Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
If you think the ideals on which the Nazi Party traded were overtly murderous, you are mistaken.
Essentially, what you're saying appears to be: "The hammer and sickle is okay because it has been sensationalized differently." That roughly equates to saying "It's no big deal: it's just a symbol."
If it's just a symbol, the same is true of the swastika. If the swastika is "a symbol of a murderous regime," though, then the hammer and sickle is as well. Please, either ascribe abhorrence to both or to neither. I'll respect either decision. Just don't try to pretend that one is okay and the other is not.
Are we talking about the symbol, or what associations have been made to it?
Yes.
In your option I would prefer to ascribe abhorrence to neither. The symbols alone just sit there and do nothing. It's what people do with them that makes the difference.
Great.
In the same way money is intrinsically worthless. A dollar bill has value when you roll it up and use it to snort coke.
. . . or make little bowtie shapes as party favors. Currency is only a means of keeping track of trade value: it is not the value itself. I agree with you 100% on that.
-- Chad