[WikiEN-l] Re: new user

Tue Feb 15 23:57:54 UTC 2005

Theresa Knott wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:24:49 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> 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?  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.
>>
>>In the same way money is intrinsically worthless.  A dollar bill has
>>value when you roll it up and use it to snort coke.
>>    
>>
>Any chance of you'all taking this to private email? You are no longer
>discussing  a wikipedia related issue.
>  
>
Theresa, have you already forgotten that you were the one who started 
this thread just because you didn't like someone having Nazi symbols on 
his user page.

Determining whether the Hitler, Stalin or Bush regimes were in fact 
murderous may indeed be outside the scope of this mailing list, but 
addressing how we handle symbols is very much on topic.  It is certainly 
more on topic than an extensive thread about trivialities such as 
autofellatio.

Ec