When are we going to see this beautiful sign back in our culture as a positive symbol :( that and the Hitler mustache. I'm guessing we need a few hundred years before we can use these things without it being associated to Nazism.

To be fair, Michael Jordan spent a few years trying to rehabilitate the Hitler mustache in his Hanes ads. The problem is that Hitler's become so associated with it that it's now broadly known as the Hitler mustache (as opposed to the toothbrush mustache - thanks DanBC!), which makes it pretty hard to dissociate it with the man for most people.

a black person with a Hitler moustache is not remotely nearly as bad. they really don't look like Hitler, and it's very unlikely they are secretly hoping for the supremacy of the Aryan race

Lots of people notices the commercial and when he would sport it around Charlotte. ESPN even mentioned it, and IIRC he cut it because of the negative attention it was getting. I could be wrong about the last point.

With that said, when I saw it on an NBA game before the commercials aired I was like 'Hey! Look! Jordan has a Hitler stache, wth?' To which my friend responded 'he needs a new PR person'

The only black person I know of who has a Hitler mustache is Robert Mugabe.

And Michael Jordan is not the paragon of nice.

>I'm guessing we need a few hundred years before we can use these things without it being associated to Nazism.

Imho this has more to do with a lack of knowledge among the general (western) populations which mostly only know the symbol from the Nazis. But not all swastika are same as there are quite a few differences in orientation and details between the Nazi Swastika and the actual Hindu/Buddhist symbols.

> But not all swastika are same as there are quite a few differences in orientation and details between the Nazi Swastika and the actual Hindu/Buddhist symbols.

The only difference I have seen between the nazi swastika and the Hindu one is that the nazi one is at an angle.

The toothbrush moustache:

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2009/jul/31/richard-herrin...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8218726.stm

You need to explain yourself better. You seem to be opposed to Nazism, but in favor of their symbol. Why?

Not OP, but probably for aesthetic reasons. It's symmetrical, and has been a religious symbol for 11,000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

Swastikas are an ancient symbol of many religions and cultures across the world, and is usually a symbol of sacredness, good, luck, god, and other such meanings. In fact, the name itself comes from a sanskrit word. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Hinduism

You'll see it in much stonework on their temples and other buildings, especially as it does not have the associated stigma in Asia as it does in the West.

The swastika predated the Nazi party and Hitler by several millennia, and is still an important part of several religions and cultures. Wishing for the swastika to become un-stigmatized isn't really so controversial from that perspective.

Presumably a reference to the long history of the symbol prior to its appropriation by the Nazis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

I upvoted you because it is sad that ignorance is downvoted :(

My initial instinct was to down vote you, because (as we've discussed) Swastikas are synonymous with Nazism to many people, but on second reading it didn't seem like you were actually supporting Nazis so I decided I would ask. I also thought others might down vote you like I almost did.

I know I could have done a Google search and figured it out on my own, but if we're not allowed to ask questions which are already answered somewhere on the internet then I guess we wouldn't be asking very many questions.

A downvote like that isn't personal, and if a comment that's wrong out of ignorance is visibly downvoted then that can help teach passers-by.

Because it's a symbol that existed before they did. Why should they have the ability to wipe the symbol out of use just because they used it for bad things?

I assume because the swastica has many uses that are far older than it's modern western usage [0]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

The Nazis stole the symbol from a religion (I believe Hinduism, may be wrong).

Variations of the swastika have been used in many cultures around the world, from the Far East to ancient Europe. The Nazis took it from the latter source, though it shows up in many Indian and East Asian religious contexts.

Buddhism.

Because it's not their symbol. It was a symbol with many positive meanings that existed for a long time before Nazis.

Doesn't seem odd as the symbol was used for thousands of years before the nazis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

It is not their symbol. They are just the most recent to use it.

Maybe it was even useful as bait, eliminating lots of accounts of those users from their userbase.

If so, even better IMO.

Yes! Let's prevent them from expressing themselves so they will never debate their ideas and never realize they might be wrong. Let's ostracize them until they have no choice but fester their frustration, hidden from the rest of world. Let's make those ideas illegal so that any of our parents, sibling and children, if they ever entertain them, will keep it their most sacred secret, protected from scrutiny.

All that, in the name of some people not wanting to be offended.

Yes, the horrible life of the persecuted right wing racists. We MUST let them spew any racist garbage they wish at all times on any platform, otherwise they will throw a hissy fit and vote for Trump again. It's very important we let ourselves be held hostage to that idea. We need to constantly consider the feelings of the persecuted few outspoken racist conservatives. Can you imagine their plight and how bad they have it? They only control every branch of the united states government. Well, they don't control the judicial branch... yet.

Not being able to express your idea without intense backlash is a pretty strong signal you might be wrong.

Of course, there are many exceptions to this in history.

I agree about the backlash, just not the mean. Banishment and censorship is 1) a very harsh punishment for what is basically wrong think, 2) doesn't actually fix the problem, it just moves it to a darker place.

Sure worked well with Trump supporters right?

Shame they didn't get rid of all the commies as well.

I was surprised at the lack of swastikas, curse words, and nsfw content on the canvas, but that may say more about me than anything else.

There was some NSFW stuff early on. There was a communist flag on the left side, under which was the statement "bash the fash." He-Man had a rainbow in his mouth like he was giving it a blowjob for the longest time, and all the nsfw stuff suddenly disappeared at the end. I highly suspect that moderators and bots took over by the end and made it come together, and I bet it was a PR move to amplify a sense of community.

Bots definitely did take over, and it's how communities left their images so preserved. A lot of subreddits had scripts they gave out to users to just run in the tab. I think this kind of ruined the joy of logging in after a few hours of being gone and seeing something completely different in an area.

Not sure how a communist flag (stayed on till the end, by the way) or "bash the fash" is NSFW. Unless your workplace is fascist, of course.

There are many corporations who find any form of violence NSFW, especially among places with overly sensitive PC culture.

I'm sorry, but are you actually comparing Nazi symbolism to the LGBT flag?

This has to be sarcastic, no?

Of the three, the swastika internationally is the most problematic symbol as far as international law goes. It is banned outright except for narrow historical exceptions in several Western countries (eg France and Germany). Other countries may not have banned the symbol per se, but they may have "hate speech" type laws, and a swastikas used for this purpose may also fall afoul of that.

The hammer and sickle is more comparable; it is indeed banned in a few (mostly post-Soviet) countries. But I've never heard of the hammer and sickle running into the same problems regarding hate speech laws, which was probably Reddit's focus here.

Though politics are involved, the LGBT flag represents identity and is not very comparable to major political movements with dodgy human rights records, or a symbol with a history of being behind "hate speech".

A billion Hindus would disagree with you.

Yes, it should be clarified we are talking about the Nazi swastika.

Unfortunately in the West, the Nazi use of the swastika dominates the public perception of the symbol. (This is very unfortunate given the long historical tradition of the swastika in Asia and other cultures.)

As far as I'm aware, legally, context matters significantly in places where the symbol is banned; eg the Nazi swastika is outlawed in Germany because it represents a banned political ideology, whereas a Hindu swastika is not.

They didn't ban political symbols, they ban bullying and acting disrespectfully. The swastika fits that, the LGBT flag doesn't.

This might not be the case, but it feels like you're acting naive to further an agenda.

If that's the case, I have to say that for the political views of many people, an LGBT flag is as disrespectful or dangerous to society as a swastika can be to any individual or group. Being unable to see that just proves further that reddit admins are biased.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything; everybody has their own views and trying to change them over the internet is a waste of time. So this off-topic for me ends here.

I'm glad you brought it back to my original point so I didn't have to:

> are you actually comparing Nazi symbolism to the LGBT flag?

Again, you're comparing a symbol for a culture/organization that committed _genocide_, to the symbol of a group that was a victim of that genocide. Then you have the audacity to say they could be similarly offensive?

Take your thinly-veiled fascism elsewhere.

Okay, what the fuck does this have to do with fascism?

I'm really annoyed with the overuse of that term. Not every asshole who is wrong is a fascist.

Where does your link say that swastikas are not allowed? Does a swastika "encourage or incite violence"?

I'm curious since I don't ban swastikas on my site, although some of my users ask me to.

It's more about reddit being able to sell ads than anything else.

I'd say it falls under:

> Threatens, harasses, or bullies or encourages others to do so

Interesting that they allow the hammer and sickle.

While some users might feel that way, I'm not sure how an image (which is a collection of pixels on a screen that has many different historical interpretations) would threaten, harass or bully someone. Or incite it.

Of course, these days ad networks are hyper-sensitive about this topic, so from an advertising perspective it does make sense.

I don't want to assume you lack a connection to swastikas used as they were during the Holocaust.

For me personally, my grandfather and his family were persecuted along with other family members and friends. My grandfather was even beaten by Hitler Youth, among experiencing other horrible events (Kristallnacht in particular). I wish it weren't the case but the symbol is strongly associated with the feelings from this era of time.

So yes, an image (which is a collection of pixels on a screen) does feel bullying to me. Maybe it's not active bullying where someone is specifically setting out to piss me off/scare me/whatever, but it's most certainly passive bullying because unfortunately there are people who still feel very strongly about it and its use in one of the most horrible eras of history.

While I do empathise with you (my family wasn't under fascist rule, they were under communist rule), I disagree with your way of approaching the issue.

In my mind, the best way of ridding ourselves of the mistakes of the past is to stop holding their symbolism as something that should be banned. It's the same with offensive words -- by keeping them as "things you should never say" you're effectively giving them power which goes against your wishes to eradicate the power they once had.

Do you think that Hitler (or Stalin, Tito, Mao, Pot) would prefer that you made fun of them and lightheartedly used the symbolism they held dear or that you feared them after the deaths of their regimes?

All of that being said, I completely understand why you would feel the way you do.

My grandparents lived in Europe during World War II and were also negatively affected by the Nazis.

While it's normal to find display of Nazi symbology distasteful, considering it bullying or taking personal offense is really not reasonable, unless it's done as an attempt to embarrass/mock you, personally.

Bullying is absolutely the wrong word for people who are going about their business without specific negative intent.

Like others, I hope that the swastika loses its strong association with Nazism. That's not going to happen if we continue to freak out and cry about our hurt feelings every time one is displayed.

That is not bullying, it is you taking offense to pixels. Which you are perfectly free to do, but nobody is bullying you by putting their art online.

Why is it so important to accommodate trolls and nazis? If a stranger in my house at a party drew a swastika on my wall, I'm kicking him out. If someone on my website did the same, I would also remove him. It's not me getting offended, it's just curation of the community.

If someone doesn't want to follow the social norms of the community they're in, fine, but they'll pay the consequences. They can form their own community if they want.

I don't want to accommodate trolls and nazis, I don't really care about their agenda and would probably delete such a comment if it was posted in my blog.

The only thing I take offense to is the victimizing language of "bullying" being used here. Putting up free speech online, if it's not targeted to specific people, chronic, and abusive, is not "bullying". It's just in poor taste or offensive. If you own a space online and want to remove distasteful or offensive material, that's completely your right. But don't frame it as bullying, or any sort of persecution.

It's provocative - it taunts free society and those who suffered for its sake, for a cause that our society has nearly unanimously condemned. It's overtly disrespectful and intended to cause distress or annoyance. Some would define that as bullying and some wouldn't; either way, I wouldn't care to accommodate those people on my sites.

If someone wants to defend a controversial view, they need to learn how to effectively communicate it, rather than expect others to graciously welcome it. Let the idea's merits be its own defense. If it's only defense is, "well at least it's not technically illegal to say", then maybe it wasn't worth saying in the first place.

>If a stranger in my house at a party drew a swastika on my wall, I'm kicking him out. //

So you say "draw what you like on the walls" and then punish a follow of Vishnu because you associate the symbol differently to them. Don't invite strangers to draw stuff on your walls then?

>If someone doesn't want to follow the social norms of the community they're in //

Such as free speech. Don't give people freedom of speech and then chastise them for speaking freely. If they act immorally, or unethically, or illegally, sure ... but don't punish people for art alone.

Context is important. Communication is as much about interpretation as intent. If you draw a swastika in an environment where a swastika represents nazis, without taking the care to establish the context in which you would not be misrepresented, then sorry, I'm erasing it. 99.999% of the time an unadorned swastika is drawn anonymously in public in a Western environment, it's not the religious kind. So save it for a situation where the meaning is clear.

I didn't give anyone freedom of speech. If someone calls me racial slurs in my house, I'm kicking them out. Freedom of speech is for the courts, not for curating the communities I want to be in.

>99.999% of the time an unadorned swastika is drawn anonymously in public in a Western environment, it's not the religious kind.

Ok, so drawing it is an act of rebellion that tells us something about people, in a piece of public, open, collaborative art that's a good thing.

I want to hear opposing views to my own, if someone sincerely rallies behind a swastika/flag/emblem i want to see, learn why, not usher them away. Reddit has much more abhorrent content than a simple emblem.

You're of course right, you don't have to give free speech. But it helps to do so occasionally especially when the medium prevents any actual harm coming from it.

Nazis had their moment; we as a civilization already "rebutted" their arguments and decided their worldview is incompatible with ours. If they think they have a better case now, they better present it more eloquently than with provocative symbols.

If someone is wrong a 100 times, why listen to them the 101st time? Also, if their first 50 arguments involved massacring millions, why should we entertain _any_ future argument of theirs? In fact, perhaps entertaining the first 50 ones is what lead to such violence. If we give unlimited room to violent ideas, how can we be surprised when violence takes form?

Why give speech to those whose goal is to deny speech and life itself? I would argue that giving free speech to ideas that goes against the principles of a free society is not only a huge waste of time, but a big danger.

That's why I separated the kind of bullying it is.

Maybe I didn't explain my thought-process very well, but the idea is it may have not been directed specifically to bully, but by making statements, like "you're taking offense to pixels", there is an unintentional/passive form of bullying going on. It gives off the feeling of "well not everybody feels this way so it's just you and you shouldn't really be feeling this anymore or at all". Not everybody can just shut off feelings like that or desensitize themselves from a symbol. Plain and simple. It's just not that easy.

IMO bullying can also make someone feel uncomfortable; not necessarily in a threatening sense, but in a way where the person just doesn't feel right, like they don't fit in properly- the bullying makes them stand out and not in a 'good' way.

Somebody who does not even know you exist, puts up a drawing which they have no idea whether you will see or not, for their own purposes which you have no way of knowing, and you happen to come across it and feel bad. I think it's not fair to the word "bullying" to use it in this context.

There's a point where the word is no longer appropriate--I think "passive" bullying is an oxymoron. A bully is someone who targets someone else, and makes that person feel bad by repeatedly abusing them verbally and physically. This is a very bad thing, which is why the word is powerful, but it's very different from words like "offensive", which is more in line with what you mean. You are made uncomfortable by it, the poster likely has no intention whatsoever toward you.

The symbols, especially in this particular context, are put up as representations of the communities (and their ideals) that put them there.

What community does the swastika represent and what are their ideals?

The 'passive' bullying is done by displaying the symbol in a public space to 'bully' those who recognize it as a message that they are not welcome and not wanted in that space.

> The 'passive' bullying is done by displaying the symbol in a public space to 'bully' those who recognize it as a message that they are not welcome and not wanted in that space.

I just don't buy this part. How do you know this is the intention? I'm assuming that it's just a picture of a swastika, not a targeted message of hate. How can you be so sure that they are out to send you this message? Are we in the realm of thought crime?

The very idea of bullying to me is a protracted, targeted, abusive thing. It does the kids who go through true bullying every day injustice to say that one off, untargeted, pixel art is in any way, shape, or form, bullying. It can be highly offensive, disgusting, and discomforting, or it can be artistic, clever, funny, and thought provoking--you'll never know if you sensor the speech by calling it "bullying".

It is protracted because it happens almost everywhere on the internet (at least where people are pseudo-anonymous).

Bullying doesn't have to be targeted. A student who constantly walks around school halls indiscriminately slamming shut open lockers and pushing people out of their way would surely be labeled a bully.

It's abusive because of the context.

I fully agree that representations of hate presented in an artistic, clever, funny, or thought provoking way should not be stifled because their place in the conversation around preventing hate and evil is important.

But I think it's a long stretch to call the swastikas in /r/Place artistic, clever, funny, or thought provoking.

A sibling comment mentions: >Honestly, in this case it was probably mostly representing rebellious teenagers who love to offend the easily offended, not nazis or nazi symphatizers.

A very simple way to send the message that their "one off, untargeted, pixel art" of a symbol commonly described as "highly offensive, disgusting, and discomforting" is not "artistic, clever, funny, and thought provoking" is to have it removed.

Out of interest, what is your opinion about jokes related to Nazis? Are skits that have a swastika in them bad because they have a swastika in them? If someone says something that is clearly a white supremacist ideal, but doesn't use a swastika, does that make their message any less bad?

From my experience "symbol X is offensive" doesn't actually help distinguish between malicious and non-malicious people because the thing that makes someone malicious is their actions and views, not the iconography they use to express said actions and views.

>From my experience "symbol X is offensive" doesn't actually help distinguish between malicious and non-malicious people because the thing that makes someone malicious is their actions and views, not the iconography they use to express said actions and views.

I completely agree with this.

I think most content creators make a conscious effort to make their intent known through the work.

For Example, movies like "Inglourious Basterds" or "Downfall" are clearly using Nazi iconography to build the aesthetic of their world without suggesting they support the ideals of the real-world Nazis.

Perhaps a more poignant current example is youtube personality JonTron. The basic gist as I understand it is: He occasionally makes off-color or insensitive jokes that could easily be considered offensive but are generally regarded as OK because the intent is understood to be a place of comedy. Now after defending some racist remarks, his past statements are seen in a new light that makes their original intent less clear.

I do think it's something important to discuss and we clearly can't have a discussion if what we want to talk about is a banned taboo. But I also think it's clearly wrong to treat any hate-speech/iconography as if somehow doesn't have all that extra cultural baggage.

> Perhaps a more poignant current example is youtube personality JonTron. [...]

I think it's at the very least disingenuous to claim that his recent remarks are racist (the more we use that word, the more watered down it becomes). And it's also sad that people assume that your politics cannot change either.

My reading of the situation is that he was just doing a thought-experiment and asking why multiculturalism is only an issue in the western world. It's true that he appears to be more right-leaning than other people in the skeptic "community" but that view is not racist. It's just a question. When he went on to "debate" someone else, it's quite clear that he hasn't debated this topic before and it's quite clear that he probably hasn't heard any of the counter-arguments to his points before (because he hasn't argued them before). Would he change his mind if he had heard those counter arguments? Would he refine his opinions? Maybe, but calling him a racist doesn't help anyone. I would've assumed people learned that with all of the recent political events (Brexit, Trump, everything that's happening in Europe), they'd realise that calling everyone a misogynist/racist/Nazi doesn't actually help...

> But I also think it's clearly wrong to treat any hate-speech/iconography as if somehow doesn't have all that extra cultural baggage.

Right, but "cultural baggage" doesn't appear to me to be a justification for wanting such things banned or not allowed. I find some of 4chan's trolling distasteful and I probably wouldn't have done what they did, but I would never say they shouldn't be allowed to do what they do (not the least of all because I find some of their trolling quite funny).

The basic point I'm trying to make is that it really depends on intent and that intent can be difficult to accurately determine.

I agree that a zero-tolerance total ban is not right and not justified. Because intelligent respectful conversation is the only way to "unpack" that "cultural baggage".

The problem is, when that conversation isn't clearly respectful and intelligent it just isn't helping and only adds noise. It is to our benefit overall to filter out that noise.

> What community does the swastika represent and what are their ideals?

Honestly, in this case it was probably mostly representing rebellious teenagers who love to offend the easily offended, not nazis or nazi symphatizers.

Yeah exactly, it's all just edgy trolling from 4chan. When did trolling suddenly become equivalent to being a Nazi?

It's not the equivalent of being a nazi and I don't think anyone's perception was "We have to ban these literally goose stepping nazi's from our reddit website"

The just saw exactly what you described. Edgy trolls posting nazi stuff.

> I don't think anyone's perception was "We have to ban these literally goose stepping nazi's from our reddit website"

You might say that, but for some reason a lot of people appear to believe that pepe and milk are symbols of white supremacy and that YouTubers making edgy jokes are suddenly literal Nazis. Actual mainstream publications are publishing this crap.

The same argument could be made against almost any national flag. It represents a force who committed acts against my ancestors that I find deplorable. [Fake example:] Like, USA revolutionaries murdered my ancestors. Or, USA soldiers tortured my family members during the Gulf War.

Obviously the degree is different, so perhaps a Chinese flag for Tibetans, or a Turkish Flag for Armenians [estimates suggest 1.5Million murdered 100years ago], or ...

USA, where I assume the controlling decisions for Reddit are made, is known for "freedom of speech" which makes this sort of control of speech stand out more starkly.

How do you differentiate the supposed support for one set of actions with the apparent support for another equally vile set of actions in such cases. Clearly you can go personal in the analysis, but what about when your personal analysis conflicts with millions of others?

Might have more to do with criminal liability due to certain countries straight up banning the symbol, like Germany [0]. In addition to that, the German law does hold operators of websites liable for any law-breaking comments/posts/whatever made by users of the site [1].

If somebody spreads something illegal on your comments/forums/whatever, and you fail to delete it, the German state will hold you, as the operator of said site, responsible and not the person who actually posted that stuff.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a

[1] http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/06/11/meinprofde...

Re-worded: While some users might feel that way, I'm not sure how a slogan (which is a collection of pixels on a screen that has many different historical interpretations) would threaten, harass, or bully someone.

We have to accept that the things we do online can have real-world repercussions, even if they're just pixels on a screen.

Interesting. Where there actually any real instances of the admins needing to step in like that?

I saw some posts early on on the subreddit where a lot of people collectively resolved to erase swastikas on sight, so I just kinda assumed that was the reason why symbols like that never stayed up for long.

> It's worth nothing that the admins did actively ban users trying to make swastikas.

I've heard it hypothesised, but I haven't seen any evidence. Swastikas did appear and disappear again, but what makes you think this was admin action?

I wonder how they decided who was a willing participant. If I was a troll, I would try to create one with as many 'innocent' pixels as possible and get people banned for placing pixels they didn't know would become a swastika.

If it's anything it would be the moderators of r/Place. The admin's job is more of administration level (sitewide), and it's more of picking up where the mod privileges end.

There are subs where swastikas are allowed.

The moderators of place are the admins, since it was an official reddit function ;)

Right, but theres a difference between a suspension/sidewide ban and a ban in a sub. One can be done by the admins while the other is done by the mods on a subreddit level.

I wonder, are these subs blocked for users from e.g. Germany and Austria, where the swastika is still banned?

I would hope not. Bans on speech and expression don't work. Besides Reddit isn't based in Germany or France.

Reddit is provided by the owners to people in Germany, say. You can't ship goods/services to Germany bearing swastikas, AIUI, under their law. If Reddit sell to Germany (eg Reddit Gold) then they likely broke the law. /IANAL

The only sub that returns a 421 ("Unavailable For Legal Reasons") here in Germany is r/watchpeopledie, as can be seen in Reddit's latest transparency report.