Is it appropriate to use an image of Hitler in your sig?
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 42,315
Likes: 45
From: Central Massachusetts
Interesting point of view, Brant. But, as for the public school / gov't building, I have to debate you on that one.
I agree 100% that the crux of the issues regarding offense is intent. And, of course, I understand the intent and the humor behind wicky's use of the Hitler image. However, in a public place (and s2ki is not a public place, by my def'n, just for clarity), there is little room for communication when someone you don't know throws a poster on the wall or says something in a lecture, etc. I'm all for discussion and communication, but offensive behavior doesn't usually lend itself to redress.
Issues of symbolism should be avoided in public places in my view. They are by nature inflammatory. A picture of Hitler on a wall is going to offend nearly everyone, and not provide an open channel of communication.
Instead of the Hitler example, let's try something much less inflammatory... Suppose your public school wants to put up a Christmas tree in the lobby. Sounds nice, right? I would claim that religious symbolism is perhaps the most insidious form of offense because it is inherently exclusionary without appearing to be. So, inadvertantly I'm sure, putting up that tree will alienate kids who aren't Christian, and they won't be comfortable talking about it because, hey, it's Christmas.
Of course, the flip side to all this is symbolism that isn't exclusionary. As Americans, our government can (and should) display symbols of America in public places. This is a type of exclusion, yes, but it fits the purpose of our public institutions.
Pardon the rambling. Obviously, I do have strong feelings about this (and welcome the discussion).
I agree 100% that the crux of the issues regarding offense is intent. And, of course, I understand the intent and the humor behind wicky's use of the Hitler image. However, in a public place (and s2ki is not a public place, by my def'n, just for clarity), there is little room for communication when someone you don't know throws a poster on the wall or says something in a lecture, etc. I'm all for discussion and communication, but offensive behavior doesn't usually lend itself to redress.
Issues of symbolism should be avoided in public places in my view. They are by nature inflammatory. A picture of Hitler on a wall is going to offend nearly everyone, and not provide an open channel of communication.
Instead of the Hitler example, let's try something much less inflammatory... Suppose your public school wants to put up a Christmas tree in the lobby. Sounds nice, right? I would claim that religious symbolism is perhaps the most insidious form of offense because it is inherently exclusionary without appearing to be. So, inadvertantly I'm sure, putting up that tree will alienate kids who aren't Christian, and they won't be comfortable talking about it because, hey, it's Christmas.
Of course, the flip side to all this is symbolism that isn't exclusionary. As Americans, our government can (and should) display symbols of America in public places. This is a type of exclusion, yes, but it fits the purpose of our public institutions.
Pardon the rambling. Obviously, I do have strong feelings about this (and welcome the discussion).
