Yep, I’m sticking with “no”, too.

The question fits well with Jeff at PW’s intentionalist arguments, if I understand his logic.  If the user of the symbol’s true and only intent is to display “eternality, universal order, harmony and the balance of opposites” by using the symbol, any attempts by interpreters to smear this as racist are basically without ground.  But, given the widely known interpretation of the symbol as representing Nazis, white supremacists, et. al., it would be pretty hard to find someone who only knows the former interpretation of the sign and not the latter, and/or would be willing to use it to convey only the former.  Even so, if the person’s true intent is to only convey the former through use of the symbol, despite the fact that we would think he chose his sign poorly, attempts to paint that person as a beyond the pale racist are the interpreter’s error, not the fault of the signifier.  Just sayin’.  See also:  niggardly, throw out the tar baby (or whatever it was that politician said .. it was something like that), etc.

Hey, BBob, how’s it going?

I agree, I would never say that a designer who was using the symbol in the context that it was shown on the Docs was a racist, but I would say that he was making an exceptionally bad design decision. I do think that there is a difference between the swastika and “niggardly”, though. I get irritated with the argument about niggardly because the misinterpretation is based entirely on ignorance. So far as I can tell, there are no racial connotations to the word and the etymology of the word doesn’t suggest racially oriented origins. The misinterpretation is unreasonable.

The swastika, by contrast, is a continuing symbol of fascism and national socialism, is intrinsically tied to the brutality of the Nazi party, and that isn’t likely to be changed in my lifetime. There are still survivors of the camps and the war wandering about here and there and they would be seeing this design on the street. Any misinterpretation is based on an actual, reasonable interpretation of the symbol.

Which is why it didn’t take long for me to come up with my answer.

Which is also a long way of saying, yeah, I agree.

Well, Mr. Answer, Mr. Lady hates the questions, hates it with the heat of the fire of a thousand suns.  I’m going with you on the ‘no’.

Fiery hate from the combustible Mr. Lady is most certainly not what we’re looking for.

Downright scary, in fact.

"The swastika, by contrast ... is intrinsically tied to the brutality of the Nazi party...”

Intrinsically?

Intimately tied to, perhaps ineradicably associated with, but I don’t think there is anything intrinsic about the connection between the hakenkreuz/fylfot/swastika and the National Socialist German Workers Party.

None of which, regrettably, is to say “yes”.

More time has to pass before that symbol can be reclaimed.

Now, if only we could get a similar visceral response to Communist iconography.

re: Intrinsic: Fair cop. Although it’s still much easier to say than “ineradicably associated with"--not quite right, but much, much easier to say.

As for Communist iconography, we’ll never see that kind of a reaction. Sad.

I hope you noticed that I avoided the obvious “Princess Bride” reference.  It cost me, man; it cost me a lot.

I think they’ll be able to “take back” the swastika right after people stop keeling over in horror at a Confederate battle flag.

Meaning, never.