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

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

[+] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

So then, you think Nazi Swastikas without context should be allowed without any repercussions. I saw your first comment, I don't see why you think using more words to say the same thing would make it any different.

Here are some questions: How does punishing nazis for using symbols of hate and intolerance empower them? How does allowing them to do so freely harm them in contrast?

You do not need to use a nazi swastika. A world where they are not allowed in public is a world where people feel safe and comfortable. Just as you do not need to use the frog. The frog is unimportant and only continues to exist because people like you fight for it.

[–] kewjo@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

literally my first comment said context matters. if you see an image with hate speech maybe its the speech that you should pay attention to.

[+] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] kewjo@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

is English your first language because you either don't understand what I'm saying or you are too ignorant to understand.

swastikas being bannable outside of specific religious contexts

that's literally what i said. the context around the symbol is what is important. no one in south west asia sees a swastika and think Nazis because it's part of the religious culture. just as no one sees Pepe and thinks nazis because no one normal participated in that shit subculture of 4chan except Nazis.

Let's actually look at what happened with Pepe, he was created by an artist then appropriated by Nazis. The artist then posted that he was outraged and disappointed that it was taken over by Nazis. people listened and were also outraged and did everything to normalize and take it back from the Nazis, because again it wasn't theirs to take in the first place. now you imagine the 12 year old posting it are nazis when they have no context of any of the events your talking about. go touch grass, your brain is rotting.

[–] Ziglin@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

We should turn their name into an extreme political symbol symbol on the opposite side of their political spectrum. That way they'll know that they're also evil because they use that evil symbol.

[–] kewjo@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

right? imagine some one came for Calvin and Hobbes. don't come for my cartoons, the one pure thing in this world

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

So then, you think Nazi Swastikas without context should be allowed without any repercussions.

That's incoherent. "Nazi swastika" and "without context" doesn't mesh because "Nazi" is a context for "swastika".

That aside, I'm going to take German law as an example: No, non-nazi swastikas are very much not outlawed. You can see them on stray Hindu temples or shrines in the country, for example. "Without" context they're generally assumed to be Nazi ones over here because historical context, also, only Nazis draw random swastikas over here. You also see ones broken in pieces getting thrown in the trash or in a crossed-out circle, those come from the Antifa side.

Both the Hindu and Antifa uses are legal, the Nazi ones aren't. That's because German law doesn't outlaw the swastika as such, it outlaws "using symbols of unconstitutional or outlawed organisations in a manner suitable to further their aims". A Nazi painting a Swastika on a Jewish gravestone is considered furthering the aims of the NSDAP, which had the swastika as their logo. A Hindu chiselling a swastika into their gravestone is a completely different matter. (Do Hindus use gravestones? Anyway doesn't matter it's a hypothetical example).

In another country, where the historical context is different, those "without" context swastikas won't be interpreted the same as in Germany. So even under German law those would arguably be legal, there.