There is also a tendency for people to have this “take no prisoners”
attitude with something that offends them, like how fundamentalist
Christians think Halloween leads to devil worship.
Perhaps shouting at him for his name and shoving a camera in his face was not the best approach.
She really looks like she was looking for a fight over anything as long as it was male. That really doesn’t seem to be the best way to win over people.
When she kept asking “Hugh Mungus what?” I just thought she missed the joke (and it looks like he thought the same). The fact that she immediately suspected him of bragging about having a massive penis in order to harrass her says something. I’m not sure what but it definitely says something…
h3h3 isn’t a news organisation, they mostly make dumb/funny reaction videos (mostly takedowns of creepy assholes on youtube) and create stupid memes.
I only watched the h3h3 interview, and nothing in that suggested to me he’s an asshole. But even if he was an asshole, what was that he did exactly that requires him to be called out as one? From the very beginning here he’s being unfairly attacked by a nasty person, if she wasn’t such a nutter we’d never have known who this guy was, he hasn’t done anything to deserve any public scrutiny in the first place. Does the world need some kind of asshole-squad to track down and publicse all the people who are privately being assholes in their day to day life?
No, but as capitalism & porn demonstrates, that’s not stopped the world before…
Maybe you misunderstand me. If I were the interviewer, I wouldn’t be a screaming nutter, if be someone trying calmly and quietly to get an interview. If it was a calm and quiet interview, then that’s good, my job is done. If it isn’t, then I have to appear the bigger person and stay calm while the other guy acts like a jerk.
If you are correct, then this symbol only has one meaning.
It’s interesting to me (but doesn’t necessarily change my opinion) that people in this thread keep assuming that she asked him his name. Someone above even suggests she was “yelling” to give his name but that’s not how it happened.
Watch the video again. She doesn’t say anything to him until he talks to her first: “Are you filming me?” “Do you want my name?”
It doesn’t really support the perspective that she was angling for a fight. Could it be that she wasn’t going to ask him anything and just wanted to get the “token” interviewee on camera? I guess I can see how it would set her off a little if she wasn’t even planning on talking to the guy and then he confronts her to essentially make fun of what she’s doing.
EDIT: It’s in the Facebook comments too. A bunch of people just assume that she asked him his name. Even I did the first time I saw it.
That symbol is the traditional swastika, still used around the world as a symbol of luck. When turned backwards, it’s the Nazi swastika. They’re both unfortunately tinged with some of the greatest evil we’ve known in centuries. (but hey! Godwin for the win!)
My point isn’t that a photo of a gorilla can now only indicate white supremacism. It’s that they’re trying hard to make it that way, and are using it as a shorthand for winking at each other, like Pepe the frog. It’s a dumb, stupid in-joke that won’t last.
I disagree. Why would the deplorable use take precedence over the wholesome one? This is why I distrust the process of pejoration generally. If a million people use a term nicely, and then a group of a thousand or even ten thousand decide to make something ugly of it, why should this ruin it for everybody else?
It has IMO been the main failing of the left over the past century, that of always giving up control of their narrative instead of empowering themselves by owning the slurs used against them.
My experience is that neither case here is strictly true. I have seen many dharmic swastika facing either way. And on Nazi flags which way it faces depends upon which side of the flag on sees. Not only that, but all “swastika” really means is basically “good luck charm”, or “lucky emblem”, so pretty much anything could qualify.
That’s debateable. The Nazis and neo-Nazis who have used it appear to comprise a vast minority of cases. So if people prefer to give those meanings primacy, I’d say that it might behoove them to deeply consider why, and the effects this might have upon other people.
I don’t think that Hitler’s use of the swastika in WW2 as a symbol of the Nazi threat, nor the Holocaust which resulted from it, is debatable. I invite you to show a swastika to 100 random people; I will guarantee that 99 of them will identify it as the Nazi icon. That’s how impactful Hitler’s use of it was, even 80 years later.
If we qualify that as being 100 random people in Europe, I would agree. But most of the world is not Europe. Which people oddly need frequent reminding of.
Sure, if you were asking groups of Buddhists in Asia, I’m sure your percentage would go way down. I’m thinking of not only Europe but America, where its use as anything but a Nazi icon is nearly nil.
That would apply to Buddhists, Jains, and various “Hindus” everywhere, including in the Americas. I do not have any demographics handy to know whether there are more neo-Nazis or Buddhists in the US, but I much more commonly encounter Buddhists and Buddhist groups - although this could be a difference of my personal affiliation rather than numbers.
So, I don’t really know who comprises the greater use case in this area, at this time. And I am unsure as to whether or not anybody does. But IF there are more dharmic people than Nazis, would it not seem weird to still make the choice of associating the symbol with Nazi iconography?
It seems better if people are capable of enough nuance in their thinking to be aware of different contexts, since social interaction tends to require this skill anyway.
I suspect that even buddhists in European-influenced regions* would recognize the swastika as Nazi symbol.
* Europe (duh), both Americas, Africa and Near East
I only have one thing to add. When I have to say, “Hugh Jackman”, I always pronounce it, “Huge Ackman” and fein ignorance.
I know that you’re having a hard time understanding how deeply the Nazis and Hitler impacted all culture worldwide. Even with a extremely small number of actual no-joke Nazis, their use of the swastika in the 40s as a symbol for evil and the extermination of the Jews still resonates in 2016, so strongly that even Buddhists and Hindus have to acknowledge that it has a dual meaning for most human beings on earth.
Sure, that is one context. But not the only context, or even the main one. It’s got thousands of years of other history and tradition, so to many those will come to mind before Nazis. Like any other context, it depends upon specifics, if they can be found. It seems as unlikely that a Buddhist will assume that a photo from the 1940s depicts a Buddhist tank as it does that others will assume that Ganesha on my t-shirt is really a secret Nazi Ganesha. Context is everything, which is why I balk when somebody goes absolute and insists that there can only be one possible context or interpretation. That’s not healthy.
Likewise, Christians can deal with the cognitive dissonance by compartmentalizing that the crucifix which means kindness and life to them was also emblematic of the Spanish Inquisition. I doubt if reminding them about that nasty chapter of history would convince them that all other contexts of their symbol were invalid, and to dispose of it. Should I accost people who have it tattooed to their arm because they obviously advocate torture? Or maybe bear in mind that there are other contextual clues?
