Subject:
|
Re: What's actually the task of the moderators on BrickShelf?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:39:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1039 times
|
| |
|
|
"Johannes 'Jojo' Koehler" <chutspe@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:I2pBv7.1uJp@lugnet.com...
> Hello!
>
>
> > There are a lot of people who think Nazi uniforms, logos, designs, and
> > equipment were "cool". That doesn't mean they want to be a Nazi or that
> > they think that the Nazi (aka: National Socialist German Workers Party)
> > ideals are similar to their own.
>
> Yes. Those people think Nazi symbols and uniforms are cool because of the
> background, not because of their sheer look.
I disagree. I recognize the amazing talent of Nazi designers of the time.
Their engineers especially, but also their graphic designers. Nazi
propaganda posters are often amazing works from an artistic standpoint. And
Hitler was a real innovator when he made it a priority to create a "Nazi
Brand".
But that doesn't mean I prefer Nazis to the Allied forces which had equally
amazing graphic design, artwork, uniforms and technical achievements
(arguably more so because they won!). I'm very glad to be the grandson of a
man who saw fit to join the US army and put a stop to Nazi agression, and I
want to prevent that kind of thing from happening in the future.
The tools of prevention are not censorship (for this is the tool of
oppressors everywhere). Instead, we should use free speech to engage Nazi
sympathizers and let them know that we find their views offensive. If
enough people truly find the persons works offensive, they will get a bad
reputation and probably go elsewhere.
Have you communicated with the person who built the Lego models in question
and explained your concerns yourself? The alternative is to hide behind a
moderator who simply opresses - and doesn't engage the offender or otherwise
question their views. I prefer the community approach to maintaining order
in a community - not central authority.
> I understand you want to say allusively that _I_ am the narrow-minded • idiot who
> wants to restrict people's human right of expressing their opinion? Well, • maybe
> I am. However, I think every individual's human right ends at the point • where it
> affects the human rights of another indidiual. And I felt offended by this
> romanticising of the fascistic German Reich. It's everybody's right to be • a
> Nazi-sympathiser. And it's my right to hate them.
First, I don't think it has been proven that the person in question was
making a pro-Nazi statement by building red and gray airplanes and giving
them German names.
I agree that an individuals rights end when they impinge on another
individual's rights. I don't however believe that you have a *right* to not
be offended. You do have the right to speak out about things that offend
you, and to perhaps expose Nazi sympathizers for what they are. But you
need to be careful about crying wolf.
And for the record, I think everyone has the right to protect themselves
(for example, from Nazis and other oppressors). I don't think you have a
*right* to hate people, nor do Nazis. One reason you do not have the right
to hate people is that it "affects the human rights of another individual"
as you said.
> And yes, I'm against the censorship on BrickShelf. For my part this folder • I
> mentioned doesn't need to be removed. However, now that we have the • censorship
> it should at least be fair.
Embracing censorship seems like a curious way to fight it. Reverse
psychology?
> So one person may find the picture of a female bosom
> covered by a LEGO-shirt offensive (That's what started the whole • censorship
> affair on BS) because things like that poisen childeren's minds... Well, I • don't
> think so.
I think you said that you think the breast censorship was silly, and I have
to agree. Only the perverted could find a womans breast offensive.
If the female breast poisons a childs mind then why do so many mothers
expose their young children to them multiple times daily?
I'm really confused by breasts offending people. In my city (Columbus, OH),
it is legal for women to be in public topless. On the other hand, it is
unacceptable to represent what is legal on the sidewalk in front of my house
on the television. Moreover, a woman at a local waterpark (with hundreds of
scantily clad women in bikinis) was accosted by security when she tried to
feed her baby (that is what breasts are FOR).
The "right" for some pervert "to be unoffended" conflicts with a helpless
babies right to nurse - to me that is where the right ends.
People are *taught* to be offended. There is no such thing as a bad word
without public consensus.
> I instead find glorification of fascism offensive and poisoning
> people's minds. But that seems not to be an issue for the • censors/moderators.
> And that's why I started this topic.
All I've said is that I'm not sure that the person was trying to offend
people, and that I don't see a problem with emulating Nazi color schemes on
airplanes or naming them in German. It seems that you are reading a lot
into this.
> The pictures of the LEGO creations aren't bad at all. It's the folder
> description that I worry about.
>
> Since I'm not American I'm not supposed to care about this upcoming
election :-)
I can understand that since you can't vote. On the other hand, we might
invade your country next - unless it already has a McDonalds! :P
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
44 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
