Repulsive pic on Mozilla.org

Yui · Mozilla Addict Joined: 12 Nov 2002 Posts: 53

Has anyone seen this pic?

http://www.mozilla.org/party/1999/mozilla2.gif

I think it would be wise to take it down.

1. The star is remniscent of the Nazi star
2. The men saluting are also remniscent of Nazi Soldiers. Look at the way the hand is positioned in the air!

I think it is grotesque to have anything related to or mimicking Nazi Germany. Think of all the people that faught that insane government in World War II. I think they would be apalled. Mozilla shouldn't be tied with NeoNazi's in a poorly made pic for a party that has long past on mozilla.org's web site. That pic should be removed at once.

What if a member of the press saw this piece of trash?!

To promote Mozilla you have to care for the user and the user would be shocked at this outrageous pic!

- Yui

dakboy · Mozilla Addict Joined: 30 Nov 2002 Posts: 86

Not this again?

The horse has been dead for a long time. Lay down the sticks and let it be.

nicubunu · Posted: Thu 20th Feb 2003 11:50pm **Re: Repulsive pic on Mozilla.org**

bim · Mozilla Aficionado Joined: 05 Nov 2002 Posts: 131

marc00s · Posted: Fri 21st Feb 2003 3:07am

This is a usual pentagram. There are about 50 similar ones on the American flag.

The star is a symbol of "revolution", and Mozilla *is* a revolutionary project.

Yes, this does have some leftist connotations (not necessarily communist), but this is funny.

I'm writing from the country where communism ruled for some years. Nowadays young people often make fun of so-called "socialist realism" ("socrealism" in Newspeak), and for me this picture is just making fun of socrealism, which has been the one-and-only-official-style-of-art in Eastern Europe between 1947-1958.

If you don't like the picture, don't look at it. It's also a bit old now.

_________________
marcoos :: http://polmoz.mozdev.org/start/1.0/ :: http://sidebar.marcoos.org/

raj_bhaskar · Posted: Fri 21st Feb 2003 6:57am

I'm just adding my voice to the "leave it be" people. I think that it's quite funny as well.

amr · Posted: Fri 21st Feb 2003 8:25am

www.andkon.com · Troll Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 21

First off it's not really Nazi. (although if you want to see how Mozilla would look with a Nazi logo I hear that http://www.dumbass.com/stuf/mozillapics/ is the place to go)

It is communist. However, that does NOT take Mozilla off the hook.

Since I still find many people arguing how cool the communist logo is, I feel the need to redirect you to http://www.dumbass.com/stuf/mozilla3/ or here's a verbatim copy of the relevant communist imagery argument:

"In past essays, I have tried to make the case that Mozilla's imagery is sickening and unworthy of spewing around by Mozilla. However, I feel I must start over with the argument as some people still do not even believe that Mozilla uses imagery reminiscent of elements of communist propaganda. First, the imagery that is under attack is the following:
Mozilla's communist logo: http://www.mozilla.org/images/mozilla-banner.gif
communist Mozilla party banners: http://www.mozilla.org/party/1999/mozilla2.gif
scattered communist Mozilla banners: http://mozilla.org/banners/

"The clear cut communist references to these are overt: the red color, red star, factories, and the hero-workers saluting. It is not the individual elements that comprise the communist imagery, it is all the elements combined. In other words, a star by itself does not speak of communism. In fact, the well-known communist star was reputed to have been stolen from the American icon. Factories do not speak of communism. Neither does the color red speak of communism. However, when fused together, these three elements do become a clear representation of communism. After all, it is this same type of kitsch artwork that was used during Stalin's regime. I can only guess as to the reasons why Mozilla chooses to have this artwork. However, I am absolutely certain that using communism, the longest-reigning icon of tyranny and oppression in the 20th century (and continuing strong into the 21st), as symbolic of some other "higher" meaning is morally irresponsible and foremost historically incorrect.

"Some of those who actually accept that Mozilla uses communist imagery usually strike back by explaining that if Marx saw what happened to "his" ideas, he would roll over in his grave. These apologists for communism should know that Marx's own life was sad and pathetic. He never lived up to his "great" ideals. Apart from his idiotic, completely backwards ideas (farmer/worker utopia and religious abolishment, just to mention two completely gullible and undemocratic ideas), he plagiarized the rest from ironically religious Christian, Jewish, and other earlier sources. For example, guess what root "commune" and "communism" share. His ideas were not new, as they have been actually lived out (of course in a much less perverted, aggravated, and involuntary ways) in Christian monasteries and small Jewish sects centuries and millennia before. His writings too were plagiarized from sources that were written long before, one of which, Utopia by Saint Thomas More, disproved Marx's communism centuries before Marx himself proposed it.

"What makes it wrong for me to go down some street and start saluting Hitler? He murdered millions and started World War II? Well guess who also murdered millions, even more than Hitler, and assisted Hitler in starting the war? It's Comrade Stalin, Hitler's best friend from 1939 to 1942! If Hitler is despised on account of his genocidal rampage, so should Stalin and the rest of his murderous chums. Since Stalin, along with all the rest of the line of murders, come to represent communism, why does Mozilla have the guts to display the imagery intertwined with these killer regimes? Time has come for recognizing that communism in any shape or form does not deserve to be casually spewed around as "image."

"And what else is this imagery supposed to stand for? Is there anything else that the images could stand for? Marx was never popular during his own life so there was no communist imagery to speak of then. The specific communist imagery that is symbolized in Mozilla was made from the advent of communism in Russia to around the 60's. The only thing these images stand for are the perversions of Lenin, Stalin, and his best student, Mao. These images only represent the creators, namely the murders and their descendants of the ideology of communism. In that light, even if Marx was right, how does Mozilla dare use images that are have been solely produced by these genocidal lunatic butchers?

"The case against the use of communist imagery is even far stronger than the case against the use of swastikas which have been used as religious symbols of Buddhists, shaman religions of Native Americans, and yes even Jews. (It was very surprising for me to see a Mediterranean synagogue with the Star of David and swastika side by side.) Despite this historic usage, I don't think anyone of these groups who read a history book would actually use the swastika today. The evil that came to represent the swastika is greater than the good from it. So then why use the communist star and the portrayal of the typical hero-worker and such when they don't even have historical usage or significance? Why does Mozilla dare use imagery symbolizing perverted people who would be in mental hospitals if caught early? Is it "cool," just like it is to wear Nazi swastika armbands?

"And just to see bucket of sand on the peachy beach of real communist ideology, please see http://www.podval.org/~sds/commies.html
Perhaps Mozilla should call a graphic design contest to make new logos and images for its site and browser as these images are unacceptably sickening. The image and likeness of murder and genocide does not deserve to be the cuddly mascot of a browser to which millions of people are exposed."

www.andkon.com · Troll Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 21

First off it's not really Nazi. (although if you want to see how Mozilla would look with a Nazi logo I hear that http://www.dumbass.com/stuf/mozillapics/ is the place to go)

It is communist. However, that does NOT take Mozilla off the hook.

Since I still find many people arguing how cool the communist logo is, I feel the need to redirect you to http://www.dumbass.com/stuf/mozilla3/ or here's a verbatim copy of the relevant communist imagery argument:

"In past essays, I have tried to make the case that Mozilla's imagery is sickening and unworthy of spewing around by Mozilla. However, I feel I must start over with the argument as some people still do not even believe that Mozilla uses imagery reminiscent of elements of communist propaganda. First, the imagery that is under attack is the following:
Mozilla's communist logo: http://www.mozilla.org/images/mozilla-banner.gif
communist Mozilla party banners: http://www.mozilla.org/party/1999/mozilla2.gif
scattered communist Mozilla banners: http://mozilla.org/banners/

"The clear cut communist references to these are overt: the red color, red star, factories, and the hero-workers saluting. It is not the individual elements that comprise the communist imagery, it is all the elements combined. In other words, a star by itself does not speak of communism. In fact, the well-known communist star was reputed to have been stolen from the American icon. Factories do not speak of communism. Neither does the color red speak of communism. However, when fused together, these three elements do become a clear representation of communism. After all, it is this same type of kitsch artwork that was used during Stalin's regime. I can only guess as to the reasons why Mozilla chooses to have this artwork. However, I am absolutely certain that using communism, the longest-reigning icon of tyranny and oppression in the 20th century (and continuing strong into the 21st), as symbolic of some other "higher" meaning is morally irresponsible and foremost historically incorrect.

"Some of those who actually accept that Mozilla uses communist imagery usually strike back by explaining that if Marx saw what happened to "his" ideas, he would roll over in his grave. These apologists for communism should know that Marx's own life was sad and pathetic. He never lived up to his "great" ideals. Apart from his idiotic, completely backwards ideas (farmer/worker utopia and religious abolishment, just to mention two completely gullible and undemocratic ideas), he plagiarized the rest from ironically religious Christian, Jewish, and other earlier sources. For example, guess what root "commune" and "communism" share. His ideas were not new, as they have been actually lived out (of course in a much less perverted, aggravated, and involuntary ways) in Christian monasteries and small Jewish sects centuries and millennia before. His writings too were plagiarized from sources that were written long before, one of which, Utopia by Saint Thomas More, disproved Marx's communism centuries before Marx himself proposed it.

"What makes it wrong for me to go down some street and start saluting Hitler? He murdered millions and started World War II? Well guess who also murdered millions, even more than Hitler, and assisted Hitler in starting the war? It's Comrade Stalin, Hitler's best friend from 1939 to 1942! If Hitler is despised on account of his genocidal rampage, so should Stalin and the rest of his murderous chums. Since Stalin, along with all the rest of the line of murders, come to represent communism, why does Mozilla have the guts to display the imagery intertwined with these killer regimes? Time has come for recognizing that communism in any shape or form does not deserve to be casually spewed around as "image."

"And what else is this imagery supposed to stand for? Is there anything else that the images could stand for? Marx was never popular during his own life so there was no communist imagery to speak of then. The specific communist imagery that is symbolized in Mozilla was made from the advent of communism in Russia to around the 60's. The only thing these images stand for are the perversions of Lenin, Stalin, and his best student, Mao. These images only represent the creators, namely the murders and their descendants of the ideology of communism. In that light, even if Marx was right, how does Mozilla dare use images that are have been solely produced by these genocidal lunatic butchers?

"The case against the use of communist imagery is even far stronger than the case against the use of swastikas which have been used as religious symbols of Buddhists, shaman religions of Native Americans, and yes even Jews. (It was very surprising for me to see a Mediterranean synagogue with the Star of David and swastika side by side.) Despite this historic usage, I don't think anyone of these groups who read a history book would actually use the swastika today. The evil that came to represent the swastika is greater than the good from it. So then why use the communist star and the portrayal of the typical hero-worker and such when they don't even have historical usage or significance? Why does Mozilla dare use imagery symbolizing perverted people who would be in mental hospitals if caught early? Is it "cool," just like it is to wear Nazi swastika armbands?

"And just to see bucket of sand on the peachy beach of real communist ideology, please see http://www.podval.org/~sds/commies.html
Perhaps Mozilla should call a graphic design contest to make new logos and images for its site and browser as these images are unacceptably sickening. The image and likeness of murder and genocide does not deserve to be the cuddly mascot of a browser to which millions of people are exposed."

amr · Posted: Fri 21st Feb 2003 9:46am

And here's my response:

I didn't read that long rant, either time you posted it.
_________________
Mozilla 1.2.1 on Win98SE/WinXP
Bug 187975

Johann_P · Posted: Fri 21st Feb 2003 10:01am **OH not ...**

not that lame McCarthyism again!
Loosen up!

And sing along:

"Arise, you prisoners of Bill Gates. Arise, you wretched of the net!
For justice thunders condemnation, for a better browser's in birth.
No more tradition's change shall bind us. Arise you slaves, no more in thrall.
The earth shall rise on new foundation: we have been naught, we shall be all.
..."

moronicbajebus · Posted: Fri 21st Feb 2003 1:45pm

What is with the size of your post dumbass? Please one paragraph will so most of the time.
_________________
Don't ba jebus the moronic.

moronicbajebus · Posted: Fri 21st Feb 2003 1:45pm

What page does the picture appear on?
_________________
Don't ba jebus the moronic.

marc00s · Posted: Fri 21st Feb 2003 2:19pm

http://www.mozilla.org/party/1999/
_________________
marcoos :: http://polmoz.mozdev.org/start/1.0/ :: http://sidebar.marcoos.org/

mikecop · Mozilla Fanatic Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 22