Possible. But eitherway, I try not to be an outright bitch.
Advertisement
by Lady Scylla » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:07 pm
by Internationalist Bastard » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:12 pm
Lady Scylla wrote:Internationalist Bastard wrote:Even so, I see it as repression of political freedom to repress it in Nazi context, as ironic as it is
And I agree with you. However, I also understand why Germany banned it. Overall, I don't have a strong enough opinion to say it should be repealed, I feel Germany will do it when they feel they can.
by Aclion » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:14 pm
Internationalist Bastard wrote:Lady Scylla wrote:
And I agree with you. However, I also understand why Germany banned it. Overall, I don't have a strong enough opinion to say it should be repealed, I feel Germany will do it when they feel they can.
Ironica'ly, it's my deep hatred of nazis that makes me so determined to let them have the floor
by Herargon » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:14 pm
How scifi alliances actually work.Ifreann wrote:That would certainly save the local regiment of American troops the trouble of plugging your head in ye olde shittere.
by Federated Isles » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:15 pm
Lady Scylla wrote:Federated Isles wrote:NO NAZI NO NAZI NO NAZI NO NAZI NO NAZI NO NAZI
I personally am opposed to banning symbols being put up on private property because FREE SPEECH BRUH
NO NAZI NO NAZI NO NAZI NO NAZI NO NAZI NO NAZI
You seem new here. If you want to stay here, I suggest you take a look at this.
by Aclion » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:16 pm
Herargon wrote:.............. banning the swastika is religious discrimination?
I don't know where you got that from bud, but that is the biggest utter Unsinn I've ever heard in my life, and I'm a Catholic Dutch. My eye literally twitched from that.
They banned the hookcross (another name for the swastika), because supporters of Nazism used that as symbolism. If they criminalised it, they could arrest those people much more easily, in order to lessen the risk of nazism once again taking over the country.
You don't know what it was or would have been like to live under the reign of nazism (or, cynically a modern alternative, Trumpism).
The Nazis actually discriminated religion by banning Jewish people from going to public pools, bathrooms, parks, restaurants, shops, and thousands of more things. And this wasn't only the Jews: they also did this with catholicism, albeit in a lesser degree; all those that were Catholic came under supervision of a state-sanctioned, strictly controlled church.
Same for protestantism; they worked together with them but at the same time repressed them. And some Muslims such as Khalid al-Hud al-Gargani worked together at that time with Hitler. They wanted to exterminate the Jews because they fled from Nazi Germany towards the Mandate of Palestine. And yet, Hitler didn't bother; he still repressed the muslims as well. He wanted that the German people's only ideology was that of nazism; no atheism, no agnosticism, no zionism, no islamism, no political freedom nor social freedom, only nazism.
Call me again when you have more sources.
by Internationalist Bastard » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:16 pm
Herargon wrote:.............. banning the swastika is religious discrimination?
I don't know where you got that from bud, but that is the biggest utter Unsinn I've ever heard in my life, and I'm a Catholic Dutch. My eye literally twitched from that.
They banned the hookcross (another name for the swastika), because supporters of Nazism used that as symbolism. If they criminalised it, they could arrest those people much more easily, in order to lessen the risk of nazism once again taking over the country.
You don't know what it was or would have been like to live under the reign of nazism (or, cynically a modern alternative, Trumpism).
The Nazis actually discriminated religion by banning Jewish people from going to public pools, bathrooms, parks, restaurants, shops, and thousands of more things. And this wasn't only the Jews: they also did this with catholicism, albeit in a lesser degree; all those that were Catholic came under supervision of a state-sanctioned, strictly controlled church.
Same for protestantism; they worked together with them but at the same time repressed them. And some Muslims such as Khalid al-Hud al-Gargani worked together at that time with Hitler. They wanted to exterminate the Jews because they fled from Nazi Germany towards the Mandate of Palestine. And yet, Hitler didn't bother; he still repressed the muslims as well. He wanted that the German people's only ideology was that of nazism; no atheism, no agnosticism, no zionism, no islamism, no political freedom nor social freedom, only nazism.
Call me again when you have more sources.
by Dilordaopia » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:22 pm
Philjia wrote:This is a Jain/Buddhist/Hindu swastika. Note the vertical edges. Popular with eastern religions and Nazis who can't draw. (Admittedly, this is a lot of them.)(Image)
This is a Nazi swastika. It is rotated and has diagonal edges. Popular with Nazis.(Image)
This is a fylfot. It has truncated edges. Popular with a variety of medieval European groups, both secular and religious, especially in Britain.(Image)
Clear? Clear.
by Lady Scylla » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:22 pm
Internationalist Bastard wrote:Lady Scylla wrote:
And I agree with you. However, I also understand why Germany banned it. Overall, I don't have a strong enough opinion to say it should be repealed, I feel Germany will do it when they feel they can.
Ironica'ly, it's my deep hatred of nazis that makes me so determined to let them have the floor
by Philjia » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:24 pm
Dilordaopia wrote:Philjia wrote:This is a Jain/Buddhist/Hindu swastika. Note the vertical edges. Popular with eastern religions and Nazis who can't draw. (Admittedly, this is a lot of them.)(Image)
This is a Nazi swastika. It is rotated and has diagonal edges. Popular with Nazis.(Image)
This is a fylfot. It has truncated edges. Popular with a variety of medieval European groups, both secular and religious, especially in Britain.(Image)
Clear? Clear.
People won't listen.
by Dilordaopia » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:24 pm
Herargon wrote:.............. banning the swastika is religious discrimination?
I don't know where you got that from bud, but that is the biggest utter Unsinn I've ever heard in my life, and I'm a Catholic Dutch. My eye literally twitched from that.
They banned the hookcross (another name for the swastika), because supporters of Nazism used that as symbolism. If they criminalised it, they could arrest those people much more easily, in order to lessen the risk of nazism once again taking over the country and killing millions of people -no, tens of millions - again. At that time it was still a very likely possibility, and even now, if one is to choose between that scenario and a few nationalists whining, then I'd choose the latter over anything else.
You don't know what it was or would have been like to live under the reign of nazism (or, cynically a modern alternative, Trumpism).
The Nazis actually discriminated religion by banning Jewish people from going to public pools, bathrooms, parks, restaurants, shops, and thousands of more things. And this wasn't only the Jews: they also did this with catholicism, albeit in a lesser degree; all those that were Catholic came under supervision of a state-sanctioned, strictly controlled church.
Same for protestantism; they worked together with them but at the same time repressed them. And some Muslims such as Khalid al-Hud al-Gargani worked together at that time with Hitler. They wanted to exterminate the Jews because they fled from Nazi Germany towards the Mandate of Palestine. And yet, Hitler didn't bother; he still repressed the muslims as well. He wanted that the German people's only ideology was that of nazism; no atheism, no agnosticism, no zionism, no islamism, no political freedom nor social freedom, only nazism.
Call me again when you have more sources.
by Dilordaopia » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:25 pm
by Internationalist Bastard » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:26 pm
Lady Scylla wrote:Internationalist Bastard wrote:Ironica'ly, it's my deep hatred of nazis that makes me so determined to let them have the floor
That apostrophe disturbs me.
There exists groups of people who have certain ideals that, given rules and general civility, I cannot speak ill of, but given the opportunity, I could probably produce some of the most vile words that you'd ever hear out of my mouth. Nazis being one of them. Despite that, I did have one friend who was a Nazi, and while we had some very staunch differences in politics, we were quite civil with each other and avoided political discussions.
by Esternial » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:26 pm
by Dilordaopia » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:28 pm
Internationalist Bastard wrote:Herargon wrote:.............. banning the swastika is religious discrimination?
I don't know where you got that from bud, but that is the biggest utter Unsinn I've ever heard in my life, and I'm a Catholic Dutch. My eye literally twitched from that.
They banned the hookcross (another name for the swastika), because supporters of Nazism used that as symbolism. If they criminalised it, they could arrest those people much more easily, in order to lessen the risk of nazism once again taking over the country.
You don't know what it was or would have been like to live under the reign of nazism (or, cynically a modern alternative, Trumpism).
The Nazis actually discriminated religion by banning Jewish people from going to public pools, bathrooms, parks, restaurants, shops, and thousands of more things. And this wasn't only the Jews: they also did this with catholicism, albeit in a lesser degree; all those that were Catholic came under supervision of a state-sanctioned, strictly controlled church.
Same for protestantism; they worked together with them but at the same time repressed them. And some Muslims such as Khalid al-Hud al-Gargani worked together at that time with Hitler. They wanted to exterminate the Jews because they fled from Nazi Germany towards the Mandate of Palestine. And yet, Hitler didn't bother; he still repressed the muslims as well. He wanted that the German people's only ideology was that of nazism; no atheism, no agnosticism, no zionism, no islamism, no political freedom nor social freedom, only nazism.
Call me again when you have more sources.
My husband was killed by neo nazis. They are dicks. But, if we don't let them talk, they'll just get more violent. Besides, it's not like banning a symbol destroys the idealogy
by The Emerald Legion » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:28 pm
Rhomaia wrote:Oh, hell, how many damn times has this come up? It doesn't matter if it was once a symbol of peace, after it's been warped into something so hateful and irrevocably associated with the Nazis people tend to take offense to it. You know, what with 6 million dead because of it. But hey, that's just me.
by Lady Scylla » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:30 pm
Internationalist Bastard wrote:Lady Scylla wrote:
That apostrophe disturbs me.
There exists groups of people who have certain ideals that, given rules and general civility, I cannot speak ill of, but given the opportunity, I could probably produce some of the most vile words that you'd ever hear out of my mouth. Nazis being one of them. Despite that, I did have one friend who was a Nazi, and while we had some very staunch differences in politics, we were quite civil with each other and avoided political discussions.
Oh of course. I have a deeply libertarian friend and we disagree on almost everything political. But when our debates end, we go back being friends
by Internationalist Bastard » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:30 pm
Dilordaopia wrote:Internationalist Bastard wrote:My husband was killed by neo nazis. They are dicks. But, if we don't let them talk, they'll just get more violent. Besides, it's not like banning a symbol destroys the idealogy
The fuck did they kill him for?
also whats with the sentence "slut pride" in your sig?
by Lady Scylla » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:31 pm
Esternial wrote:I've never quite been sure the pro's of banning all instances of this symbol offsets the con's.
There are better ways to combat neo-nazi's. At the very least you can make it something to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
by The Misconception » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:34 pm
Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:yes banning the swastika is religious discrimination
i mean come here to india and we have swastikas painted on floors in temples and shit
that doesn't mean we're nazis
it's not our fault some cunts in germany decided to use our symbols
by Conserative Morality » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:34 pm
by Imperial Idaho » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:35 pm
Ulnattu wrote:Imperial Idaho wrote:To the common person, the swastika is a symbol of the Nazis and the horrors they committed upon Europe. Not of a peaceful minority faith. While its a shame Hitler has become associated with the symbol, it should still be banned in western nations.
Yes, ignorance is a great reason to push those who don't fit in with our worldview into the margins, where they will not threaten our ignorance.
I'm from the land of Coeur D'alene Idaho.
By Ballot or by Bullet, the Pub Party will win. The Pub Legacy Edition.Ifreann wrote:The Romans placated the people with panem et circenses, bread and circuses. We will placate our people with dank space weed and hyper-HD vidya.Tysoania wrote:You remind me of a mobster who gets things cleared out of the way.
Next up on the Sopranos...
Imperial "Slick" Idaho, the fixer.Bralia wrote:Oh my fucking god. Do it again, guys, you both chose the number 7.
by Internationalist Bastard » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:36 pm
Lady Scylla wrote:Esternial wrote:I've never quite been sure the pro's of banning all instances of this symbol offsets the con's.
There are better ways to combat neo-nazi's. At the very least you can make it something to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Scaring them into a garage was pretty funny, to be honest.
by The Misconception » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:43 pm
Dilordaopia wrote:Philjia wrote:This is a Jain/Buddhist/Hindu swastika. Note the vertical edges. Popular with eastern religions and Nazis who can't draw. (Admittedly, this is a lot of them.)(Image)
This is a Nazi swastika. It is rotated and has diagonal edges. Popular with Nazis.(Image)
This is a fylfot. It has truncated edges. Popular with a variety of medieval European groups, both secular and religious, especially in Britain.(Image)
Clear? Clear.
People won't listen.
by Aclion » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:57 pm
Imperial Idaho wrote:Ulnattu wrote:Yes, ignorance is a great reason to push those who don't fit in with our worldview into the margins, where they will not threaten our ignorance.
There really isn't a way to solve peoples ignorance in this regard beyond teaching them in school, which doesn't stop people now from shouting nazi at someone who uses it as a religious symbol.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Anarcopia, Corporate Collective Salvation, Durius, Ethel mermania, Hypron, Infected Mushroom, Majestic-12 [Bot], Phoeniae, Tungstan, Valentine Z, Valyxias
Advertisement