There must have been a breakdown somewhere in our objective view of reality when doing fascist salutes at the inauguration of the largest tech-business bearing country in the world, by the wealthiest tech CEO in the world, are whittled down to "Celebrity troll moves". I don't know if HN is beyond saving, but it does feel like it tows the line when it comes to techno-fascism.
I wonder if there were any concerned engineers at IBM who tried to raise their voices over the tabulating machines being sold to Nazi Germany? If there were, I bet they heard similar things as today when they were brushed off.
I would like to see a discussions on about ethics and symbolism. The hand on heart, and then a gesture of throwing it outwards towards the public while saying "My heart goes out to you" is a very different symbolic gesture compared to a salute were a person execute it by extending the right arm stiff to an upward 45° angle and then straightening the hand so that it is parallel to the arm. In term of symbolism, what create the difference in interpretation? How much does the context of the speech and speaker influence how the symbolic gesture get interpreted?
In terms of ethics, if the intention is to generate outrage in order to generate views and media coverage, does media coverage help or harm? Research on violence has has reached a fairly strong consensus that symbolism and displaying of cultural values is a major contributor for continued violence and conflicts. What should be the most effective (and ethical) strategy in reducing such display?
Watch this at 00:35. Debunks your entire point about "the look" with Hitler doing the salute exactly as Musk did it.
I'm from Switzerland / Swiss German and maybe we just watched way more WW2 docs in high school and had more exposure to the various ways a Nazi salute can be done, but across the German speaking sphere we all saw this as a Nazi salute. In this variation it was often done with hand on breast during "Sieg!" and then the extension with "Heil!".
If the goal here is the show that intellectual curiosity can be had by a discussions on ethics and symbolism, I would recommend reading the comment in the best light possible and find the strongest arguments to talk about. Comments like "Debunks your entire point" does not do that and only closes the discussion. For the purpose of this thread that started with the question of "Why is this flagged", I would like to see if its possible to have that discussion.
The many published ww2 documentaries do indeed shows some variability in the Nazi salute, just like that youtube video you linked. The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute) definition and their linked sources do not include the "hand on heart" part, which may indicate how common different versions are. The added "My heart goes out to you" statement to it is also seems like an very uncommon addition. A question we could ask is what people in the rally interpreted the gesture as in the context of the whole speech. Did they see it as an variable form of the Nazi salute, or did they interpret it as a gesture of gratitude?
Gestures has a natural ambitiousness in them. A person taking a knee in front of a king is different from a person taking a knee in front of a significant other and asking their hand in for marriage. The context and additional variability (like saying "do you want to marry me") changes the meaning of the gesture. In order for it to be one or the other the whole picture, context and gesture, need to align.
If the discussions is about ethics and symbolism we should also look at the ethics part. Political rallies are seemingly about displaying symbols and generating boundaries between in-groups and out-groups. If the gesture was intended to be an ambiguous Nazi salute in order to ignite controversy, we can look at what the consequences are. The in-group feels attacked, while the out-group becomes a threat for which the in-group can rally against. This strengthen the bonds of the in-group. It also increases political violence and instability, with both group "othering" each other. By instantly and publicly distance himself from the others interpretation, there is a gain of presenting themselves as the "true" anti-nazi and friends to Israel, especially now in the context of the current war in Gaza. This kind of political maneuvering is not that uncommon in far left and far right. Political researchers and analysts often remark that this create a problem of actually identity what the movement actually believes in, since the message is not in the actually words (or gestures), but rather in the intended outcome. The ambiguousness also create an environment that invites more extreme members which can be used to gain votes, or to kick out when there is political points to be gained.
There must have been a breakdown somewhere in our objective view of reality when doing fascist salutes at the inauguration of the largest tech-business bearing country in the world, by the wealthiest tech CEO in the world, are whittled down to "Celebrity troll moves". I don't know if HN is beyond saving, but it does feel like it tows the line when it comes to techno-fascism.
A discussion worth having, if we could.
I wonder if there were any concerned engineers at IBM who tried to raise their voices over the tabulating machines being sold to Nazi Germany? If there were, I bet they heard similar things as today when they were brushed off.
Yes. This is beyond surreal. Is this normalized now? Since when? I don't understand.
I would like to see a discussions on about ethics and symbolism. The hand on heart, and then a gesture of throwing it outwards towards the public while saying "My heart goes out to you" is a very different symbolic gesture compared to a salute were a person execute it by extending the right arm stiff to an upward 45° angle and then straightening the hand so that it is parallel to the arm. In term of symbolism, what create the difference in interpretation? How much does the context of the speech and speaker influence how the symbolic gesture get interpreted?
In terms of ethics, if the intention is to generate outrage in order to generate views and media coverage, does media coverage help or harm? Research on violence has has reached a fairly strong consensus that symbolism and displaying of cultural values is a major contributor for continued violence and conflicts. What should be the most effective (and ethical) strategy in reducing such display?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qDRYi1IYI2o&t=35s&pp=2AEjkAIB
Watch this at 00:35. Debunks your entire point about "the look" with Hitler doing the salute exactly as Musk did it.
I'm from Switzerland / Swiss German and maybe we just watched way more WW2 docs in high school and had more exposure to the various ways a Nazi salute can be done, but across the German speaking sphere we all saw this as a Nazi salute. In this variation it was often done with hand on breast during "Sieg!" and then the extension with "Heil!".
If the goal here is the show that intellectual curiosity can be had by a discussions on ethics and symbolism, I would recommend reading the comment in the best light possible and find the strongest arguments to talk about. Comments like "Debunks your entire point" does not do that and only closes the discussion. For the purpose of this thread that started with the question of "Why is this flagged", I would like to see if its possible to have that discussion.
The many published ww2 documentaries do indeed shows some variability in the Nazi salute, just like that youtube video you linked. The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute) definition and their linked sources do not include the "hand on heart" part, which may indicate how common different versions are. The added "My heart goes out to you" statement to it is also seems like an very uncommon addition. A question we could ask is what people in the rally interpreted the gesture as in the context of the whole speech. Did they see it as an variable form of the Nazi salute, or did they interpret it as a gesture of gratitude?
Gestures has a natural ambitiousness in them. A person taking a knee in front of a king is different from a person taking a knee in front of a significant other and asking their hand in for marriage. The context and additional variability (like saying "do you want to marry me") changes the meaning of the gesture. In order for it to be one or the other the whole picture, context and gesture, need to align.
If the discussions is about ethics and symbolism we should also look at the ethics part. Political rallies are seemingly about displaying symbols and generating boundaries between in-groups and out-groups. If the gesture was intended to be an ambiguous Nazi salute in order to ignite controversy, we can look at what the consequences are. The in-group feels attacked, while the out-group becomes a threat for which the in-group can rally against. This strengthen the bonds of the in-group. It also increases political violence and instability, with both group "othering" each other. By instantly and publicly distance himself from the others interpretation, there is a gain of presenting themselves as the "true" anti-nazi and friends to Israel, especially now in the context of the current war in Gaza. This kind of political maneuvering is not that uncommon in far left and far right. Political researchers and analysts often remark that this create a problem of actually identity what the movement actually believes in, since the message is not in the actually words (or gestures), but rather in the intended outcome. The ambiguousness also create an environment that invites more extreme members which can be used to gain votes, or to kick out when there is political points to be gained.
4 replies →