Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
PC redux 15
- Thread starter carrr
- Start date
- Status
Regarding symbols, most of them depend on context. The ![[smile]](/data/assets/smilies/smile.gif "[smile] [smile]")
and the ![[sad]](/data/assets/smilies/sad.gif "[sad] [sad]")
are clear to all humans, but others vary from culture to culture, including ![[thumbsdown]](/data/assets/smilies/thumbsdown.gif "[thumbsdown] [thumbsdown]")
and ![[thumbsup]](/data/assets/smilies/thumbsup.gif "[thumbsup] [thumbsup]")
, which were not in fact the symbols used in Roman arenas. Likewise a 'Wali' is a dignitary among Muslims whereas a 'Wally' is a fool in British English. And I heard of a case of a visiting American singer calling her British audience a "bunch of wankers", in the belief this was a compliment. Likewise cats and dogs mean opposite things when they wag their tails, and it is only convention that makes us call the growling of cats a 'purr'. The hiss is much more common, probably because of snakes: anyone bothered by a cat should hiss at it.
What I'm getting at is that symbols mostly depend on context. Within Anglo culture, the swastika is unambiguously racist.
and the are clear to all humans, but others vary from culture to culture, including and , which were not in fact the symbols used in Roman arenas. Likewise a 'Wali' is a dignitary among Muslims whereas a 'Wally' is a fool in British English. And I heard of a case of a visiting American singer calling her British audience a "bunch of wankers", in the belief this was a compliment. Likewise cats and dogs mean opposite things when they wag their tails, and it is only convention that makes us call the growling of cats a 'purr'. The hiss is much more common, probably because of snakes: anyone bothered by a cat should hiss at it.What I'm getting at is that symbols mostly depend on context. Within Anglo culture, the swastika is unambiguously racist.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
GwydionM - No kidding. I will be the first to admit the extreme limits of my knowledge and experience. I am well aware of how little I know. My signature line is not only a quote from one of the great scientists, but in my own experience, becomes truer every day.
And all the more reason why need to have an open mind, exercise tolerance, continue to pursue education, and not make unilateral decisions based on our own, very narrow contexts, imposing that will on others.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
And all the more reason why need to have an open mind, exercise tolerance, continue to pursue education, and not make unilateral decisions based on our own, very narrow contexts, imposing that will on others.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Following your advice, I am aware of swastiza and Hindu connections and I thank you for the enlightenment.
One of the links I found was the following:
So why should that symbol be removed?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
One of the links I found was the following:
So why should that symbol be removed?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
-
2
- #25
Bottom line--somebody (Microsoft in this case) needs the stones to just say 'No' to the PC police.
BJCooperIT--Good point about the cross. It of course symbolizes the public torture of one who was seen as a religious prophet. I'm surprised that hasn't riled others in the past.
Too many good examples abound about this type of thing (including the high-school from which I graduated being forced to change their team name from Redskins), but I would love to hear some uplifting stories where people stood up to this and thumbed their noses at the PC Police.
--jsteph
BJCooperIT--Good point about the cross. It of course symbolizes the public torture of one who was seen as a religious prophet. I'm surprised that hasn't riled others in the past.
Too many good examples abound about this type of thing (including the high-school from which I graduated being forced to change their team name from Redskins), but I would love to hear some uplifting stories where people stood up to this and thumbed their noses at the PC Police.
--jsteph
Following GwydionM's comment earlier, it is not just symbols or phrases that can cause problems in different countries. People's names can as well:
For example, the current Secretary of State for Defence in the UK government is Geoff Hoon.
I learned recently that in Australia, a hoon is slang for "Idiot".
John
For example, the current Secretary of State for Defence in the UK government is Geoff Hoon.
I learned recently that in Australia, a hoon is slang for "Idiot".
John
An open mind is fine, but the wise also know when to close it. Otherwise you get a mind full of random rubbish.
Something unfamiliar is fine, if you're trying to discover something new. But when it comes to rejecting racism and the stuff symbolised by the Swastika IN A WESTERN CONTEXT, I'd see the question as closed.
Something unfamiliar is fine, if you're trying to discover something new. But when it comes to rejecting racism and the stuff symbolised by the Swastika IN A WESTERN CONTEXT, I'd see the question as closed.
GwydionM...
<<Within Anglo culture, the swastika is unambiguously racist.>>
That may be so. But the issue is: Do you censor it? Do you try to deny it ever existed? Do you make it illegal to display it? Those reactions smack of big brother. The more we try to quash such symbols the stronger it makes those who would swear allegiance to what they stand for.
Let people show their true colors, and each individual can then make a decision about those who display such symbols. Why try to hide it? People can make their own decisions. We've got to stop sugar-coating and soft-padding the entire world. It is what it is.
--jsteph
<<Within Anglo culture, the swastika is unambiguously racist.>>
That may be so. But the issue is: Do you censor it? Do you try to deny it ever existed? Do you make it illegal to display it? Those reactions smack of big brother. The more we try to quash such symbols the stronger it makes those who would swear allegiance to what they stand for.
Let people show their true colors, and each individual can then make a decision about those who display such symbols. Why try to hide it? People can make their own decisions. We've got to stop sugar-coating and soft-padding the entire world. It is what it is.
--jsteph
BJCooperIT
Programmer
I certainly hope that censorship is not an option. Words and symbols are used and abused and it is our own experiences and emotions that give them the illusion of good or evil. For instance there was a word that was used when I was a kid:
gay - happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits
Despite the fact that this is the first definition in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, I can honestly say that I have not heard a single person use it in that context in conversation in the last 20 years.
When I was in high school in 1969 there was a young man, I will call ZZZ, who was out of the closet (a brave move for the times). Within my small rural school the word "ZZZ" became synonymous with homosexual. A girlfriend of mine met her out-of-state sister-in-law-to-be for the first time. They rode past a place called ZZZ's Restaurant and my friend started laughing hysterically. She was asked why. She explained about ZZZ and said and received a blank stare. She said "Don't you get it? A ZZZ is a homosexual!" Whereupon her soon-to-be family member said "My father is named ZZZ!" It was an eye-opening moment. In our small town the word had taken on a meaning that the rest of the world did not share and certainly did not react to in the same manner.
Words and symbols only have the power we give them. What bothers one person may delight another. It's use is a matter of choice and personal freedom. When government or industry try to censor what we see or hear, everyone's rights are violated.
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000
gay - happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits
Despite the fact that this is the first definition in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, I can honestly say that I have not heard a single person use it in that context in conversation in the last 20 years.
When I was in high school in 1969 there was a young man, I will call ZZZ, who was out of the closet (a brave move for the times). Within my small rural school the word "ZZZ" became synonymous with homosexual. A girlfriend of mine met her out-of-state sister-in-law-to-be for the first time. They rode past a place called ZZZ's Restaurant and my friend started laughing hysterically. She was asked why. She explained about ZZZ and said and received a blank stare. She said "Don't you get it? A ZZZ is a homosexual!" Whereupon her soon-to-be family member said "My father is named ZZZ!" It was an eye-opening moment. In our small town the word had taken on a meaning that the rest of the world did not share and certainly did not react to in the same manner.
Words and symbols only have the power we give them. What bothers one person may delight another. It's use is a matter of choice and personal freedom. When government or industry try to censor what we see or hear, everyone's rights are violated.
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000
sleipnir214
Programmer
GwydionM:
If you're trying to make a point, I'd love to know what it is.
Yes, the swastika has been used for millenia. One source I found says it predates the ankh as a symbol and that it is found world-wide, even in pre-columbian south america.
The problem is that then one sees a swastika on the side of a Mayan temple or in the margins of a thousand-year-old Hindu text, it is save to assume that the meaning of the swastika is the original.
If one sees a black swastika in black at the center of a white circle, that cirle's being in the center of a red rectangular flag, it is safe to assume that the swastika is being used as a Nazi symbol.
However, when one sees a swastika as a context-free symbol (I assume the font in question was not called "Nazi-Fraktur"
, then one must give the symbol the benefit of the doubt. It's not enough to merely keep an open mind -- it's necessary to always remember that one's view of the world is not the only one.
Censorship to protect a nation's security is something I don't particularly like, but see as a necessary evil. Censorship to prevent the possibility of giving offense is the worst kind of cowardice.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
If you're trying to make a point, I'd love to know what it is.
Yes, the swastika has been used for millenia. One source I found says it predates the ankh as a symbol and that it is found world-wide, even in pre-columbian south america.
The problem is that then one sees a swastika on the side of a Mayan temple or in the margins of a thousand-year-old Hindu text, it is save to assume that the meaning of the swastika is the original.
If one sees a black swastika in black at the center of a white circle, that cirle's being in the center of a red rectangular flag, it is safe to assume that the swastika is being used as a Nazi symbol.
However, when one sees a swastika as a context-free symbol (I assume the font in question was not called "Nazi-Fraktur"
, then one must give the symbol the benefit of the doubt. It's not enough to merely keep an open mind -- it's necessary to always remember that one's view of the world is not the only one.Censorship to protect a nation's security is something I don't particularly like, but see as a necessary evil. Censorship to prevent the possibility of giving offense is the worst kind of cowardice.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
-
1
- #31
GwydionM
I'm not sure that there is any such thing as "a western context", I live in a multicultural environment, it happens to be in the West.
If someone wishes to display a swastika, that is their right, UNLESS it is done intentionally to offend or to intimidate others.
The British flag has, to an extent, been hi-jacked by racists. But that does not mean I object to its depiction in all circumstances.
The swastika is simply a symbol, individuals have to choose what they read into it.
Rosie
I'm not sure that there is any such thing as "a western context", I live in a multicultural environment, it happens to be in the West.
If someone wishes to display a swastika, that is their right, UNLESS it is done intentionally to offend or to intimidate others.
The British flag has, to an extent, been hi-jacked by racists. But that does not mean I object to its depiction in all circumstances.
The swastika is simply a symbol, individuals have to choose what they read into it.
Rosie
cryptogro4
MIS
Absurdity. British Airways removed the British flag from the tail of their planes flying into a country so it would not offend them.
Oh gee, I certainly offended someone by calling their country irrational in thought!
Affirmative action, political correctness, it can all be flushed down the toilet along with the ACLU.
Oh gee, I certainly offended someone by calling their country irrational in thought!
Affirmative action, political correctness, it can all be flushed down the toilet along with the ACLU.
Regarding British Airways removing their flag so it would not offend them: Are you sure it wasn't because British Airways wanted to reduce the possibility of being shot at by guerrillas or insurgents when they were flying into that country or over other countries. It's a commercial airline, not the RAF. Their first responsibility is to their passengers.
Regarding the ACLU: they would be the first group to defend your right in America to display a swastika, because they defend the Bill of Rights which grants you that right to display a swastika or burn the American flag (or anything else you want to use to advertise your opinion or character).
And finally, I agree with mattKnight: It most likely was a legal thing on Microsoft's part. It is indeed illegal to display the swastika in Germany (and perhaps other countries). The German government probably could have fined them for each copy that has the character in a font set.
Regarding the ACLU: they would be the first group to defend your right in America to display a swastika, because they defend the Bill of Rights which grants you that right to display a swastika or burn the American flag (or anything else you want to use to advertise your opinion or character).
And finally, I agree with mattKnight: It most likely was a legal thing on Microsoft's part. It is indeed illegal to display the swastika in Germany (and perhaps other countries). The German government probably could have fined them for each copy that has the character in a font set.
cryptogro4
MIS
Don't even start on the ACLU defending the Bill of Rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are a group of extreme liberal anti-American trash who only are a wrench in the justice system.
They want to stop Marines from bowing their heads in a ceremony recognizing the birth of the Marine Corps! Because Marines are on government time and they are not displaying separation of church and state.
And the U.S. Constitution does not state ANYWHERE there is a separation. That was some scholarly judge on the Supreme Court who wrote that in a ruling 30-40 years ago, and aghast, everyone thinks now it is written in the Constitution. Whereas, it states freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion.
And how do the minority rule the majority anyway? Oh yeah, liberal judges who rule that way, making it a law the majority have to follow.
They want to stop Marines from bowing their heads in a ceremony recognizing the birth of the Marine Corps! Because Marines are on government time and they are not displaying separation of church and state.
And the U.S. Constitution does not state ANYWHERE there is a separation. That was some scholarly judge on the Supreme Court who wrote that in a ruling 30-40 years ago, and aghast, everyone thinks now it is written in the Constitution. Whereas, it states freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion.
And how do the minority rule the majority anyway? Oh yeah, liberal judges who rule that way, making it a law the majority have to follow.
The problem with the ACLU is that there are many times when a 'freedom of expression' argument can have similar merits, but the ACLU will take them based on highly political reasons:
Ie. Person A wishes to excercise his right to wear a t-shirt to school with a imgages done by a radical left-wing artist (for hypothetical purposes, let's call the artist 'Applethorpe'). But Person B says Person A's shirt is obscene and bothers his sensibilities to see images of sodomy paraded around a school.
Person B then want's to wear a t-shirt to school with a picture, of, say a certain carpenter from around the year 30 AD (btw, is "AD" a violation because it refers to 'our lord'? Should we change the entire numbering system upon which we base our dates? But I digress.). Person A says that somehow that image will be construed as the the school forcing the teachings of said carpenter on all the students simply by the fact that the image exists in the school.
Guess which case the ACLU will take? Why does the ACLU stand up for 'some' peoples liberties (based almost soley on the political party of the person) but not all?
--jsteph
Ie. Person A wishes to excercise his right to wear a t-shirt to school with a imgages done by a radical left-wing artist (for hypothetical purposes, let's call the artist 'Applethorpe'). But Person B says Person A's shirt is obscene and bothers his sensibilities to see images of sodomy paraded around a school.
Person B then want's to wear a t-shirt to school with a picture, of, say a certain carpenter from around the year 30 AD (btw, is "AD" a violation because it refers to 'our lord'? Should we change the entire numbering system upon which we base our dates? But I digress.). Person A says that somehow that image will be construed as the the school forcing the teachings of said carpenter on all the students simply by the fact that the image exists in the school.
Guess which case the ACLU will take? Why does the ACLU stand up for 'some' peoples liberties (based almost soley on the political party of the person) but not all?
--jsteph
sleipnir214
Programmer
jsteph[b/]:
You don't say "AD" (anno domine). You now say "CE" (current era).
My question is, though, what does the perceived faults of the ACLU have anything to do with the topic at-hand?
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
You don't say "AD" (anno domine). You now say "CE" (current era).
My question is, though, what does the perceived faults of the ACLU have anything to do with the topic at-hand?
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
sleipnir214
Programmer
Then unless you can relate the activities of the ACLU to information technology ethics, this thread has gone off-topic.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!
SemperFiDownUnda
Instructor
MasterRacker - once you get ride of the words you better chop off everyones middle finger....Oh wait there are other offensive gestures that can be made with different parts of the body. Stand back everyone this is going to get bloody
On a related note is Microsoft going to remove WWII from Encarta?
On a related note is Microsoft going to remove WWII from Encarta?
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Not WWII entirely, just those parts of it that someone finds offensive.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
- Status
Similar threads