Books are special cases, because they can be considered discussions. And, often, they're nonthreatening discussions. Pick up the book if you'd like, read it, think about it, respond by talking to others or writing letters. Great way to advance knowledge.
But here's a different context: I see somebody spray painting a wall in an alley. If they're painting a flower or a portrait, I might hang around or come back later to see the result. If they're painting a swastika, I'm more likely to avoid that alley from then on.
Symbols mean something. If they didn't, nobody would bother using them.
Books aren't considered special cases, as the prosecutions in Germany for using one on the cover of a book about politics show.
Your hypothetical spray painter could be using the symbol in many different ways and contexts, of course, including criticism or analogy. Whether you'd avoid it or not would probably depend on what the rest of the painting meant.
A symbol or word carries no inherent meaning. We give it subjective meaning. That meaning is constructed socially through a shared understanding of what that symbol means through context and intention.
The same symbol or word can have multiple, and sometimes opposite, meanings, in different contexts.
It's regulated in such a way that it's absolutely allowed to use it to criticize the political opposition, which is why Der Spiegel can not only use it but show it combined with the German flag:
Books are special cases, because they can be considered discussions. And, often, they're nonthreatening discussions. Pick up the book if you'd like, read it, think about it, respond by talking to others or writing letters. Great way to advance knowledge.
But here's a different context: I see somebody spray painting a wall in an alley. If they're painting a flower or a portrait, I might hang around or come back later to see the result. If they're painting a swastika, I'm more likely to avoid that alley from then on.
Symbols mean something. If they didn't, nobody would bother using them.
Books aren't considered special cases, as the prosecutions in Germany for using one on the cover of a book about politics show.
Your hypothetical spray painter could be using the symbol in many different ways and contexts, of course, including criticism or analogy. Whether you'd avoid it or not would probably depend on what the rest of the painting meant.
Read about semantics and social constructionism.
A symbol or word carries no inherent meaning. We give it subjective meaning. That meaning is constructed socially through a shared understanding of what that symbol means through context and intention.
The same symbol or word can have multiple, and sometimes opposite, meanings, in different contexts.
Exactly. You're not disagreeing with me.
Swastika use in Germany is heavily regulated. It is certainly not free to use symbol.
It's regulated in such a way that it's absolutely allowed to use it to criticize the political opposition, which is why Der Spiegel can not only use it but show it combined with the German flag:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...
... but CJ Hopkins is prosecuted repeatedly for using it on the cover of a book that criticized COVID policies (no double jeopardy rule there!)
That is allowed use, Germans actually have fairy sane laws. Swastika is heavily regulated and that regulation allows this particular use.
So basically you are agreeing with the GP that it's regulated?
1 reply →
[flagged]
You can't post this kind of ideological flamewar (not to mention personal attack) to HN and we ban accounts that do, so please don't.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
Posting like this will get you banned here, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. No more of this, please.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
1 reply →