View Poll Results: Is it okay to show Nazi memorabilia here on APUG?
- 76. You may not vote on this poll
Markus, 72 members of this forum participating in the poll is not statistically significant, and at that number is highly subject to bias; it is not a random sample, and participation is voluntary--this inevitably causes selection bias. We would require nearly 500 responses to ensure that the sample is representative of the population. But if we were to take this number as "gospel" as most that have not taken statistics courses do, then we will find that nearly two-thirds of those responding do not take issue with the content. I don't know where you are located in the world, but here in America, we refer to this as a majority. And if I am not mistaken, in most "free" countries of the world, the majority, whether by republican form in its government, voting rights, or social concensus, rules.
Originally Posted by Markus Albertz
Last edited by Pragmatist; 10-29-2006 at 11:23 AM. Click to view previous post history.
When you come to a fork in the road, take it...
Ok, so I had a look at the photo and I don't see what all the fuss was about. As far as I'm concerned, it should have been left alone.
But ... there were folks who were offended and they have a right to be heard and understood.
Maybe a simple solution, that satisfies everyone and one that doesn't require any fancy programming is simply to create a gallery similar to the SoapBox forum. Then, the very rare time that a photo offends enough folks, it can simply be moved to that "disputed images" gallery and then we can each make our own adult decision whether or not to look. I prefer to make these decisions for myself and if the images offend me, then I won't look.
What I would never do is restrict another adults right to view images just because I don't think they're appropriate.
There's a formula that politicians use to determine the value of communications from their constituents. While I don't have the exact numbers, the proportions I'll use are representative.
Originally Posted by AZLF
If someone sends an email to their office, it represents the feelings of ten people on an issue. If someone calls, it represents fifty. If someone writes a letter and mails it, it represents five hundred. Someone who comes from their district and makes an appointment in their office in Washington, that's a thousand people who feel the same way.
I think that Sean had to take that kind of mental calculus into consideration when making the decision. And note, he said that one person left because he was pulling it, and someone else left because they thought he was keeping it. If he got over a dozen emails objecting vociferously, that could well translate into over a thousand folks who are part of the "silent majority" who would find it offensive but just not say anything, and perhaps just let their subscriptions lapse instead of cancelling and/or demanding money back and making a stink.
Having gone through this brou-ha-ha, I daresay the original poster of the image will now think more thoroughly before posting images of Nazi memorabilia. As he has stated, it was an error in judgement on his part, and not a willful intent to offend or to glorify the offensive. It should have been his judgement call to keep it or leave it. He should have been able to justify his posting of the image in the first place, and take the heat for his posting.
Originally Posted by Markus Albertz
If the motivation was political, and it was censorship, then it was doing what the Nazi's did. Sean didn't promote it, he only mimiced it.
It reminds me of the American left.
They do things in the interest of "equality," and favor that over freedom.
In a membership of 16,776, I don't care if a very small number are offended.
Put the picture back.
Patrick, I understand that the statistics are biased. I will not claim that the number I gave was statistically significant. The point was to pose a "what if... " question to illustrate that in all likelyhood, the number of those taking issue would be much larger than implied when relating ~ 10 individuals to a much larger population of ~ 16,000 (of which the majority will not even know about the image and the subsequent poll/thread). The number of those who wrote to Sean is merely a minimum.
Originally Posted by Pragmatist
Here in Canada, majority rules as well, but I have mixed feelings as to whether this should be the case in regard to the issue discussed here. In general, I also stand up for freedom of speech, but under certain circumstances, I take the view that certain limits need to be applied. I spent a great chunk of my life in Germany and understand there are vast cultural differences between that part of Europe and North America - no worries, I will not trigger another escalating discussion - and ultimately, this to me explains why some individuals take great pride in collecting Nazi items and others are disgusted by simply seeing images showing them. The point being also, that it is a criminal offense in Germany to publicly show such things as they are reminescent of the kind of propaganda that was and at times still is practiced there.
At long last, the two things that really needed clarification are the following:
(1) be aware that the display of Nazi items can be understood as propaganda
(2) censorship in this context does not equate to practicing Nazi ideologies.
I would appreciate if that would be given some thought.
Frankly, the discussion has evolved to a point where it no longer advances to anyone's benefit. So, I am out of this thread...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
What you have to understand is that the display of nazi memorablia - especially in a context that can be considered glorifying - is to a lot of people the same as glorifying the actions of people who commited the terrorist acts on 9/11. Last I checked, there is a arrest warrant out there for an american who did that over Al-Quaida channels for treason. What the nazis did was incomparably more horrible than 9/11, indeed they commited far worse horrors every single day from 1940 to 1944. And we are certainly not forgetting third reich.
Originally Posted by blaze-on
An officers hat, gloves and camera is a rather direct reference to the "gentelman officer", in this case a nazi gentelman officer... so yes, obviously people can find it disturbing.
The gallery is going to be modified soon which will make this a non-issue so I'm going to close the thread. Details on the gallery modifications can be found here: http://www.apug.org/forums/showthrea...038#post384038