or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › ode to a commie
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ode to a commie - Page 2

post #16 of 30
your point? US and Japan were enemies during WW2 as well US and Iraq were "allies" not too long ago....
post #17 of 30
It's all just a question of public perception. Yes, millions died in the Gulag. Millions also died during the slave trade, but nobody's suggesting not wearing the Stars and Stripes. (Hoping this doesn't descend into a flamewar...)
post #18 of 30
no flamewar.... my original point, if there was one, is that it's interesting to see what symbols get deemed "acceptable" by public perception and which ones are outrageous and offensive i have no problem seeing someone wear a hammersickle jacket or one with a huge swastika on the front. either way, my innate prejudice is gonna make me think the person is a Grade A moron. but the point is, i hate the fact you can wear one without public scorn and not the other, when they fall into the same camp. it's like all the Che Guevara crap out there. so, where's the Hitler gear? again, same thing but different perceptions that inevitably comes down to stupid political crusades/commentary masking itself as fashion
post #19 of 30
Well, it's because, in our culture, Hilter is the epitomization of evil. He was even successfully able to kill off the "toothbrush" moustache.
post #20 of 30
Thread Starter 
Che Guevara was an o.k. guy (I wouldn't wear anything w/his face on it, though) who had very few political aspirations. He just wanted to fight for what he thought was good which, at the time, was Fidel. I wouldn't compare him to Hitler. And I have been known to wear a swastika emblazoned shirt every now and then. It's in some pretty colors and has doves sitting all over it. It's part of the 'gentle swastika' campaign to bring back the symbol into popular acceptance. And, I think there is something different between mass murdering millions because of their race and mass murdering millions because they threaten you politically. What it is, I'm not sure.
post #21 of 30
Quote:
And, I think there is something different between mass murdering millions because of their race and mass murdering millions because they threaten you politically.
hmm....i don't. that's like the absudity of imposing higher sentences for "hate crimes" vs. non-hate crimes. if i am murdered, it really doesnt matter what the intent was does it? when people are killed for ideology, i dont think there's any quantifying one cause as being more justifiable than the other.
post #22 of 30
Thread Starter 
I think there is. Think of how you'd feel if someone told you "I hate Jews" versus if someone told you "I hate members of the Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria," whose members were also, on occasion, summarily executed. It does matter what the intent is when murders occur. Even if you think all life is created equal, don't you agree there's a difference between killing somebody because his marketing strategy could bankrupt the oil industry and killing somebody because his belt doesn't match his shoes? Again, I admit I don't know which is worse, but the difference is there and it can't be blanketed under the same absurdity as hate crimes.
post #23 of 30
first off, i dont think all life is created equal. at least not when you have the life's "environment" (socio, political, economic, whatever) factored into it. we may be created equally but we arent born into equal circumstances. and again, *I* dont see any difference in the grand scheme of the universe regarding your example because i'm going to give your paradigm the benefit of the doubt that the "murderer" had some passion for justifying his behavior, whether it is politically motivated, racially motivated, or because of a fashion faux pas. Us "reasonable" people might see varying degrees of justifiability depending on who is being murdered and why, but we cant really speak for the feelings of said murderer. i'd be bummed equally if someone wanted to kill me for my political beliefs or because they didnt like the way i dressed (and they succeeded). i wouldnt say one was more justified than the other. the dead cant tell the difference
post #24 of 30
Thread Starter 
I don't even think we're created equally. In the grand scheme of the universe, obviously not. Even in the grand scheme of human history, I'd say no. But you can't deny there's a difference between the amount of moral outrage toward a killer of insurgents and that toward a killer of Jews. That's the whole reason we're having this discussion, right? Because the masses have differentiated between these two. You may not understand it, I may not understand it, but it's there, and the masses dictate morality. The dead can't tell the difference, no. But, again, it's the surviving masses that do the differentiating.
post #25 of 30
Quote:
It's part of the 'gentle swastika' campaign to bring back the symbol into popular acceptance.
i totally glanced past this comment initially......out of curiosity, why do you care if the swastika no longer has its public stigma? for the record, i think it's actually totally possible that within 15-20 years that could happen, especially after every symbol of notoriety has been proprieted back into mainstream culture there won't be anything left except the swastika. and with enough years after the holocaust the sensitivity will definitely lessen dramatically, esp after the surviving participants have all passed on. regarding intents of murder, i think we'd both agree that as long as we're not found riddled with bullets and lying in a gutter, it's a good day.
post #26 of 30
Quote:
But you can't deny there's a difference between the amount of moral outrage toward a killer of insurgents and that toward a killer of Jews.
no disagreement there. but i'm generally skeptical and often in disagreement with any collection of "public moral outrage"
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Che Guevara was an o.k. guy (I wouldn't wear anything w/his face on it, though) who had very few political aspirations. He just wanted to fight for what he thought was good which, at the time, was Fidel. I wouldn't compare him to Hitler.
I hope you're merely misinformed.  I doubt the families of the Bolivian farmers and peasants that were lined up and shot because they declined to join Guevara's "revolution" think he was an "o.k. guy."  Fortunately, he sucked when it came to guerilla warfare and the Bolivian army, which was not especially known for its martial prowess, killed him.  Good riddance.
post #28 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
(ken @ Mar. 28 2005,23:01) Che Guevara was an o.k. guy (I wouldn't wear anything w/his face on it, though) who had very few political aspirations. He just wanted to fight for what he thought was good which, at the time, was Fidel. I wouldn't compare him to Hitler.
I hope you're merely misinformed.  I doubt the families of the Bolivian farmers and peasants that were lined up and shot because they declined to join Guevara's "revolution" think he was an "o.k. guy."  Fortunately, he sucked when it came to guerilla warfare and the Bolivian army, which was not especially known for its martial prowess, killed him.  Good riddance.
I've never heard of anybody being shot simply because they didn't join his revolution. He summarily executed people, definitely, but rarely if ever were they peasants. They were traitors, enemies, and sometimes his own men who were used as an example to not royally f-up. He didn't suck at guerilla warfare. Tactics in his books are still used today by insurgents. He was thrust into incredibly unfavorable conditions in Africa, and I don't think anybody could have come out on top in that one. But surviving as long as he did, while being on the front lines of battle as often as he was, makes him not suck in my eyes. Interestingly enough, he was executed w/o trial, mostly because of politicians who didn't want any more threats to their U.S.-backed economy (which is the reason the peasants were peasants in the first place). What comes around goes around, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I hate Guevara's politics and tactics. But the man was probably the hardest worker in modern times, and that makes him a.o.k. to me.
post #29 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
(ken @ Mar. 28 2005,20:01) It's part of the 'gentle swastika' campaign to bring back the symbol into popular acceptance.
i totally glanced past this comment initially......out of curiosity, why do you care if the swastika no longer has its public stigma?   . . . regarding intents of murder, i think we'd both agree that as long as we're not found riddled with bullets and lying in a gutter, it's a good day.
I don't. I have this interest in movements whether or not I agree w/them, and a problem w/playing devil's advocate when people think swastikas are intrinsicly bad. Plus the shirt is a really cool turqoise color w/pretty pictures on it. . . . But if we're riddled w/bullets and lying in a gutter, do we care that we're there? Again, it's only survivors that care about the dead. The dead don't give two licks about the dead.
post #30 of 30
I don't know why, but I didn't get anything?? Anybody know why?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › ode to a commie