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.