admins) more a nazi than anyone who uses a swastika in their flag. :cry:

I agree with both, and support Juzz' position. This is basically my problem with banning swasticas: it's an action more suitable to the ideology whose hate is supposedly "banned" by banning the symbol, than opposing it.
The crude wording "banning swasticas is more nazi than waving them" is not differentiated enough for my liking, but points the direction.

It's sad that some people believe in an ideology of hate. It's OK that they can talk about it and show their position, because this is the freedom they would not allow others. To allow them to speak and show their belief means opposing them in words and deeds.
Banning symbols, however, is acting like them. It's sad people with power over these forums (especially: the forum owner) takes this position and becomes like "them".

Better than letting them spew their hatred all over the place!! Oh, and Red Soviet...I agree with your post...but you might want to know that [violet] is a HE...not a SHE. I thought [violet] was a she, at first, too...the name suggests it. But [violet] is a HE.

Better than letting them spew their hatred all over the place!!
Why is that better? Please explain.

Better than letting them spew their hatred all over the place!!
Why is that better? Please explain.

Because there are impressionable young people in this game, and we do not want them recruited into being bigots and haters.

Better than letting them spew their hatred all over the place!!
Why is that better? Please explain.

Because there are impressionable young people in this game, and we do not want them recruited into being bigots and haters.

So, shouldn't you be repremanded for saying things like "conservocreeps"? Or some of the anti-Christian things you've said?

mod alert
check out the nation "joco"
he has a swastika

the irony is that any day, he will cease to exist 8)

Better than letting them spew their hatred all over the place!!
Why is that better? Please explain.

Because there are impressionable young people in this game, and we do not want them recruited into being bigots and haters.
Instead they should be recruited into bigots and censors, not able to differentiate between different opinions and chose the right one, is that what you are saying?

The symbol itself doesn't express any hate or bigotry.

The postings containing racist, national socialist or similar views are valid expressions of political opinion, and all such I have seen have been replied to with differing opinions, arguments, and long-drawn debates.

So where does the recruitment you mention occur? Do impressionable young people magically turn into full-fledged Nazis by just looking at a symbol for too long? Or is that ideology just too compelling so anybody getting in contact with it for the first time without being prepared has to follow it?
:roll:

I urge Violet to read the stalin thread and please reply to it!

I've already addressed the issues raised in the Stalin thread with my two posts in this one.

Ok, I wanna see the Star of David banned, why can the Jews use their symbol and we can't use the Swastika?

from: Page 1 post 1

The swastika is intricately associated with the Holocaust in public consciousness, and, as one of the greatest tragedies of the last century, it can reasonably be considered offensive for players to appear to endorse or celebrate it.


Star of David, not so much.
Give them some more time...

]While this site generally allows for political debate and discussion, nations are held to a higher standard than forum posts, because there is no right of reply. An offensive post can be debated -- hopefully to the point where the poster learns something -- but an offensive flag, motto, or nation name just sits there.

The swastika is intricately associated with the Holocaust in public consciousness, and, as one of the greatest tragedies of the last century, it can reasonably be considered offensive for players to appear to endorse or celebrate it.

I understand that at least a few players who use swastikas in their flags do not intend this outcome, and can probably give me a long history lesson on the symbol; nevertheless, that is not the message the image sends.
Several citizens of our small nation have brought this topic to my attention and wish to voice their concerns, which although they may be of no great import are freely spoken nonetheless.

In as much as we can empathise with the rationale indicated above, any national flag should be purely symbolic of that nation and not indicative of the actual population itself. To confuse this matter leads to attacks on these symbols as _simplistic_ representations of the peoples and ultimately eases the way to attacks on the peoples themselves (OOC: national flags of Israel and the former Soviet Union, for example).

Surely one should evaluate a country by the way it treats its own population and those of other nations rather than by its national flag, regardless of heritage, and in this regard we see much of concern in our fellow nations where populations live in oppression and wars are started without justification.
If an offensive flag, motto or nation just "sits there", is it not more offensive yet that such nations are permitted to continually abuse individual liberties without censor or reproach?

Thus if flags, as manifestations of ego and history, can cause so much trouble (and in this context "national pride" is a two edged sword), perhaps it would be better we should ban _all_ flags on a national level?

Walk gently, friends,
Lapis.
(Speaker for the peoples of the New Lotus Eaters)


(OOC: If there are legal implications from displaying a given symbol in a RL country, is this not a separate issue?
Would it also be objectionable to display a national flag wherein a swastika is torn apart by small furry animals, say?).

(OOC: If there are legal implications from displaying a given symbol in a RL country, is this not a separate issue?
Would it also be objectionable to display a national flag wherein a swastika is torn apart by small furry animals, say?).
I believe this would depend on which mod looked at it. :( Power corrupts...

]I've already addressed the issues raised in the Stalin thread with my two posts in this one.

WTF ?
Maybe you are jew ??????

Why if we respect those poor 6.000.000 souls,we can't respect 10.000.000 another that were killed because of NOTHING ? Please ban both most evil symbols in History, or don't ban ANY !

THERE ARE a lot of people here that had theyr'e realitives killed both by HITLER and STALIN.Please respect both groups of people.

The American Flag is just as offensive then the Nazi flag is. For example, did you know that during WWII, more then 38 states in America had a law enacted that forced all mentally challenged people to be sterilized? They were FORCED to. It wasn't just the big old mean Nazis that had that law. And, most of the Japanese population was sent to 'Americanized' concentration camps, were many were brutally tortured and killed, while all lived in such poverty, that most dogs in America lived a better lifestyle. Perhaps you should review what is offensive, and what is childish. Don't be a hypocrite, when you claim that in the name of Tolerance and Open-mindness, you are forcing someone from expressing their personal views. If someone doesn't like it, no one is forcing them to play this game.

Comparing America's actions during WWII to Nazi Germany's (or the USSR's or Japan's) is a bad analogy. Not that the USA's actions should be condoned, but they were a far cry from the actions of the Nazi government. I'd especially be interested in seeing the source for your claim that "many" Japanese-Americans in US detainment camps "were brutally tortured and killed."

His Most Infernal Majesty
Satan

]I've already addressed the issues raised in the Stalin thread with my two posts in this one.

WTF ?
Maybe you are jew ??????

Why if we respect those poor 6.000.000 souls,we can't respect 10.000.000 another that were killed because of NOTHING ? Please ban both most evil symbols in History, or don't ban ANY !

THERE ARE a lot of people here that had theyr'e realitives killed both by HITLER and STALIN.Please respect both groups of people.

Also, add the stupid MAO to the list. He killed my grandfather.

(OOC: If there are legal implications from displaying a given symbol in a RL country, is this not a separate issue?
Would it also be objectionable to display a national flag wherein a swastika is torn apart by small furry animals, say?).
I believe this would depend on which mod looked at it. :( Power corrupts...
(OOC) Yup, know the spiel... "human nature" (or should that just be "nature"?).

What you have to understand: this is not the rea world. As much as we like to RP, some things just have to be. But I, for one, think that Budist symbols should be permited. Its unfair to punish them for Hitler's badness.

BAN hammer and sickle it stands for one of the most cruel crimes in history. May be zhe communist ideology may be ok, but in practice it mostly resulted in terror.......

Banning Swastikas on flags. Isn't that a tad (dare I say it) Nazi-ish?

Yes!

Banning Swastikas on flags. Isn't that a tad (dare I say it) Nazi-ish?How so? No one's banning any ideas, nor is anyone being burned alive. How is this 'Nazi-ish?' The Nazis here have easily found many ways to express their foolishness that do not involve the swastika with nary a raised eyebrow from admin. Had the Nazis passed a "just stop calling yourselves Jews, OK? Just find a new bloody word!" policy and relaxed, you would have a point, but alas this was not the case.

BAN hammer and sickle it stands for one of the most cruel crimes in history. May be zhe communist ideology may be ok, but in practice it mostly resulted in terror....... Same can be said of Cristianity and Islam :roll:
And we'd have to ban most of the currant national flags too... the North Korean and American ones for example.

The swastika is banned. Nothing we can do about that. But the schmuck stops here!

So, at this late hour I feel lazy, so won;t read up on what I missed on the issue unless it seems I should.... is this issue still interesting? Still a good debate?

Read two pages- any two pages- and you'll have the full scope of the debate. It's like a broken record.

Well I was active in the first 10 or so pages, I was wondering if there are any new arguments on the table?

Still, 1) other cultures use a symbol like swastika, 2) other symbols are offeensive, and 3) this is censorship?

That said, I am against the ban, just curious if anything more precient had ben added to the discussion.

Its really stupid to band a symbol like the swastika. Im not a supporter of the Nazis, infact i hate them, but it was just a symbol. Its like the confederate flag, that is a battle flag. That flag had nothing to do with stupis slaves. The reason the whole war was faught was not about slaves anyway. Do u really think that a symbol is the reason the germans killed 6 million jews, and besides, do think they didnt pay for it. Their casualty number Dwarfed any number of jews killed. They were stagering. If u ban one symbol, you have to band every symbol. Maybe the Cross is just as offensive to a muslim, as the swastiki is for a jew. Let them have their symbol, its an ancient symbol anyway, it just got mixed up with the wrong poeple. All of you PC people make me sick.

Exactly.

The swastika is just a symbol.

And I say two things:

1) Lock this topic
2) Leave symbols to the symbol-minded.

Congratulations, you just rehashed the debate that was already struck down five or six times.

It's not going to happen.

]
As I said in my last post, this is not about banning every symbol that has ever been associated with bad things. The American flag, or the British flag, or any other flag you want to mention, has nowhere near the public association with real-life evil of the swastika. When you see a nation with an American flag, you don't think, "That player must be in favor of slavery." But for almost everyone, a nation with a swastika is celebrating or endorsing the Holocaust and Nazi ideals. That message is deeply offensive to huge numbers of people, and you should be able to enjoy the game without stumbling across it.

I am obviously not paying enough attention to the boards these days as this issue is totally new to me. While I am opposed to banning the swastika on simple freedom of expression grounds, I won't bother to go into that as I am fairly sure that from what I read that issue has beec flogged to death. The bottom line is simple: Max Berry owns the site. If he and [violet] want to ban the swastika then that's their business no matter how much I disagree with it.

What I do have a problem with though is that the alleged rationale for distinguishing between the swastika and other potentially "hateful" symbols is a completely ethnocentric argument that these other symbols have "nowhere near the public association with real-life evil of the swastika". Ask the Iranians or El Salvadorians what they think of when they see the good old stars and stripes. Do you honestly think that the Israeli flag is not seen as a zionist symbol to a HUGE portion of the world? I should hardly need to even mention what the hammer and sickle conjure up in the minds of many Eastern Europeans.

While no one can deny the horrors of the nazi's, to say that no other symbol creates the same sort of reaction in the mind's of others is to trivialize the very valid (note, I am not saying correct, just valid) feelings that are associated with a host of other symbols. To deny the status of these symbols as not worthy of your attention to the same degree as a swastika is to trap yourself in your own percerceptions of the world, perceptions that may not be valid for a large portion of the users on this board and certainly not for a large portion of the inhabitants of the planet.

If you want to ban the swastika, go ahead, that's your privilege as the god of your little ns eden here. But at least recognize that your allegedly principled approach is, on any rational basis, more or less arbitrary.

The country of Zarvitica has a Nazi-like flag, can it please be apprehended?

Thats not a Swastika. Baning them is one thing, but do we now ban all things that resemble them? Come on now, thats going too far.

Then why can we allow Nazi rallies in our countries? :shock: :wink:

Then why can we allow Nazi rallies in our countries? :shock: :wink:
A facetious comment, I think, but one which gets a serious answer anyway.

Allowing nazi rallies in your country doesn't put anything onto your flag (or even your nation's description) which looks remotely hateful. From memory, all it does is make your description say "the right of free speech is held dear" - well, who wouldn't want that to be the case (those who RP as dictators, don't answer this question)?

Then why can we allow Nazi rallies in our countries? :shock: :wink:
A facetious comment, I think, but one which gets a serious answer anyway.

Allowing nazi rallies in your country doesn't put anything onto your flag (or even your nation's description) which looks remotely hateful. From memory, all it does is make your description say "the right of free speech is held dear" - well, who wouldn't want that to be the case (those who RP as dictators, don't answer this question)? Admin also allows the Nazis to rally in the forums as you plainly see.

There is but one restriction: they cannot display the swastika. No extremeist groups are banned. I do not nesseserilly support the no-swastika policy on free speech grounds, but weought to take it in its proper perspective.

Exactly.

The swastika is just a symbol.

And I say two things:

1) Lock this topic
2) Leave symbols to the symbol-minded.

I am against locking topics unless necisary. Let it die on it's own, unless it gets too volatile.

You want to know why there are so many pages on this topic, even if they are not posting new ideas? Because it is a controversal move. The founder and owner of a politcal game just said that you can not use the symbol of a poltical party. There should be debate. Once it bores you, stop looking or posting on it.

At least that is my take.

It keeps getting bumped because people like beating a dead horse.

Oddly enough, when [violet] posted a thread that asked for input (the one dealing with a delay for new delegate kicking) it didn't generate anywhere near as much traffic as this one, which was more of an announcement or proclamation than anything.

I've, loosely, kept an eye on this thread (Full Disclosure: with an eye to lock it) but it seems to be the same things over and over again. What seems to happen is that someone reads the first post or two, and then posts an argument that's been made previously (usually referencing its religious/historical place, or a call to likewise ban the US flag/hammer and sickle/Japanese naval flag, what have you), and then people argue about that point again. The thread sinks to page 2 or 3 and the process repeats.

You're actually the first person to add anything new in pages, Akbar. Namely: Is there anything new being said here?

Sadly, the answer is "no".

yeah, I thought I might be. I still always take the point of view that it is best to give a thread the chance to be interesting, then to kill it because it is not interesting.

I say, though I know it hardly matters what a small catfish has to say, let the thread stay open. Both sides will continue to disagree, but it isn't a violently charged thread suprisinginly. Giving the Nazis a chance to vent, is a way to prove that this is not a matter of censoring them and their presepective.

While I'd love to lock this thread, and a couple of others, there is no reason to do so, thus I haven't.

While this thread is painfully repititious, it isn't a flame-war, or off topic, so I've left it alone.

And, for what it's worth, the threads I hated before being a mod, I set a much higher bar for locking or deleting. Don't want to be accused of abusing my powers, donchaknow...

Is my flag too nazi ish?

I dont think so. Anyone offenended by that is just looking for reasons to be.

I agree with Cspella.

Is my flag too nazi ish?

As it appears to be the walking hammers from The Wall, I'd say it's fine.

I can't imagine it being lambasted for being to "nazi-ish".

It makes me mad when "Nazi's" are so lazy on this topic that they pretend they actually want to discuss why Swastika's are illegal, yet they make no measure to research the issue. If they were actually interested in the isue they would respond to this thread.

Communism officially strived for world domination (which Germany and National Socialism didn't) and killed more people than the Nazis.
If anything, it's Communist symbols that should be outlawed. Yet, I think it's nonsense to ban symbols. The "evil" is not with the symbol but the wearer and it's a violation of free speech.

Moreover, Nazism in itself does not equate with exterminating people in gas chambers, although it equates with a fear and hatred for those 'powerful and dangerous' Jews, just as Communism does not equate with the great terror but does equate with a hatred for the "bourgeoisie".
You can thus be a Communist and not support the mass murders of Lenin, Stalin or Pol Pot and you can be a Nazi without supporting the holocaust. The actual policy in Germany before the war and the official one during it, was in fact to ship the Jews off somewhere to a place of their own. If you don't believe me you should study history closer. In the pre-war years this place in practice became nothing less than Palestine.
In general, even high ranking Nazis knew nothing about the extermination program of Jewry by gas until after the war, although they knew about the concentration camps as such and that people probably were not too well treated there.
If you're a Nazi and you don't even know what's going on, how can you be condemned for being in favour of it?

Communism officially strived for world domination (which Germany and National Socialism didn't) and killed more people than the Nazis.
If anything, it's Communist symbols that should be outlawed. Yet, I think it's nonsense to ban symbols. The "evil" is not with the symbol but the wearer and it's a violation of free speech.

Moreover, Nazism in itself does not equate with exterminating people in gas chambers, although it equates with a fear and hatred for those 'powerful and dangerous' Jews, just as Communism does not equate with the great terror but does equate with a hatred for the "bourgoisie".
You can thus be a Communist and not support the mass murders of Lenin, Stalin or Pol Pot and you can be a Nazi without supporting the holocaust. The actual policy in Germany before the war and the official one during it, was in fact to ship the Jews off somewhere to a place of their own. If you don't believe me you should study history closer. In the pre-war years this place in practice became nothing less than Palestine.
In general, even high ranking Nazis knew nothing about the extermination program of Jewry by gas until after the end of the war, although they knew about the concentration camps as such and that people probably were not too well treated there.
If you're a Nazi and you don't even know what's going on, how can you be condemned for being in favour of it?

Just a few points in the above statement which I would disagree with:

1. Nazism didnt strive for world domination?! WTF?! So why did they take over most of Europe, attempt to invade Britain, launch massive attacks on Russia and Africa and have its allies, Japan, attck the US and most of south-east asia?

2. Maybe the official ideology of Nazism didnt equate to exterminating people, but those who followed it carried out such methods.

3. I dont believe for one minute that Nazi Germany gave a stuff about giving the Jews a place of their own, they just wanted rid of them, as evidenced by the fact that millions were slaughtered.

4. Its the high-ranking Nazis who authorised and controlled the extermination camps and gas chambers. Who the hell do you think ran them, some lowly Private who just decided one day to kill off a load of innocent people? And dont give me all the 'Hitler ran everything' story, it wasnt a one-man army.

Finally, not concerned with the above quote, the Swastika has been banned by the admin, so why argue now? It wont change the ban.

"1. Nazism didnt strive for world domination?! WTF?! So why did they take over most of Europe, attempt to invade Britain, launch massive attacks on Russia and Africa and have its allies, Japan, attck the US and most of south-east asia?"

- No, they didn't. They did however think that all of Central Europe where the population was German should belong to the Greater German Reich, that Central Europe should be dominated by Germany, thus the dividing up of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland and that the defeat of Communism (if the opportunity arised) should be followed by colonization of European Russia and oppression of the Slav population.
France and England was attacked because the Allies declared war on Germany (following its continental policies) not the other way around. If the Allies had wished for peace in the Summer of 1940, they had got it. Hitler never had any designs on the United Kingdom or Western Europe and thought that the war was unfortunate, but Churchill refused and wished the war to continue until the Nazi system was crushed.
North Africa was just part of the war against Britain and Germany did not "have" Japan attack the United States. Rather, it was the US oil embargo which resulted in Japan desperately attacking America all on their own. It had nothing to do with the war in Europe.


"2. Maybe the official ideology of Nazism didnt equate to exterminating people, but those who followed it carried out such methods."

- And those who followed Communism carried out such methods on the Kulaks or people who wore glasses in Cambodia, but I see no demands for banning the hammer and sickle around here, do you?


"3. I dont believe for one minute that Nazi Germany gave a stuff about giving the Jews a place of their own, they just wanted rid of them, as evidenced by the fact that millions were slaughtered."

- Getting rid off certainly can mean different things and did so to different people. The holocaust was a rushed wartime affair if anything and hadn't occured without the war. That the Nazis expulsed/transferred Jews to Palestine until the war broke out even surface in the Eichmann trial, who's department for Jewish questions rather closely cooperated with the Zionists at that time. There was also talk of making Madacascar a Jewish homeland after the war, somewhere in Africa where their hard racial character would deteriorate in the tropical climate :? or sending them to the Russian East.


"4. Its the high-ranking Nazis who authorised and controlled the extermination camps and gas chambers. Who the hell do you think ran them, some lowly Private who just decided one day to kill off a load of innocent people? And dont give me all the 'Hitler ran everything' story, it wasnt a one-man army."

- In fact, this is the way it's said to have been done. It was all supposed to be kept a secret, remember? In terms of Nazi brass, Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, was indeed a man from the lower ranks as was almost Eichmann himself. It was done strictly on accord of a need to know basis with every document pertaining to the matter written in a sort of code language.
Rumours about various forms of exterminations began circulating as from 1942, but were usually not believed as they were spread by the (enemy) underground.


"Finally, not concerned with the above quote, the Swastika has been banned by the admin, so why argue now? It wont change the ban."

- Yeah, why criticize, why worry about bad decisions or stand up for anything, free speech or free inquiry included, when it's so much easier just to be PC and go with the flow?
:roll:

Communism officially strived for world domination (which Germany and National Socialism didn't) and killed more people than the Nazis.
If anything, it's Communist symbols that should be outlawed. Yet, I think it's nonsense to ban symbols. The "evil" is not with the symbol but the wearer and it's a violation of free speech.

Moreover, Nazism in itself does not equate with exterminating people in gas chambers, although it equates with a fear and hatred for those 'powerful and dangerous' Jews, just as Communism does not equate with the great terror but does equate with a hatred for the "bourgoisie".
You can thus be a Communist and not support the mass murders of Lenin, Stalin or Pol Pot and you can be a Nazi without supporting the holocaust. The actual policy in Germany before the war and the official one during it, was in fact to ship the Jews off somewhere to a place of their own. If you don't believe me you should study history closer. In the pre-war years this place in practice became nothing less than Palestine.
In general, even high ranking Nazis knew nothing about the extermination program of Jewry by gas until after the end of the war, although they knew about the concentration camps as such and that people probably were not too well treated there.
If you're a Nazi and you don't even know what's going on, how can you be condemned for being in favour of it?

Just a few points in the above statement which I would disagree with:

1. Nazism didnt strive for world domination?! WTF?! So why did they take over most of Europe, attempt to invade Britain, launch massive attacks on Russia and Africa and have its allies, Japan, attck the US and most of south-east asia?

2. Maybe the official ideology of Nazism didnt equate to exterminating people, but those who followed it carried out such methods.

3. I dont believe for one minute that Nazi Germany gave a stuff about giving the Jews a place of their own, they just wanted rid of them, as evidenced by the fact that millions were slaughtered.

4. Its the high-ranking Nazis who authorised and controlled the extermination camps and gas chambers. Who the hell do you think ran them, some lowly Private who just decided one day to kill off a load of innocent people? And dont give me all the 'Hitler ran everything' story, it wasnt a one-man army.

Finally, not concerned with the above quote, the Swastika has been banned by the admin, so why argue now? It wont change the ban.

1. There was never a National Socialist policy aimed at world conquest. Communism, however, does have a policy of world conquest (though they call it something less bold, like world revolution).

2. Very few of them, maybe. A racist person isn't necessarily a Nazi, you know?

3. Obviously, you judge all Nazi sentiments by the acts of a few. It was official National Socialist policy to move the Jews out of the Reich via immigration. That was established in the Blood and Honour Laws at Nuremburg, and 90% of Nazis were happy with it, right up to and throughout the Second World War. Perhaps they did just want to get rid of the Jews, but they did so without brutality when the law was in effect. None of the Allies opposed such policies at any point before the war.

4. Again, judging the entire National Socialist ideology and all its followers by the acts of a few? Like it or not, the people in charge of the Holocaust were a small minority in Germany. It was a program orchestrated by the likes of the SS, a power-hungry faction in the Reich, which acted against National Socialist policy by playing on Adolf Hitler's psychosis and racial obsession. Two officers in the SS, Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann, were chiefly responsible for the planning and maintenance of the Holocaust. Many of the people involved in the Holocaust were forced into it by the threats of murder from the SS. High ranking Nazis who were not in the SS, but aided in the Holocaust, were usually bullied into supporting the genocidal operation. No, Nazi Germany was not a "one-man-army", but it was an autocratic dictatorship. Hitler had enormous power, and he also had "favourites". One of those favourites was Reinhard Heydrich, the "Butcher of Prague", who masterminded the Holocaust.

Basically, you must learn to separate National Socialism from the Holocaust. One is an idea, whilst the other is a great tragedy perpetrated by a madman with too much power, who didn't even follow his own ideology by the end of his reign.

the nazi flag is clock-wise, can we have them in an anti clockwise direction?

That would send the same evil, racist message.
Hey, you are now talking about the Finnish Air Force in WW2. Well i know it would be as strange thing, i just get mad when some people say like that. Just a few words: We were not Nazis, we just had to be allies with Hitler, as they would otherwise had ivaded us. And we already had a war with Soviets. Thanks, and sorry for the off-topic.

Banning the hammer and sickle?! Are fucking out of your mind?! the only murderers communists were stalin and mao..the communist ideology is great! It's not about killing...stalin killed lots of people so you dumbasses think that stalin killed, so communism kills...in case you don't know, there are many countries in the world (including portugal, a EU nation) whose Communist Party has a considerable political importance...

You can thus be a Communist and not support the mass murders of Lenin, Stalin or Pol Pot
Otherwise, i accept but.. Mass murders of Lenin? I suppose you should also study the history more. Lenin wanted a un-violent revolution, and wanted to create Soviet Union as a Great Communist State. But then came Stalin, who passed over Lenin and found Soviet Union. With Stalin's hands, Soviet Union became what it was. In fact, Stalin locked Lenin to a guarded house near Moscow. Lenin died there, and could do nothing but just watch when Stalin made Soviet Union a horrible place. Well he had not to watch it for very long, he got sick and died. And what he did before that, had nothing to do with Soviet Union, just communism.

Well, for what its worth, I think its a real shame that any symbols are banned. I think having unpleasant offensive nations in the game is part of the game. If you don't like the country with the swastika on its flag, invade it and impose 'regime change' and look for the weapons of mass destruction.

Banning the hammer and sickle?! Are f--- out of your mind?! the only murderers communists were stalin and mao..the communist ideology is great! It's not about killing...stalin killed lots of people so you dumbasses think that stalin killed, so communism kills...in case you don't know, there are many countries in the world (including portugal, a EU nation) whose Communist Party is a considerable political importance...

You are joking right? Otherwise you are very ignorant. Lenin started mass murdering peasants and insubordinate workers as early as 1918. It didn't stop until 1953 and the death of Stalin.
The "bourgeois" mindset is determined by class adherence and has to be weeded out. Communism is therefore a lot about murder. Even when 90% of the revolutionaries belong to the bourgeois classes or nobility themselves and the capitalist enemy is a half starved peasant on Russian steppes.

And you think communism is about killing?! Jesus get a life! If communism is about killing why are there so many communism supporters?

And you think communism is about killing?! Jesus get a life! If communism is about killing why are there so many communism supporters?

- Okay, just to clarify so there's no need to continue misinterpreting my posts. My position: there is no more reason to ban the swastika than there is banning the hammer and sickle, but I'm against the banning of either, because I find such acts hysterical, pointless and an insult to intelligence and western virtues.
Got it Trotsky?

1. There was never a National Socialist policy aimed at world conquest. Communism, however, does have a policy of world conquest (though they call it something less bold, like world revolution).

2. Very few of them, maybe. A racist person isn't necessarily a Nazi, you know?

3. Obviously, you judge all Nazi sentiments by the acts of a few. It was official National Socialist policy to move the Jews out of the Reich via immigration. That was established in the Blood and Honour Laws at Nuremburg, and 90% of Nazis were happy with it, right up to and throughout the Second World War. Perhaps they did just want to get rid of the Jews, but they did so without brutality when the law was in effect. None of the Allies opposed such policies at any point before the war.

4. Again, judging the entire National Socialist ideology and all its followers by the acts of a few? Like it or not, the people in charge of the Holocaust were a small minority in Germany. It was a program orchestrated by the likes of the SS, a power-hungry faction in the Reich, which acted against National Socialist policy by playing on Adolf Hitler's psychosis and racial obsession. Two officers in the SS, Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann, were chiefly responsible for the planning and maintenance of the Holocaust. Many of the people involved in the Holocaust were forced into it by the threats of murder from the SS. High ranking Nazis who were not in the SS, but aided in the Holocaust, were usually bullied into supporting the genocidal operation. No, Nazi Germany was not a "one-man-army", but it was an autocratic dictatorship. Hitler had enormous power, and he also had "favourites". One of those favourites was Reinhard Heydrich, the "Butcher of Prague", who masterminded the Holocaust.

Basically, you must learn to separate National Socialism from the Holocaust. One is an idea, whilst the other is a great tragedy perpetrated by a madman with too much power, who didn't even follow his own ideology by the end of his reign.

Well, firstly, I never said anything along the lines of 'all racists are Nazis', from where you derived that I dont know. Secondly, could someone point me to an unbiased source which describes the original intentions of Nazism? Because from what Ive seen, heard, been told by my Grandparents, Nazism holds the view that ones own race is superior to all others which is by definition racist. Also, Iridor, from your defence of Nazism, you seem to be trying to make out that it was some sort of god idea? Am I correct or not? Finally, I can separate Nazism from the Holocaust. The fact that the Nazis tried to take over Europe already makes them a force for evil in my eyes, regardless of what other atrocities they committed.

Just read the Nazis' own propoganda. :roll:


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/free_outer_eugenia.jpg
Free Outer Eugenia

what about "Hammer and Sickle" ? is this more acceptable then swasitka ?

The hammer and sickle is (1) an old socialist symbol of the fellowship between agricultural and industreal workers; (2) not nearly as offensive to the Nationstates community at large as the swastika and the 'stars and stripes' of the American flag and most importantly (3) has not been banned by the website's owner.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/free_outer_eugenia.jpg
Free Outer Eugenia

The hammer and sickle is (1) an old socialist symbol of the fellowship between agricultural and industreal workers; (2) not nearly as offensive to the Nationstates community at large as the swastika and the 'stars and stripes' of the American flag and most importantly (3) has not been banned by the website's owner.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/free_outer_eugenia.jpg
Free Outer Eugenia

do you know how many people were killed in soviet union, china, eastern europe, cuba, cambodia, north korea under this "old socialist symbol" ?

Do you realize how many people were murdered under the cross? The american flag? the union jack? This is a fine argument from banning flags alltogether :roll:

After reading some of the Nazi revisionism in here I feel the need to take a bath.

This argument is still going on?

--Felix

I'm sorry, I just don't think that any symbol is naturally evil. Humans can be evil, but not symbols. The swastika never killed anyone. Hitler and his friends did, but not the swastika. In fact, billions of Hindus have found inspiration and faith in the swastika, and their religious rights should be respected here and everywhere else.

And if one more person says the Nazis were evil because they waged a war with Europe, I'll be most disappointed in modern historical education across the world. Germany did not start the war with the West. The USSR had just as much responsibility for invading Poland as Germany (which some might consider the beginning of WWII). Really, the Allies started the war, and in that war, Japan and Russia did far worse things than the Nazis. You have all heard a lot of Allied propaganda if you think Germany was totally to blame. And finally, America has repeatedly assaulted countries that shouldn't concern it. America is more imperialistic than Germany was.

Free the swastika. It's a symbol and nothing more. Free speech, god damn it! Who the hell would cry over this sixty years past the deed, anyway?

Free the swastika. It's a symbol and nothing more.
a symbol of what ?

Depends. A swastkia in the context of a Nazi flag is a symbol of the Nazi ideology, a symbol of hate and murder. In the Hindu context it is something else entirely.

Just to share some info on the possible reason the swastika was banned....

- Some European countries have ordered their local ISPs to block any websites containing swastikas, because there are local or national laws banning their display.

- The mods/owners of the website don't want it blocked.

- Thus, they would have to ban swastikas from the website.

Just a theory, but I'd honestly be surprised if this *wasn't* at least part of the reason....

And hey, did I just manage to post in this thread without saying what I think about it?

And hey, did I just manage to post in this thread without saying what I think about it?
if so, why did you post?

I'm afraid this post is mostly off-topic. I'll state my opinion about the swastika issue at the end.

(And damn it, I wrote this whole message once and then lost it, the server said "Invalid Session" and "You are not logged in" and I didn't take a backup copy of the message before trying to submit it.)

And you think communism is about killing?! Jesus get a life! If communism is about killing why are there so many communism supporters?

Knowing something about the origins of socialism and communism, I'll try to clarify the matter a bit. My position here is the anarchist position, and it will certainly show.

Stalin called himself a communist, and the Soviet Communist Party called itself a Communist Party. In the west they were largely known as communists. And if we define communist politics so that they're politics of those who call themselves communists, the politics of Stalin and the Soviet Communist Party were communist politics. However, those politics had nothing to do with the society model developed by the 19th century socialists known as communism. Communism is defined in socialist theory of society as the ideal state of society, where property, wage labour, money, and the State itself have disappeared, and the production is directly based on need.

The communist society was said to be impossible to achieve overnight (which is actually correct as far as my opinion is concerned). Marx argued that a transitory state of society would be needed to prepare for the implementation of communism. He called his vision of this transitory phase "the dictatorship of the proletariat", and it involved heavy centralisation of all the power to a temporary government. To get rid of all the bad aspects of the capitalist society they would have to be placed in the hands of a single authority that would then make measures necessary for the full implementation of the new model of society.

In the Russian revolution in 1918 the Bolsheviks led by V. I. Lenin took the Marxian concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat and modified it a bit for their purposes before putting it to action. This was the society model that prevailed in the Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union; although four generations passed, the transition to communism never took place and the transitory phase lasted until the reign collapsed. As a similar model of society was tried in several other countries and none of them showed any signs of even trying to proceed to communism, I think I'm entitled to say that the whole concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the means of achieving communism is somewhere flawed. This "temporary" state of society (which, according to Marx, should have been better than the best possible bourgeous democracy) was the one that was to be known in the West as the Socialist or Communist society, although it had little to do with either, and this model of society was to be known as the one that committed more atrocities than any bourgeous democracy could ever have.

The original concept of socialism is along the lines of "a society where there is no wage labour; a society where the workers control the means of production". In the "Socialist" countries workers were not in the control of the means of production and wage labour still existed, although there was really only one employer, the State.

In addition to the Marxians who believe in the transitory phase, there were other kinds of socialists. Actually, the first socialists did not have the concept. They were so-called utopian socialists, and they believed that communism could be achieved without a transitory phase. They formed communities that moved to unattained land and tried to put their ideology to practice. They had quite serious issues in trying to implement a communist model of production, and none of the experiments really lasted for more than couple of decades, at most.

Another branch of the socialist movement is the anarchist one. Post-Marx anarchists were strongly opposed to the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Some of them were communists, and thought that as the methods of production developed the communist society would become easier to achieve overnight. Others proposed that in the future anarchist society there would be variation between communism and "less optimal" forms of socialism, so that the society would be less easily destroyed. All of them agreed (even before Russian revolution) that the dictatorship of the proletariat would be disastrous if it were ever tried in practice. There could never be any real guarantee that a "temporary" regime would really be temporary. Plus, no one has ever proposed a any convincing procedure of transitioning from the dictatorship of the proletariat to communism. Therefore, the whole concept must be abandoned. A way must be found to create a socialist society overnight, if we are ever to be freed of capitalism.

An anarchist society must be organized "down to up", to avoid concentrating the political or economical power in any one point. In the models proposed by concurrent anarchist theory there must be a decision-making procedure, but it must be always directly responsible to those who the decisions concern. The society must be turned around in this respect; no one must be responsible about anything to their "superiors", but they must be at all times directly responsible to their "inferiors". There shall be no wage labour, and no private property in the capitalist sense of the word; all private possession shall be based on actual use of the goods and means of production. Workers shall manage their workplaces independently and internally and share the profits any way they decide between themselves (using direct democracy). Decision-making structures may exist for the sole purpose of co-ordination, and decision-makers shall be appointed for a very short period at time and with an imperative mandate, and the decisions won't be enforced on anyone who does not agree with them, as long as they don't interfere with anyone else's rights or private autonomy. Some forms of currency may exist, but it will be primarily for the use for coordinating the distribution of the "surplus" production or "luxury" items. All "bare necessities" will be distributed directly by the need.

Most current theories agree that the anarchist society cannot be achieved without a complete social revolution. There has been only one large scale experiment to date, namely Spain in 1936, but the society was shattered by the Spanish Civil War shortly after it was established. The anarchist movement was torn apart by having to co-operate with the government of the republic for the purposes of the war. However, the Spanish Revolution of 1936 still managed to show some quite promising achievements. The anarchist production model was put into real test for the very first time, and especially in agriculture the results were magnificent. This was partly due to implementation of better production methods, but even that shows that the experiment was not an utter failure. In a very short time the Spanish agriculture achieved a whole new level of efficiency.

It was shown, by the way, during the experiment that the communities that tried to implement a full communism did not survive as well as those that practiced a less extreme version of socialism.

It remains to be seen if a more succesful large-scale anarchist society experiment will emerge somewhere in our lifetime. It would prove interesting for both the supporters of the anarchist theory of society and for the critics. As for the place where this will happen, Argentina looks like a good candidate at the moment. The anarchist production model is actually practiced in a few industrial plants etc. there that have been taken over by their employees, and so far the only problem has been the official society trying to crush them... We'll see.

-----

About the swastika issue. I think that although it would be nice to have no moderation at all about the content of the flags (they don't really affect game mechanica so they shouldn't be that important) I understand [violet]'s position. After all, this game has been created for a particular purpose, namely advertising a book, and therefore the game should get as much positive publicity as possible and as little negative publicity as possible. After all, I think this game is the best thing ever done in the name of marketing. I hope it works.

Who the hell would cry over this sixty years past the deed, anyway? Just saw this suppreme foolishness. How about people whose entire families were murdered? Perhaps that shrinking population of folks with serial numbers tatood on their arms?

Ok, ban Nazi symbols, because it`s evil...
But:
Ban communistic symbols, because of Beria, Yezov, Stalin...
Ban Stars-and-Straps because of extermination of Native Americans, A-bomb on Hiroshima and invasion on Iraq...
Ban St. James Cross because of concentration-camps in Boer-War and IWW...
Ban Christian Cross because of Crusades and Sanctum Officium...
Ban Dawid`s Star because of extermination through Israel the Palestinian, and becauses of all that massacres in OldTestament...
I know, that`s Max Barry`s site and i not negate His right to do whatever He will- i only appeal for consequence... :?

NeuBauhaus,

This is known as grave digging. This topic hasn't been touched for a while. Please don't do it again.

However, I understand how you may feel the need to make your position known on this issue, and that you are a new player, thus, this is an unofficial warning. However, let me say now: this decision stands.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling
PGP: 0x0604DF3E

To our great sadness a particular group has turned a once holy hindo holy symbol in a symbol of horror.

When people use it they often do not try to rever to what they considered the good sides of that group of people who where defeated in combat, but only to use that symbol of horror to horrify the watcher.

Not allowing that symbol seems very reasonable to me.
For those people that wanted to use it as a symbol of respect for there combat ability instead of trying to use it as fear symbol towards the different kind of people on this forum, I think you know enough about the subject to find a symbol that references to there cunning in for example combat instead of using a symbol that suggests nothing more than that you want to annoy as many people as possible.

Rember just like the meaning of words change during time, so do the meaning of symbols. This symbol has changed its meaning and has as meaning only the causing of pain now and trying to hurt as many people as possible. Unless your only purpose is to cause pain, in which case it is not strange that you get banned, it must be able to find an other symbol that expresses you. For just causing pain was probably not what you meant. And maybe somebody ask you what your new symbol means, and you can have a nice conversation explaining your deeper philosphies.

cummon the Nazis are just like sum of the strange dicatorships that r on this game, and sound just like sum of the descriptions (xcept for the holocaust thing) :?

cummon the Nazis are just like sum of the strange dicatorships that r on this game, and sound just like sum of the descriptions (xcept for the holocaust thing) :?

What about Finnish Air Force planes with swastika? The FAF used the swastika before the nazis though, and it's not hanging clockwise or black what I can remember from color pictures.. think it were blue colored... I dont have a flag with a "finnish swastika" but what do you think if I had a flag with the plane that contains the swastika? After all, it doesnt have anything to do with nazis, so... Here's a example anyways:

http://www.sci.fi/~ambush/combat/AceRaceWW.JPG

Finntown. Within the forums, you could probably get away with images like that. However, it is strictly banned from flags within the game (and also the regional message boards).

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling
PGP: 0x0604DF3E

Why are swastikas banned, but not hammer/sickles? Any one of the great communist leaders (Mao, Stalin, etc.) killed more than hitler.

I've answered this question several times already -- check out the earlier posts in this thread.

Violet Speaks!

Well, I would like to request this tioc be locked and stickied with a note added to the first post saying NO NAZI FLAGS, IF YOU POST ONE YOU WILL BE MODERATED.

I have seen this topic get resureted every week or so for the last two months,

I made some non swastica flags that are designed similar to the nazi flag and violet approved them if they dont like them then tell them to get a differednt flag or quit trying to pretend they are good lil aryans. :evil:

I just think that this is so stupid... there are swastikas used nowadays too, in medals, flags etc. I have pics on these too but I know I wont get a positive answer, so I wont post any pics, just on request. I cant understand why you have banned the swastika.. Dont answer that I should read the earlier posts, I have.

Dont ban all swastikas because of one bad swastika..

I know it has already been banned but this is so stupid....

Are there going to be similar problems with national pretitles such as : The Nazi State of"?

Nazis are allowed, swastikas are not. The group is allowed, just not this one symbol.

Please, unless there is a specific, newish question like this, let's let this topic die.

Symbols that must be banned:
The number 2 (OMG! TWO TOWERS! No more LOTR topics)
Nazi flags
Soviet flags
China flags
Lots of African flags
the US flag (After all, according to many we have commited unspeakable attrocities)
The British flag (Im sure the Africans have something to say about that)
The French Flag (The French werent much better than the Brits)
Czarist flags
The color red
Yellow stars
Red stars
White stars
90 degree angles
Animals (How many people get killed by animals, animals are rascist!)
Guns
Knives
Weapons
Explosions
Taiwanes flag (How do the Chinese feel about that?)

And thats just a few. In any case, lets just ban flags altogether, any nation caught using the flag feature will be banned immidiatly!

we all could use the Libyen flag (plain green)

wait, it might upset someone :shock:

why do we need flags anyway?

No, cant use that! Green is the color of Islam!
So, we have to ban these as well:
Buddahs
Moons
Crossess
The color gree
Purple
Triangles
Purple triangles
Shivas
Basicaly any sort of god or God related symbol.

I don't think any amount of debate on this subject is going to change the administration's decision, but I think it's good that everyone is contributing to the discussion in a positive manner rather than attack the admin. for the decision.

Good job, everyone!

:D

Do you realise that images of swastikas are actually banned in many European countries? Due to the way the internet works, people are actually breaking the law if they view a site with a swastika on it.

Do you realise that images of swastikas are actually banned in many European countries? Due to the way the internet works, people are actually breaking the law if they view a site with a swastika on it.

Wow. I didn't know that. That's quite an interesting way to combat people using/viewing it.

Ok, this is gravedigging at it's most extreme. The debate is closed, and has been for a while.

This is going in the archives where HOPEFULLY it will be left alone.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling