Music Banter - Su-asti-ka

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)

- - Su-asti-ka (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/78042-su-asti-ka.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Larehip (Post 1471022)

The argument thus presented in the form of a question of why does there need to be a positive representation of the swastika answers itself--to restore its meaning stolen by the likes of the poster who asked the question and those who agree him.

Someone said to go around town wearing one and see what happens as though this brilliant retort somehow negates my argument. It is precisely WHY the swastika should be unstagmatized in the West. Get over yourselves. You're no more important than anyone else--I know you don't believe that but, trust me on this one. And if we are going to be SO inflexibly self-righteous about this then make sure when you see that Buddhist monk (yes, we have a Buddhist monastery here in town) wearing a swastika medallion--go kick his f-ucking ass. And be sure to tell him that it doesn't matter why he wears it, it only matters what you think of it. The rest of our bright, educated society will back you--"Hell, who does he think he is? He shoulda known better'n to wear that. F-uck, I'da kicked his ass, too."

And while we're on the subject of how much WW2 and Holocaust changed society--so what?? So did the Inquisition, so did the Japanese-American Internment, so did the atom bomb. So did the millions of children sexually abused by the Catholic Church (remember, it's been going on for centuries) "But that's not even close!" REALLY?? Well, as long as we see fit to turn this into an ouch contest--go tell a sexual abuse survivor that what he went through was nothing compared to what the Nazis did. Tell that to an atom bomb survivor I'm sure they'll thank you for setting them straight.

The bottom line is that there is no credible reason that the swastika should be reviled because one group of murderers and thugs chose to use it as a symbol. That's happened many times in history but only the swastika has suffered that fate and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Before some self-righteous ass decides to lecture me again about the f-ucking Jews just remember that they weren't the only people to suffer in WW2 and they certainly weren't the only people to suffer in all of history. It's happened before, folks, it's happening right now and it will happen again. The truth is, it never stops happening but because of media brainwashing we have frozen this one period of suffering in time and elevated it above all other suffering to further Israel's ambitions and that is bulls-hit. And holding an ancient symbol responsible for that suffering is not only bulls-hit, it's retarded bulls-hit. Grow the f-uck up.

I love that in this post you not only accused me of being self righteous in a thread where your whole point is literally to be so yourself, but then you said "World War 2 Changed things, but so did the Atom bomb!" as if those were two unrelated things. Ridiculous.

You're a deluded, self-aggrandizing, grandstanding blowhard who consistently pours his own time into endless pontification over arguments for which you've failed to reconcile any of the evidence you so painstakingly compile, with any actual point you'd like to make of your own.

it's a shame that the nazis ruined the swastika for everyone, it is aesthetically speaking a pretty cool symbol.

i wonder though why is it especially offensive compared to say the imperial sun of japan or the sickle and hammer of the soviet union. in terms of evil and indifference to human life these regimes were more or less on par... why is special symbolic significance attributed to the swastika?

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth (Post 1471038)

it's a shame that the nazis ruined the swastika for everyone, it is aesthetically speaking a pretty cool symbol.

i wonder though why is it especially offensive compared to say the imperial sun of japan or the sickle and hammer of the soviet union. in terms of evil and indifference to human life these regimes were more or less on par... why is special symbolic significance attributed to the swastika?

I think that's your issue right there. WW2 was instigated by the Nazis and is the single largest recorded loss of human life to war in all of history, on top of being enacted by a party who sought to subjugate and completely dehumanise to the point of genocide, a group of people who had done nothing wrong. The only comparable death toll ever recorded was that of the mongol conquests. The expansion and establishment of an empire over decades.

To say that other regimes were on par with that is stretching it. They were awful, yes. But they weren't that.

Also those symbols are considered offensive in many places. Just not places that weren't affected by japanese imperialism. Which is to say - not in the US or Europe. (Unless you've researched it and read up on the context...)

i would agree that ww2 was instigated by the nazis... yet i don't think that is why the swastika is specifically reviled. ww1 was arguably instigated by a variety of different powers and was a more or less equivalent loss of life yet none of those regimes personify evil in our modern frame of reference in quite the same way.

the nazis are reviled because they were genocidal fanatics. the soviet regime was every bit as genocidal and fanatic. i will not emphasize japan as much since i don't know as much about them... but from what i've heard... yea

edit: and let us not forget that the soviets actually helped the nazis instigate ww2 by jointly invading poland, which is where the war really kicked off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth (Post 1471043)

edit: and let us not forget that the soviets actually helped the nazis instigate ww2 by jointly invading poland, which is where the war really kicked off.

Almost. The Soviets allowed the invasion of Poland to happen due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939. They did not take part.

And without question, Stalin's USSR is definitely part of the conversation of all-time wicked regimes, which may explain why you don't see a lot of sickle & hammer symbolism anymore either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus (Post 1471050)

Almost. The Soviets allowed the invasion of Poland to happen due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939. They did not take part.

i could have swore they did both invade and occupy poland, and so i did a quick google search:

Invasion of Poland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they basically agreed with the germans to invade and divide poland between them, after germany tried and failed to ally with poland in order to jointly attack the soviet union. correct? if so they seem pretty culpable for the war's escalation in my book.

Quote:

And without question, Stalin's USSR is definitely part of the conversation of all-time wicked regimes, which may explain why you don't see a lot of sickle & hammer symbolism anymore either.

yea but it's not nearly as reviled as the swastika, is it? i've seen t-shirts with the sickle and hammer on it... i would tend to guess most people honestly either are unaware of how horrible the soviet regime was or they don't even know what that symbol means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Larehip (Post 1470743)

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...f92969c545.jpg
Aztec calendar.

http://www.hasbro.com/common/product...357FF8E8C7.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth (Post 1471043)

ww1 was arguably instigated by a variety of different powers and was a more or less equivalent loss of life yet none of those regimes personify evil in our modern frame of reference in quite the same way.

i want to correct this after having googled the figures. clearly i was wrong about them being nearly equivalent. i'd say instead that a huge portion of the dead in ww2 were civilians murdered in genocides instead of just soldier deaths. so to be honest i'm not sure the millions of soviet murders of their own civilians for ideological, nationalistic and economic reasons should be blamed on germany for starting the war in europe. nor the millions of dead in the asian theater.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth (Post 1471052)

germany tried and failed to ally with poland in order to jointly attack the soviet union. correct? if so they seem pretty culpable for the war's escalation in my book.

They absolutely were, no doubt, and Stalin knew perfectly well that Hitler would turn on the Red Army. Stalin was baiting Hitler, as no one has ever (even to this day) successfully invaded Russia, it's so vast that all they had to do was keep pulling back and let the Siberian Winter win the war for them, which is exactly what they did in WWII. Yes, that action cost them millions of lives, but Stalin didn't care. He knew that he would come out the victor of the spoils.

And there was never going to be a "merger" of Poland. Anymore that he intended to "merge" the Sudetenland without taking over in Czechoslovakia. If it was handed to him like Czechoslovakia and Austria were, well he'd have taken it, but he'd played one too many "no more land demand" cards with the Sudetenland

i remember reading that stalin was actually in denial about the prospect that hitler was going to attack him prior to operation barbarossa. that he was actually warned about the attack on good intelligence and ignored the warnings because he didn't think hitler would be that foolish.

but yea i've also read they both ultimately expected to clash eventually. they were diametrically opposed in ideology and both had their eyes on the same land in eastern europe to feed/fund their respective empires.

edit: also, i think the soviets had a good reason to agree with the invasion and dismantling of poland, even if the 'agreement' was only to be temporary. the poles were one of their main perceived threats at the time to such an extent that pole within the soviet sphere were persecuted as possible subversives and agents of the polish state.