Storm Clarence Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Someone asked a QUESTION in ANSWERS regarding the starting a new themed sim:"I am building a WW2 themed sim currently for the second life military community. I am curious if i am allowed to use the Nazi swastika symbol. I would appreciate if someone could clear this up for me.ps: it's worth noting that neither myself or any of my fellow content creators and staff members of the sim have Nazi sympathies. We just want to create an accurate battlefield."I felt it odd that he had to put a qualifier and state that he is not a "sympathizer." I think he felt if he did not he would have been beaten up on this forum. I may be wrong, but!?My response was: "If it is in the context of WWII I would not see anyone having a problem."Another response was: "I'm afraid that even if it's in the proper context there will be objections. There's very large number of people in this world (and consequently, in SL) who cannot grasp the idea of "context". They'll see a swastika and immediately AR it (and you or your group). There's good chance some sort of discipline would be given...........up to a perma-ban. It's unfortunate that there are so many people in this world eager to jump on anything they perceive as "inappropriate". No thought given to context........just "it's ugly, and it should not be allowed". Political correctness rules this world. Education is the only way to solve it but education is not allowed because "it's ugly". I would run your plans past Linden Lab before I did anything. Sorry. What is the correct response to the question, and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 In some of the European countries there are laws very tightly controlling how one can refer to those brownshirts. So I honestly don't know what the correct response to that question would be. It would depend on what country that person is in - and what country expected visitors are in - and whether or not any of the depections violated assorted laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogboat Taurog Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 how far do you go though? star of david and gas chambers? in germany i believe its against the law to wear swastikas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canoro Philipp Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 he should go for it. Second Life is ruled under the U.S. laws, and its totally legal for an internet company to host a nazi swastika in their servers, even more if its for historical purposes. there will be people to object to this and that, like against furries and child avis, but as long as is not against the TOS they can AR all that they want, its gonna be easy to ban the people who find it offensive, and as someone pointed out, if some freedom of expression offends you, there are many other sims to go around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylvia Tamalyn Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Well, he did ask if he is "allowed" to do it, which I take to mean he wants to know if it's against TOS...so maybe the best response would be to tell him to review TOS and/or see if he can get a reply on the subject from LL. Disclaimer: I have no idea what's in TOS regarding this sort of thing...or most other things, for that matter. :smileyvery-happy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Void Singer Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 From a historical standpoint he's good to go.... but the reaction without the qualifier is probably a good bet. From a social and legal standpoint, I would definitely recommend not using the word "Nazi" by itself or the swastika image in any group related materials including the description and group image... inworld content should be safe. I'd recommend using "Allied" and "Axis" to define group related materials. be warned that it is are likely to draw some people that either really do think that way, or are pretending to in order to give the groups a bad name, and the groups may want to limit the scope to battle related materials only, to prevent those types from causing problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willow Danube Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I think Void just gave the most practical answer to this issue. It is hard to make a helpful decision like this without being bias. TOS itself is like the writings in the Bible, open to interpretations of many... debate-able and easily deviated from its true intention. It was a wise decision for the said person in this OP to post and asked the public. I think the person should be allowed to make his sim as real as possible but be prepared for whatever dramas ensued. For me, every decision I made I will ask myself this first... "Is it worth, it?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venus Petrov Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I think the appropriate response is to 'do what you think is historically accurate.' I agree with Void that selection of descriptors can make a big difference in perceptions. Plus, as with any other sim, people would go there voluntarily....or not..depending upon their individual proclivities. So, if someone takes huge exception to the swastika symbol, do not go. The same argument could be said for the Klu Klux Klan in the States. The sight of those white-robed racists is enough to cause riots but they have the right to wear their garb and march if they get the local permits to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltango Vale Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 "There's very large number of people in this world (and consequently, in SL) who cannot grasp the idea of "context".... It's unfortunate that there are so many people in this world eager to jump on anything they perceive as "inappropriate". No thought given to context........just "it's ugly, and it should not be allowed". Political correctness rules this world. Education is the only way to solve it but education is not allowed because "it's ugly". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The sad irony is that ignorance gives rise to the very authoritarianism it seeks to suppress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayalily Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I think on an adult sim it should be okay and come with a notecard someone must take and read upon entering the sim. If they don't follow the rules of the sim, they will be banned. There are so many people here from all walks of life, it's hard to know how some people are going to react, or when the griefers will show up. Urgh griefers, urgh. My thinking about adult is just that if the person who wants to do this keeps it adult, they might bypass griefing hopefully, as I hope for everyone. I'd like to wear a LEGALIZE MARIJUANA NOW t-shirt, but I doubt the G and Moderate sims would appreciate it, so I haven't bought a t-shirt that says that yet or even attempted to make one. I can go on adult, I just have to activate that account and haven't done so yet. I'm very fine on general to moderate for now though. ETA: I haven't activated my adult mostly account because I want to avoid violence and don't want the cybersex thing but I'd like to look around on adult sims perhaps one day, but I will avoiding all violent sims. I don't like war, nor war movies, except a few good ones like Saving Private Ryan. This should fall under free speech and freedom of expression under the U.S. constitution tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Deltango Vale wrote: Education is the only way to solve it but education is not allowed because "it's ugly". Education. To me it is all about education. The more we rewrite history by NOT mentioning the history - the more we as a people will begin to forget what really happens in our world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 In contrast to Void's comments, I'd assume this is not to be a combat sim, and that there won't be any group of residents role-playing Nazis. Making that work would require a tightly controlled and carefully written script, or very well-instructed actors, or both. It's one thing to have freedom of expression (which, incidentally, has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech as in the US Bill of Rights... but that's an ancient bit of Internet forum cud-chewing). The Lab presumably wants folks to present diverse experiences and to feel free to express themselves. But they also want people to feel comfortable in their surroundings, and this is a topic to which many people are very sensitive. It's not for nothing that WWII books and film scripts are carefully edited. Producers and publishers don't need public outcry and boycotts; neither does Linden Lab. None of this is to say that swastikas, etc., shouldn't exist anywhere in SL. This subject matter, however, has to be handled tastefully, or not at all. Even though the content is user-generated, that's still the business reality for Linden Lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dana Hickman Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Storm Clarence wrote: Education. To me it is all about education. The more we rewrite history by NOT mentioning the history - the more we as a people will begin to forget what really happens in our world. .. and the more we forget it, the more we're doomed to repeat it. Someone pretty famous said that I believe :smileytongue: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayalily Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 No, freedom of speech is in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of expression may be in the Bill of Rights then. Sorry, it's early for me, just having coffee, and don't really want a discussion about our U.S. freedoms either ad naseum. But, I felt it was worth mentioning but not ad naseum (however you spell that; I haven't found my spell checker yet. ) because anyone can just look up the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights on the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Right. The cud-chewing starts, however, when there's an attempt to apply Freedom of Speech (which has to do solely with limiting how the state can constrain speech) to commercial enterprises, such as Linden Lab. The Lab may well want its customers to have freedom of expression -- perhaps similar to such Freedom of Speech -- but there is no requirement that it do so, any more than a private blogger is required to preserve every hateful comment posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Susanto Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 One viable approach might be to make everything look Fascistic but use symbols and emblems that don't have any clear historical meaning. Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YE_j0xIsJA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willow Danube Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Education could be the answer if only it is streamlined. What you read about the WW2 in your country may be different than in mine. The Japanese may have the same accurate date and places but a totally different interpretation as to what the Americans will have in their books. You may say your historical facts are accurate, but so will the Italians. Then you go and ask the Siamese and you'll get a slighty 'edgier' interpretation just because of their role during WW2. So, who to believe? If you ask a certain group of scholars from the middle eastern countries, they even denied Holocaust was ever exist. Ignorance? I don't know,.. we do know the fact that middle easterners (whether it was written in Hebrew, Arabic or Aramaic) were the early adapter of knowledge and event writings with one of the most valuable documented history of all time. Do we want to say now that they were wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayalily Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I like this answer (but I don't think it can apply to all things. It's a nice quote, but, but, but (see my posts below). I'd recommend the movie The Reader to anyone who hasn't seen it. It has a very interesting twist on "nazism" and the Nazi propaganda of that time period. Remember they only had radios and only heard what they heard. I don't want to give away the plot in case people want to see that movie but haven't yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayalily Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Exactly, bingo! That's why I mentioned the movie "The Reader". All information filters into each person's brain differently. In other words, we're not all getting the same information at any time. No two brain's have the same information; that is not logical. But you got it Willow. I say Willow Win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltango Vale Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 "Education could be the answer if only it is streamlined." ------------------------------------------------------------------- You have put your finger on the pulse of a big conundrum. The idea of a single, centralized, state-run school system providing an 'authoritative' interpretation of history is frightening. State-run education is riddled with politics and special interests. The alternative, a decentralized private education system, carries the risk of looney cult schools. Needless to say, things become even more opaque when contrasting centralized systems. Vietnam's literacy rate (90%) is higher than the UK's (80%). Meanwhile, both the private international Montessori system and the private Irish Jesuit system generate outstanding results. I have yet to discover a universal solution to the problem of education. Having said that, it is well known that 50% of a person's education comes from reading reading reading. The key, though, seems to be in learning how to think. As the recent fiasco over E. colli in Europe demonstrated, even graduates of elite schools don't know how to think. Then, of course, there is DSK. Whoever solves this puzzle of human psychology is going to win the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayalily Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I don't think it is possible for any two brains to have the same information ever. It's a complete mathmatical impossibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacki Silverfall Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Read the TOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Willow Danube wrote: Education could be the answer if only it is streamlined. What you read about the WW2 in your country may be different than in mine. The Japanese may have the same accurate date and places but a totally different interpretation as to what the Americans will have in their books. You may say your historical facts are accurate, but so will the Italians. Then you go and ask the Siamese and you'll get a slighty 'edgier' interpretation just because of their role during WW2. So, who to believe? If you ask a certain group of scholars from the middle eastern countries, they even denied Holocaust was ever exist. Ignorance? I don't know,.. we do know the fact that middle easterners (whether it was written in Hebrew, Arabic or Aramaic) were the early adapter of knowledge and event writings with one of the most valuable documented history of all time. Do we want to say now that they were wrong? Wow you said a lot, but I don't 'buy' it. At first blush your argument appears solid, however, it is misunderstood. I am not a believer in 'streamlined' education; I call that political correctness; which I despise for reasons that you can not please "everybody" with the words we write and speak. History is history. The events of WWII, as told by the Japanese, do not revise the events - they fought brave; they fought for their Emperor; they lost. The Japanese revise the 'emotions' of the events. The younger Japanese (post WWII) were 'taught' that the Japanese were the victims "in" (not of) the events - but the events themselves are true. History is a compilation of facts - not emotions. No, I don't believe Moses parted the Sea. Armanaic is interpreted by a few. With ancient writings it is the interpreters 'understanding' of the words that is defined as the 'history.' How many people speak Armaniac - 4 or 5? In modern times we have too many tools that enable the 'truths' to be told. China does not like 'open education; the Taliban (who re-wrote history when they destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan [built in 507AD, destroyed 2001AD]) do not like open education. As a matter of fact that's the entire point of the OP, should political correctness stifle education because someone (religious, political, or ethnic) will take offence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayalily Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Interesting counterpoints. I also want to make it clear that I do think Willow got it spot on, but I do not believe in some sort of centralized education. And I'm not sure that was really her point either. My thinking was more along the lines of everyone learns differently (thus no two brains will ever be alike), and it's not just country to country but within countries themselves. And I wasn't even thinking along the lines of politcal correctness but more the propaganda that abounds in any and all countries. There is propaganda even on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willow Danube Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 And you just made my point. What makes you think that I should believe what you read and understood of the historical facts are correct and unbias? What proof have you that the authors of the books you've been reading were written in the most neutral and sedated manner? It is very easy to read and learn sitting in your comfortable chair.. It was completely different experience being there at the moment seeing at a different stand point of view. Lets talk about the Talibans... people went beserk went the Talibans destroyed a great iconic symbolism of the olden era in favour of Islamic fundamentalist doctrines. Historians thought they were crazy... but has anyone actually looked at their point of view? Why they thought it was wrong? if what they did actually made sense? Why was it no western historians ever wrote and made it a known fact of the view points of the Talibans? And if they did? How do I know these authors did not presummed or wrote with judgemental atitude? My point is, I don't trust any historical facts nor do I stick with any particular authors no matter how astute he/she was proven to be. Which comes back to the main issue of the OP. If the world has none but one united fact, he wouldn't be asking this question in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now