A Swastika is a Hindu religious symbol. If you’re going to deface something, deface a Hakenkreuz!
4 Likes
do you have examples for the context dependent symbols? the most common ones here are imo rather clear
8 Likes
I think I’d do a top job of defacing it just by trying to spell it! 
4 Likes
I’m hoping I’m not the only person who is slightly uncomfortable with the basic message contained in Ari Fishkin’s poster, specifically, when you are faced with someone of opposite or egregious beliefs you can solve that situation with a simple act of violence. Isn’t that what the alt-right/neo-nazis themselves believe?
This suggests that we can be better than them by behaving just like them. Have we watched so many frigging Marvel movies that we now believe that’s how it works?
4 Likes
-
False equivalence; the content of the beliefs being opposed is not irrelevànt.
-
I’ve seen very few Marvel movies, but I have read a lot of history. The defeat of fascism in WWII is a major part of why I am not an absolute pacifist.
-
It is sometimes possible to improve a catastrophic situation through violence, but it’s very rarely simple. My grandfather personally killed plenty of Nazis (and a fair few of Tojo’s mob; Tobruk and Kokoda). It wasn’t easy, it wasn’t clean, it wasn’t nice.
But it also wasn’t wrong.
16 Likes
Addendum: however, there is nothing wrong with being uncomfortable at the prospect of violence.
You’re supposed to be uncomfortable with it. That’s one of the factors encouraging you to reserve it for when it’s absolutely necessary.
13 Likes
What do you do if you see a tatted up skinhead beating a brown person while yelling about how they’re a sandnigger? Cops tend to make things worse. I’m not sure I wouldn’t do something stupid and violent to fix that situation. And that’s the exact kind of situation tRump encourages every day he doesn’t spend actually opposing his white supremacist base.
2 Likes
Resolve the situation as peacefully as possible while maintaining the safety of the victim.
Words, retreat, fists, weapons. In that order.
5 Likes
I agree.
I’m guessing this is one of them
I have an antifa t-shirt, but I can understand more liberal leaning people would be put off by the communist and anarchist symbology.
10 Likes
I never saw this one, interesting. Thanks!
1 Like
Thanks for your thoughtful input here. You bring up a number of good points that informed my initial reaction of taking my poster image down to reconsider its use or mis-use.
At base level, as a designer who cares very much for the power of graphic design to communicate important and needed messages, I would not design a poster to talk about the current Neo-Nazi problems in the US to look like this poster. This poster was done as a exercise for a comic book art challenge back in 2009, not for an Anit-Alt-Right protest in 2016.
When the original version of this poster was in my DeviantArt account, I had a long explanation accompanying it, telling my watchers the nature of propaganda and this kind of imagery being used as a caricature, and the dangers that could present in representing a complex problem. I had to educate them about the sentiment in the poster being a VERY broad homage to WW2 war propaganda. Most of them had no context for this, so it was incumbent upon me as the designer to make sure my intentions were clear on why I would make a poster of this kind. I was not condoning or encouraging violence, I was doing an homage to a very different time, housed within the simplistic context of WW2 comic book logic.
I take the message of my work very seriously, and have done a large body of posters that do 100% represent of my ideal and thoughts on equality, equity and tolerance. I agree that broad swipes such as a poster like this, while cathartic to some, don’t really have the impact that they need to have. When I speak up on this ( and I will), it will be specific to the target it is aimed at, and will have craft and all the power good design can bring.
Thanks again for your input, appreciate it adding to the dialogue.
8 Likes
And this one: Giustizia e Libertà - Wikipedia
Oooh. See, this is why I talk to people.
2 Likes
Punching a Nazi is never wrong, nor is killing Hitler with time travel.
4 Likes
In the hypothetical scenario where you’re witnessing a beating by a skinhead of a minority? Yeah, that will work.
No, you directly and abruptly end the harm occurring if you are capable of doing so. You don’t talk things out with someone beating on another person.
1 Like
There’s a crucial one that most people seem to always forget, which is restraint. With rope, wire, tape, cuffs, or one’s own body. In legal terms it is still “violent”, but I think it’s easily argued as being less so than attacking someone. Sure, it violates their consent, but they waived that when they started up on somebody else.
It’s also a viable way to deal with harmful state actors rather than the extremes of murder or nothing.
Nope, but words do make for a good distraction while you organise the victim’s escape.
I once watched a hippy friend hold off a gang of drunken football thugs on a train for ninety minutes with nothing but words. They were clearly intending to beat the snot out of him as soon as he stopped talking, but so long as he kept it going he was just too funny to interrupt.
Made it all the way to the end of the line, then ran straight for the station guards.
5 Likes
Where I come from (and legally) that is “attacking” someone. It isn’t like fists or knives are magical attack vessels but wrapping someone in rope isn’t an attack.
3 Likes
The words could something be “Oi! Fuckhead! You want to try someone your own size, ya prick?!” which might end their beating by switching the attention to you.
If it’s come down to actual violence, restraint’s good way of ending it. Choking a fucker out’s good if you got the skills and don’t mind getting a few hits while they pass out. Risk of death through strangulation, but as we’re already exhausted all the other options, pretty much everything has a risk of death attached to it.
4 Likes
There is the small difference that restraining a person does not in itself injure people. So it can prevent injury to victims without need to cause injury oneself. But it is not always feasible. More often it can be used with proper attacks to avoid needing to kill an adversary who is extremely belligerent. It is nice to have options.
