Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Thor Steiner seems pretty clearly involved in cultivating extremists as its primary demographic, however, though their ability to sew iconography onto modern clothing doesn't really reflect on a failing of modern clothing...

They're not just slapping something clearly contradictory onto modern fashion. Modern fashion seemingly has room, as it were, for this iconography.

Because stylized images emblazoned on clothing are a common thing? I mean yeah, I think wearing clothing emblazoned with images or slogans is kind of tacky, but I can't really consider the matter a moral problem on the grounds that people might put iconography that extremist groups may or may not like on the clothing.

First, the ability to conflate brand and values, rendering complicated sensibilities as superficial and tangible as the ink on a silkscreen t-shirt, is not happenstance -- it's by design. This element of intentionality is what we mean by fashion. Second, the politicization of raiment is a trend in the fashion of totalitization. In the mode (pun on the German intended) of National Socialism, this is why swastikas were emblazoned on everything the movement considered legitimate. Fashion in the Third Reich was an agency of legitimization and de-legitimization. Some wore swastika armbands, others wore yellow Stars of David. The same logic persists in contemporary mainstream culture. This is why Thor Steiner is possible.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Because stylized images emblazoned on clothing are a common thing? I mean yeah, I think wearing clothing emblazoned with images or slogans is kind of tacky, but I can't really consider the matter a moral problem on the grounds that people might put iconography that extremist groups may or may not like on the clothing.

What matters is not what slogans or logos people might put on clothes but what they do put on clothes and what reaction it gets. Whatever signs are displayed are going to be read and interpreted.

Here we have a set of signs that appear to be neo-Nazi in inspiration. They are not nonsense like the English slogans often seen on Japanese clothes. The clothes are popular with neo-Nazi groups (apparently -- I don't have personal knowledge about this).

Draw your own conclusions.

Manchu wrote:First, the ability to conflate brand and values, rendering complicated sensibilities as superficial and tangible as the ink on a silkscreen t-shirt, is not happenstance -- it's by design. This element of intentionality is what we mean by fashion. Second, the politicization of raiment is a trend in the fashion of totalitization. In the mode (pun on the German intended) of National Socialism, this is why swastikas were emblazoned on everything the movement considered legitimate. Fashion in the Third Reich was an agency of legitimization and de-legitimization. Some wore swastika armbands, others wore yellow Stars of David. The same logic persists in contemporary mainstream culture. This is why Thor Steiner is possible.

While what you're saying is true, I can't agree that this constitutes a moral problem with modern fashion. While the ability exists for undesirable ideologies to try to brand clothing with their symbols or messages, the whole of fashion is too dilute for this to be a legitimizing factor for them. The Nazis didn't rise to power through snappy fashion sense, it was just another tool in their arsenal once they were established power figures. That sort of power doesn't just spontaneously come to be because of iconography on clothing.

Like I said, I personally don't like the trend of clothing emblazoned with images, iconography, or slogans, but I don't see how its mere existence is a real problem in modern society.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Because stylized images emblazoned on clothing are a common thing? I mean yeah, I think wearing clothing emblazoned with images or slogans is kind of tacky, but I can't really consider the matter a moral problem on the grounds that people might put iconography that extremist groups may or may not like on the clothing.

What matters is not what slogans or logos people might put on clothes but what they do put on clothes and what reaction it gets. Whatever signs are displayed are going to be read and interpreted.

Here we have a set of signs that appear to be neo-Nazi in inspiration. They are not nonsense like the English slogans often seen on Japanese clothes. The clothes are popular with neo-Nazi groups (apparently -- I don't have personal knowledge about this).

Draw your own conclusions.

I did:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Thor Steiner seems pretty clearly involved in cultivating extremists as its primary demographic, ... though their ability to sew iconography onto modern clothing doesn't really reflect on a failing of modern clothing...

While their iconography itself generally isn't troubling (from what I've heard in this thread), their behavior and marketing strategies give away their intentional cultivation of a market base centered on neo-nazi organizations. Were they neutral and simply adopted by neo-nazis for their aesthetics, then the condemnation should fall on the neo-nazis, not the company (though culturally we'd still find the brand being tarnished through association).

I think you are really underestimating the role of aesthetics in the rise of fascism. And the toxic nature of fascist aesthetics. And the degree to which they polluted Western culture during and after WWII.

 Manchu wrote:
I think you are really underestimating the role of aesthetics in the rise of fascism. And the toxic nature of fascist aesthetics. And the degree to which they polluted Western culture during and after WWII.

You're making an assumption that the relevant aesthetics contain some intrinsic power to taint and poison, instead of just being tarnished because nearly a century ago some gibbering lunatics decided they looked cool and adopted them for their propaganda, architecture, and style of dress. If it actually does possess some weird, intrinsic power like that, please elaborate, because that would actually be quite interesting to read about. If it's just a matter of "they happened to have an excellent PR machine when the field of social manipulation was still its infancy, and used snazzy aesthetics as a key facet of this," well yeah, but that doesn't make the aesthetics themselves some eldritch power that's completely alien to modern aesthetics, many of which were created by similarly calculated machines, for the sake of profiting off the sale of the image, or to catch people's attention when advertising something*.

You're also not explaining how generic stylized imagery and iconography being a common clothing feature constitutes a moral issue with society. Aside from tackiness being kind of immoral in a way, I guess. Political parties are always trying to look cool and fashionable to appeal to younger people, but they invariably fall flat on their faces and just look sort of clownish and out of touch, so I don't exactly see much potential for it to help radicals gain a foothold in any first world country, where we're rather numb to the things that might have made the Nazis stand out in the '30s.


*If this is somehow your point: eh... yeah, I guess that's kind of bad in its way, but what are you gonna do? It's the way culture's gone, and we're so desensitized to propaganda these days it actually kind of works out to a positive, like an inoculation against basic propaganda campaigns.



I'm not contesting that through association with rather unpleasant groups and ideologies these aesthetics have been tainted, only the notion that they somehow possess properties that generated or contributed to the existence of said groups and ideologies, while other catchy or stylish aesthetics do not.

 Grey Templar wrote:


While a Nazi may be completely wrong, he does still have the right to his beliefs and expressing them within reason.

Says who? Don't make the mistake of applying your own standards to someone else's country as if those standards were objective, because they aren't. After all, you guys do things, allow things, and disallow things that the rest of us find totally ridiculous, on occasion. The reverse is also true. You've got to understand that the NSDAP almost entirely destroyed Germany, causing the deaths of literally millions of people, including many from both our countries. WWII was a global catastrophe. It's all very well parroting the "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to etc." line (as if you actually believed it...), but that's something that's easy to say having not lived under the horrors of fascism. What do you do when almost everybody decides they want to be a Nazi? Just shrug your shoulders and go 'Ah, well - that's freedom!' and get in line for the gas chamber? Grow up.

This is the Germans' decision and their right, and I fully support them in it. Mind your own fething business.

Bear in mind that Germany also abuses the laws that were put in place to hamstring the ability of extremists to disseminate fascist or otherwise violent ideologies in order to censor portrayals of violence or anything that happens to reference Nazis (like, say, certain notable games revolving around fighting them, for instance) whenever they feel like it, so it's not as though Germany's approach to censorship is actually sane or anything. By all means, burn the neo-nazis at the stake* as terrorists or gangsters or whatever, but realize the far-reaching ramifications of giving a parliament such extraordinary license to censor what it will.



*Rhetorical exaggeration, not literally endorsing burning at the stake, even for those lunatics.

Admittedly it's inconvenient when you buy Revell kits -- which are imported through Germany -- and the swastika markings are cut out of the decal sheet, but I wouldn't call it insane.

If anything it is a consistent approach to the issue.

The German government picked Article 1 of the basic law for a reason, and if it causes some people to be upset because they can't say what they want then I am actually surprisingly okay with it.

Edit: And as an additional thought to address the whole "they censor the swastika in popular WW2 themed computer games where the nazis are the bad guys!" issue:

You know what the USA censors in their video games: boobs. You know what Germany allows in their video games: boobs.

When history looks back on the issue of whether to allow boobs or swastikas in computer games, I will be proud to stand with the side that was pro-boobs.

 d-usa wrote:
The German government picked Article 1 of the basic law for a reason, and if it causes some people to be upset because they can't say what they want then I am actually surprisingly okay with it.

Edit: And as an additional thought to address the whole "they censor the swastika in popular WW2 themed computer games where the nazis are the bad guys!" issue:

You know what the USA censors in their video games: boobs. You know what Germany allows in their video games: boobs.

When history looks back on the issue of whether to allow boobs or swastikas in computer games, I will be proud to stand with the side that was pro-boobs.

Didn't the new Farcry game (or the God of War series) have boobs in it?

 d-usa wrote:
The German government picked Article 1 of the basic law for a reason, and if it causes some people to be upset because they can't say what they want then I am actually surprisingly okay with it.

Edit: And as an additional thought to address the whole "they censor the swastika in popular WW2 themed computer games where the nazis are the bad guys!" issue:

You know what the USA censors in their video games: boobs. You know what Germany allows in their video games: boobs.

When history looks back on the issue of whether to allow boobs or swastikas in computer games, I will be proud to stand with the side that was pro-boobs.

The US doesn't censor boobs in video games. Haven't you ever played Duke Nukem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


While a Nazi may be completely wrong, he does still have the right to his beliefs and expressing them within reason.

Says who? Don't make the mistake of applying your own standards to someone else's country as if those standards were objective, because they aren't. After all, you guys do things, allow things, and disallow things that the rest of us find totally ridiculous, on occasion. The reverse is also true. You've got to understand that the NSDAP almost entirely destroyed Germany, causing the deaths of literally millions of people, including many from both our countries. WWII was a global catastrophe. It's all very well parroting the "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to etc." line (as if you actually believed it...), but that's something that's easy to say having not lived under the horrors of fascism. What do you do when almost everybody decides they want to be a Nazi? Just shrug your shoulders and go 'Ah, well - that's freedom!' and get in line for the gas chamber? Grow up.

This is the Germans' decision and their right, and I fully support them in it. Mind your own fething business.

This is interesting coming from someone who called pro-gun Americans fantasist morons. I'm not trying to rake you over the coals for that specifically, by the way. You have your right to an opinion on the matter and I'm not going to tell you to "mind your own fething business" because you have your own reasons for disagreeing how people in another country do things. But don't you think that's just a bit hypocritical here? I mean, to disagree with the policies of one country to the point of calling people who support those policies fantasist morons, and then telling someone else who believes that everyone has the right to express their own beliefs within reason to "mind their own fething" business" seems a like you're fine with criticism of something in another country or culture, as long as it's something you personally take issue with so it's all well and good, but if someone else criticizes something you think is okay they need to "mind their own fething business."

There are those of us who actually do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinion, even if they personally disagree with it. I can see how it might be difficult for you to believe that, since you obviously don't feel the same way. Which is fine. It just comes across as a bit hypocritical in the context of some of your previous posts.


As for me, I have a hard time with the way Germany handles censorship, even of extremist groups. However, I completely understand the reason why those laws were put in place and I don't disagree with the intent of those laws (that is, to ensure that Naziism and extremism never regain power there). I just disagree with the way some of it is implemented. I think that those kind of censorship laws give an implication that some people think if Germany didn't have laws specifically banning Nazi symbols and rhetoric, Nazis would somehow be able to gain power again, which I think is a pretty condescending way to approach the German people. There isn't going to be a situation in Germany where everyone decides they want to be a Nazi, because in Germany, the overwhelming majority don't want anything to do with Nazis. This is now engrained so much on a cultural level, that censorship doesn't really strike me as all that necessary.

But still, I understand their reasoning for doing it and I agree that they have the right to do it in their own country. Whenever I'm in Germany I don't bring it up because in a lot of ways it isn't really that big of an issue and many Europeans don't understand what I admit is a rather American approach to the subject.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
You're making an assumption that the relevant aesthetics contain some intrinsic power to taint and poison

No, I am not.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
You're also not explaining how generic stylized imagery and iconography being a common clothing feature constitutes a moral issue with society.

As KK pointed out to you above, the issue is not generic stylized imagery.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The German government picked Article 1 of the basic law for a reason, and if it causes some people to be upset because they can't say what they want then I am actually surprisingly okay with it.

Edit: And as an additional thought to address the whole "they censor the swastika in popular WW2 themed computer games where the nazis are the bad guys!" issue:

You know what the USA censors in their video games: boobs. You know what Germany allows in their video games: boobs.

When history looks back on the issue of whether to allow boobs or swastikas in computer games, I will be proud to stand with the side that was pro-boobs.

Didn't the new Farcry game (or the God of War series) have boobs in it?

Lots of our games have boobs. Thats what the M rating is for.

I can't think of anything in the US game industry thats outright censored, just stuff that gets you a higher rating.

 Hordini wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


While a Nazi may be completely wrong, he does still have the right to his beliefs and expressing them within reason.

Says who? Don't make the mistake of applying your own standards to someone else's country as if those standards were objective, because they aren't. After all, you guys do things, allow things, and disallow things that the rest of us find totally ridiculous, on occasion. The reverse is also true. You've got to understand that the NSDAP almost entirely destroyed Germany, causing the deaths of literally millions of people, including many from both our countries. WWII was a global catastrophe. It's all very well parroting the "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to etc." line (as if you actually believed it...), but that's something that's easy to say having not lived under the horrors of fascism. What do you do when almost everybody decides they want to be a Nazi? Just shrug your shoulders and go 'Ah, well - that's freedom!' and get in line for the gas chamber? Grow up.

This is the Germans' decision and their right, and I fully support them in it. Mind your own fething business.

This is interesting coming from someone who called pro-gun Americans fantasist morons.

Actually, that's not strictly what I said, and it isn't what I think. If you recall, I characterised the ultra right-wing pro-gun lobby on this site as 'fantasist morons'. I stand by what I said. There is a flip-side to that particular coin: I'm not anti-gun. I'm not even anti-gun ownership. If I lived in the States I'd probably own at least one. It's the only place I've been thus far where I've felt the need to be armed, and indeed did arm myself with a knife whilst I was there. That's not a dig, it's just that personal weapons are more of a fact of life there than they are here, and that is very obvious.

I'm not trying to rake you over the coals for that specifically, by the way. You have your right to an opinion on the matter and I'm not going to tell you to "mind your own fething business" because you have your own reasons for disagreeing how people in another country do things.

Aha, but that isn't actually what's happening, is it? He didn't say 'well, in my opinion a nazi should have the same right to express his beliefs as any other person', did he? Who could have a problem with that? No, instead he made a definitive statement. He presented it as a fait accompli. It just reads as more arrogant finger-wagging from another American right-wing fundamentalist. It gets boring after a while, and sometimes you just feel like saying 'just feth off and mind your own business - it's not as if YOU guys have it all figured out!'

On a side note inspired by the pain killers I'm on, and having looked at this clothing line. i have to say I think we as a planet need to expect more from the ignorant, inbred, human slime that is the modern Neo-Nazi movement. I mean come on, the originals worse clothing designed by Hugo Boss, If you're going to imitate the worst portions of one of the most evil movements in our history, and adapt those ideals as your own, then you should dress to match. Ditch the dock martins, go pick up an expensive and well tailored suit with an armband.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The German government picked Article 1 of the basic law for a reason, and if it causes some people to be upset because they can't say what they want then I am actually surprisingly okay with it.

Edit: And as an additional thought to address the whole "they censor the swastika in popular WW2 themed computer games where the nazis are the bad guys!" issue:

You know what the USA censors in their video games: boobs. You know what Germany allows in their video games: boobs.

When history looks back on the issue of whether to allow boobs or swastikas in computer games, I will be proud to stand with the side that was pro-boobs.

Didn't the new Farcry game (or the God of War series) have boobs in it?

Lots of our games have boobs. Thats what the M rating is for.

I can't think of anything in the US game industry thats outright censored, just stuff that gets you a higher rating.

The censorship in the US also isn't a legal matter, as it is in Germany, or the UK, or Australia, it's all voluntary submission to a rating by a private organization. Its strongest impact is an unfortunate trend with console manufacturers (and their wretched walled-garden approach to entertainment) and brick and mortar retailers (who are steadily declining, if still powerful) to require a rating, specifically one of M or lower.

And it should be noted that Germany censors portrayals of violence in games, not just nazi iconography, since the law allows them to censor "encouragement of violence" and is apparently so vague that they can apply it to games.

Admittedly, it was US pressure post-WWII that drove them to enact those laws, just as US pressure drove Japan to whaling and its absurd censorship laws, but this was in the era when the pile of illegal lunacy that was the Hays Code was enforced here, too.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
On a side note inspired by the pain killers I'm on, and having looked at this clothing line. i have to say I think we as a planet need to expect more from the ignorant, inbred, human slime that is the modern Neo-Nazi movement. I mean come on, the originals worse clothing designed by Hugo Boss, If you're going to imitate the worst portions of one of the most evil movements in our history, and adapt those ideals as your own, then you should dress to match. Ditch the dock martins, go pick up an expensive and well tailored suit with an armband.

That is one thing you could say for the original Nazi party. They had fashion sense.

Admittedly, it was US pressure post-WWII that drove them to enact those laws, just as US pressure drove Japan to whaling and its absurd censorship laws, but this was in the era when the pile of illegal lunacy that was the Hays Code was enforced here, too.

Didn't all our laws have to be signed off by the allied powers back then?

 Manchu wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
You're making an assumption that the relevant aesthetics contain some intrinsic power to taint and poison

No, I am not.

You outright said "You're really underestimating ... the toxic nature of fascist aesthetics." How am I supposed to interpret this as anything but an ascription of some special power to the aesthetics themselves? Otherwise it's just repeating part of my premise: that they've been tarnished through association with undesirable ideologies.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
You're also not explaining how generic stylized imagery and iconography being a common clothing feature constitutes a moral issue with society.

As KK pointed out to you above, the issue is not generic stylized imagery.

We're kind of running in circles here. If you're not positing that fascist aesthetics are special and fundamentally alien to acceptable aesthetics, and you're not positing that the trend of logos and stylized iconography emblazoned on clothing is a problem in general, and you're not arguing that we're not sufficiently intolerant of anything resembling fascist aesthetics (when we're extremely intolerant of such), what are we disagreeing about?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Admittedly, it was US pressure post-WWII that drove them to enact those laws, just as US pressure drove Japan to whaling and its absurd censorship laws, but this was in the era when the pile of illegal lunacy that was the Hays Code was enforced here, too.

Didn't all our laws have to be signed off by the allied powers back then?

"Our laws" as in the US'? No, where would you get that idea? We exterted significant control over the legislative process in conquered countries, and wielded significant influence elsewhere, but we weren't subject to any outside authority ourselves.

@Sir Pseudonymous: Aesthetics, fashion, sensibilities, and values are not the same thing as symbols.

what are we disagreeing about?

Honestly, I don't really care. My point is that the fascist sensibility is totalitizing where even what one wears is overtly politicized specifically via branding. This exists in contemporary fashion since the mid twentieth century. It is therefore not difficult for fascist symbols to slip back into the picture; this is their "natural habitat," after all.

"Our laws" as in the US'? No, where would you get that idea? We exterted significant control over the legislative process in conquered countries, and wielded significant influence elsewhere, but we weren't subject to any outside authority ourselves.

Sorry, I was asking as a German national there when I was saying "our".

 d-usa wrote:

"Our laws" as in the US'? No, where would you get that idea? We exterted significant control over the legislative process in conquered countries, and wielded significant influence elsewhere, but we weren't subject to any outside authority ourselves.

Sorry, I was asking as a German national there when I was saying "our".

Ah, the flag and location threw me. Then yes, I think that might have been the case. Whether it was a formal legal matter or not, I don't know, only that significant control and influence were exerted over the defeated countries.

You could equate the current US ratings boards with quasi-censoring material in some mediums. Getting an AO rating on your video game, almost ensures no retailer will ever carry it. I.E. no one really makes games that get AO ratings, and when they do, they tone it back to get an M. Likewise, the NC-17 rating in films is similar especially after it was changed to no one 17 and under. A lot of media networks won't show trailers for such films, or rather, back in the 90's they refused to leading film makers to stop making them. It's no government censorship, its voluntary, but the structure of the industries nearly forces this censorship on to developers and media makers.

That said though, ratings systems in the US can be quite fickle in how they rate content.

Which really isn't a problem is it?

There are outlets for selling games that recieve those ratings so its not like you absolutly can't sell games above an M rating.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which really isn't a problem is it?

There are outlets for selling games that recieve those ratings so its not like you absolutly can't sell games above an M rating.

We can get them but those companies make those products to make money and if no retailer (specifically brick and mortar stores) will carry them, and no tv station will advertise them, you don't make much money. It's not a problem for the consumer so much as the developer and gives them a lot of incentive not to make that kind of content.

The issue of censorship by private entities in the US is extremely problematic, no one will contest that (aside from the people who are responsible for the problem in the first place), but it is a far cry from censorship instituted by a government. The vast majority of games produced in this day and age don't even bother with a rating, though the larger projects looking to sell in brick and mortar retailers are required to. Considering the massive number of independent games on Steam, they don't require an ESRB rating, though they have their own standards, which I'm not familiar with. Considering the move to digital distribution, we may yet see the death of the ESRB, just as we saw comics break away from the old comics code.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
That is for the Ernst Rohm appreciation society.

Ha!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which I find to be a major overreaction.

Seriously, its been almost 70 years. Maybe its time to get over it?

There are people alive today who lost their parents in death camps so it really, really fething isn't time to get over it.

And my issue is one of principle. If you truly believe in freedom of speech, you can't suppress another person's views because you disagree with them. If you start making exceptions to this freedom you can end with a slipperly slope towards totalitarianisim.

And given that Germany has applied it's blanket ban on Nazi symbols but hasn't lurched into banning other things, your principle simply isn't matching up with the real world. You really can pick out one outlying political belief, ban it, and not ban anything else. The assumption of the slippery slope, in this case, is clearly flawed.

Now, in order to comfortably say 'we can ban this and only this' I believe that thing you are banning would have really clear outlier to other political beliefs, but fortunately nazism is just that.

The fear is that it could happen, not that it is happening.

By setting a precident that it is ok in some circumstances to completely crush a certain belief system you say it can happen in certain circumstances.

What happens when people start toying with what circumstances allow you to do such an extreme thing? People will use this to further their own political agenda by turning their opponents into extremists that they can legally squash.

So yes, it is a slippery slope. It may take a long time, but its always there and something to keep in mind.