Offensive Flags Debate

[Yuktova]

He's never given an actual reason for banning it other than "because I can".

That's actually an out and out lie.

From the Acceptable Flag Policy:

viewtopic.php?p=2190733#p2190733

This has been the case from the beginning. However, I once answered a question about a three-pronged red and black flag by saying something like, "Only swastikas and swastika-like images are banned, not anything else," and the "anything else" was taken more literally than I intended. I apologize, particularly to the mods, for this confusion, and I'm sorry if it's lead to some inconsistent moderation.

To make life easier, here are some examples of what is and isn't acceptable. I expect there will be many borderline cases (there always are), but it's a simple principle. If a flag celebrates death, slavery, violence, or other not-nice things against real people, that's malicious, and will have the primary effect of offending....

....A swastika: not acceptable (Yes, it was used by Buddhists in the third Century, etc, etc, but that's not what it represents now. To the vast majority of people, the swastika represents the Holocaust. A nation with a swastika appears to be endorsing that event; that's malicious and has the primary effect of offending.)....

....The iron cross: my feeling is it's usually okay, because I don't think most people even recognize it. But if the nation also had a name, slogan, etc, that seemed to be glorifying Bad Things, then no
That SS lightning slash thing: no....


....A swastika and it's on a clearly pro-Nazi nation but honest it's just roleplaying: no. Sorry, you might be RPing but if that's not obvious to other people, then the primary effect of your flag will be to offend and upset, even though you don't intend it.....

...The hammer and sickle: fine (Yes, I'm aware of the hundreds of millions of deaths. But when people look at the hammer and sickle, they think communism, not mass graves. If you can point me at a survey that shows otherwise, then we'll deem this one malicious, too. But until then, it's just a Soviet flag.)...

... The Japanese flag on a nation with the slogan, "We bombed your grandparents": no


To make that point again: we don't ban particular patterns of colored pixels, we ban any content that is malicious in nature. The mods' job is to judge which is which, according to guidelines like this.

And because I know this is going to come up again: I realize that you can point out a bunch of different groups that committed terrible acts, and yet we're not banning their flags. That's because we're not banning the symbols of every group that scored a particular body count; we're prohibiting content that is malicious in nature and to most people will have the primary effect of offending. Not a few people, not just you, but most people. That's the criteria.

The forums permit relatively free speech on a range of issues, so, as the FAQ says, if you've got a political ax to grind, do it here, where people can argue back. Please don't put it in your flag when you know it will piss people off.

Thank you for explaining the flag policy to these guys. I was going to post something similar, but was too lazy. Thank you, Kat!

Getting late, maybe time to close up shop, eh? Maybe I should get some rest.

[Wiztopia]

He's never given an actual reason for banning it other than "because I can".

That's actually an out and out lie.

From the Acceptable Flag Policy:

viewtopic.php?p=2190733#p2190733

This has been the case from the beginning. However, I once answered a question about a three-pronged red and black flag by saying something like, "Only swastikas and swastika-like images are banned, not anything else," and the "anything else" was taken more literally than I intended. I apologize, particularly to the mods, for this confusion, and I'm sorry if it's lead to some inconsistent moderation.

To make life easier, here are some examples of what is and isn't acceptable. I expect there will be many borderline cases (there always are), but it's a simple principle. If a flag celebrates death, slavery, violence, or other not-nice things against real people, that's malicious, and will have the primary effect of offending....

....A swastika: not acceptable (Yes, it was used by Buddhists in the third Century, etc, etc, but that's not what it represents now. To the vast majority of people, the swastika represents the Holocaust. A nation with a swastika appears to be endorsing that event; that's malicious and has the primary effect of offending.)....

....The iron cross: my feeling is it's usually okay, because I don't think most people even recognize it. But if the nation also had a name, slogan, etc, that seemed to be glorifying Bad Things, then no
That SS lightning slash thing: no....


....A swastika and it's on a clearly pro-Nazi nation but honest it's just roleplaying: no. Sorry, you might be RPing but if that's not obvious to other people, then the primary effect of your flag will be to offend and upset, even though you don't intend it.....

...The hammer and sickle: fine (Yes, I'm aware of the hundreds of millions of deaths. But when people look at the hammer and sickle, they think communism, not mass graves. If you can point me at a survey that shows otherwise, then we'll deem this one malicious, too. But until then, it's just a Soviet flag.)...

... The Japanese flag on a nation with the slogan, "We bombed your grandparents": no


To make that point again: we don't ban particular patterns of colored pixels, we ban any content that is malicious in nature. The mods' job is to judge which is which, according to guidelines like this.

And because I know this is going to come up again: I realize that you can point out a bunch of different groups that committed terrible acts, and yet we're not banning their flags. That's because we're not banning the symbols of every group that scored a particular body count; we're prohibiting content that is malicious in nature and to most people will have the primary effect of offending. Not a few people, not just you, but most people. That's the criteria.

The forums permit relatively free speech on a range of issues, so, as the FAQ says, if you've got a political ax to grind, do it here, where people can argue back. Please don't put it in your flag when you know it will piss people off.

We already went over how the Swastika isn't malicious in nature in an old thread.

[Katganistan]

We already went over how the Swastika isn't malicious in nature in an old thread.

And the site owner and most other reasonable people have already gone over why it is malicious in nature ad infinitum.

Nice way to move the goalposts, though.

[Imperium Neo Roma]

We already went over how the Swastika isn't malicious in nature in an old thread.

It's still banned, That link Kat and Nervun gave gives a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Just bury it, Max Barry didn't ban the Swastika simply because he is a 'Jew', or because "He says so".

[Wiztopia]

We already went over how the Swastika isn't malicious in nature in an old thread.

And the site owner and most other reasonable people have already gone over why it is malicious in nature ad infinitum.

Nice way to move the goalposts, though.

How can you tell if something is malicious in nature for eternity if nobody can live that long?

Well somebody has to find a way for Nate Kaeding to score a fieldgoal.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Because, sadly swastika=genocide in most people's minds.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

The Soviet Union didn't round up and attempt to completely wipe out an entire ethnicity of people, nor were they bent on doing the same for anyone who was different than their "ideal".

Nice try, though.

lol

just lol

[Potarius]

The Soviet Union didn't round up and attempt to completely wipe out an entire ethnicity of people, nor were they bent on doing the same for anyone who was different than their "ideal".

Nice try, though.

lol

just lol

Wiping out entire "races" of people? Really, the Soviet Union did that?

I hold my hands out for your indisputable evidence.

[Wiztopia]

lol

just lol

Wiping out entire "races" of people? Really, the Soviet Union did that?

I hold my hands out for your indisputable evidence.

*hands you a bag full of shit*

[Potarius]

Wiping out entire "races" of people? Really, the Soviet Union did that?

I hold my hands out for your indisputable evidence.

*hands you a bag full of shit*

Likely better than the other "evidence" I'll receive.

[JAKiltonia]

Wiping out entire "races" of people? Really, the Soviet Union did that?

I hold my hands out for your indisputable evidence.

*hands you a bag full of shit*

As far as I can see the great lie was that the soviet union was not in actuality communist. As a law/politics student we find the Hitler rejected communism not because he hated the idea of social equality but because Marxism rejected the notion of nationhood and national identity as a lie. As a starry eyed aggressive German Nationalist Hitler really could not fathom or stomach such views and this is where the great struggle between Germany and the USSR was theoretically born! HOWEVER Stalin's regime *by its own admission) endorsed and implemented the principles of the "state totalitarian" this by default makes Stalin's Regime and all those that followed based upon it fascist in all but name, and not in Communist, as communism rejects the concept of nationhood and aggressive national policy as the result of such policies only result in the oppression of the masses and the pitching of the proletariat against its self (this is why in the run up to WWI there was so much concern in Europe re: the power of the socialist movement and trade unions. That being said Fascism in its self also stands for universal oppression of the masses and is not strictly speaking racist as such, however as with any form of hyper-nationalism racism will inevitably erupt sooner or later. The Swastika however is a special case given that the NAZI party and Hitler were always discriminatory in their ideology, advocating hatred of Jews, Communists, Trade Union Leaders, the Handicapped, Slaves (Hitler HATED the Balkan people with vengeance) and in all honesty any one who didn't really agree with him, and the NAZI's were very good at "removing" such problem groups. I personally endorse the open debate and discussion of such issues as I believe that it is only through upon and free debate that the lies and failures of any ideological line of thought can be exposed.... however I must concede that I agree that given the broad level of hatred advocated but the NAZI party no nation should fly that flag!

[Risottia]

I can't understand why the hammer and sickle aren't banned.

That's because you're being thick on purpose.
This is Max Barry's Father Know Best State, and you signed an agreement to abide by His Barriness' rules.

[Katganistan]

And the site owner and most other reasonable people have already gone over why it is malicious in nature ad infinitum.

Nice way to move the goalposts, though.

How can you tell if something is malicious in nature for eternity if nobody can live that long?

Well somebody has to find a way for Nate Kaeding to score a fieldgoal.

It's obvious, from your responses here and elsewhere where you have asserted definitely that there has never been an explanation WHY that reality is never going to be to your liking. The explanation is, as reasonable people have been pointing out ad infinitum that there is an entirely plausible reason -- that it's irretrievably associated with systematic murder. The semantic games really don't matter, the complaints really don't matter, the "it doesn't mean that to everyone" doesn't matter, the utterly ridiculous "how do you know it will be that way for all eternity" doesn't matter.

It means it now. It's not changing. And for all the whinging about eternity, eternity is no more our concern than fairyland. That's what it means in the here and now and that is the policy.

You are more than welcome, of course, to put together your own site and let everyone there post whatever you feel is appropriate and ban whatever you feel inappropriate.

[The Blaatschapen]

*warning: I only read the OP*

My personal ideal is to allow all symbols. But I know this is not possible without losing a big part of the users (partly because of legal issues, swastika being forbidden in Germany and all).

And while I personally find the hammer and sickle a very offensive symbol I guess I have to tolerate it.

Regardless of the restrictions in place I do find this site to be reasonably free and the banning of the swastika doesn't bother me that much

[The FTR]

I think it should be allowed unless someone is using it to purposely be insulting.

[Estovakiva]

The hammer and sickle is stil widly used in Russia, nuff said, the Hammer and sickle did mean something else as well, equality as you can tell USSR did not differintate between people-groups with racism like black people and white etc same with womans, there were females in their army, air-force factories, everywhere, aka woman rights and extensive rights as well, to womans and males as well.

Most people could as well READ, a very high-precentage.

[Dumb Ideologies]

You're on a moderated forum and the guy behind the game on which the forum is founded is okay with hammer and sickle but now with the swastika. Suck it up, kiddos.

You don't have the right to do everything you want everywhere you want to be able to do it. If you try to do it regardless, you'll face sanctions. Welcome to society. I hope your stay is typically ambivalent.

[Arumdaum]

Hammer and sickle /=/ Soviet Union.

Besides, even if the hammer and sickle only stood for the Soviet Union and their form of "communism", at least they didn't discriminate like the Nazis. (If they did then not as much at least)

[Wiztopia]

How can you tell if something is malicious in nature for eternity if nobody can live that long?

Well somebody has to find a way for Nate Kaeding to score a fieldgoal.

It's obvious, from your responses here and elsewhere where you have asserted definitely that there has never been an explanation WHY that reality is never going to be to your liking. The explanation is, as reasonable people have been pointing out ad infinitum that there is an entirely plausible reason -- that it's irretrievably associated with systematic murder. The semantic games really don't matter, the complaints really don't matter, the "it doesn't mean that to everyone" doesn't matter, the utterly ridiculous "how do you know it will be that way for all eternity" doesn't matter.

It means it now. It's not changing. And for all the whinging about eternity, eternity is no more our concern than fairyland. That's what it means in the here and now and that is the policy.

You are more than welcome, of course, to put together your own site and let everyone there post whatever you feel is appropriate and ban whatever you feel inappropriate.

"Ad infinitum is a Latin phrase meaning "to infinity."

"In context, it usually means "continue forever, without limit"

I don't see how they can say its associated with systematic murder for eternity.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

And I think we've had about enough of the 'ya-huh' / 'nu-uh' round and round on this old, stale issue. You've all been linked, explained to, and told repeatedly How Things Work, and Why. And the same old arguments of why this that or the other symbol, version of it, or what not should or shouldn't be banned or allowed.

It is what it is, folks. You're free to feel as offended or unaffected by it as you like, but them's the rules.