Comment on Context is for people that read US news
Objection@lemmy.ml 16 hours agoThe British symbol looks nothing like a totenkopf, the tattoo looks exactly like a totenkopf, 1-to-1 on every detail, no matter how much people try to pretend otherwise.
vapeloki@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
If you have an image that shows that much detail, please provide it. I really want to see it. I have not seen any. I see some. Black outlines that’s all.
And from what I can see, the eyes would be different than on the SS version, and details in the bones are also not visible.
Still, it could be like you said the exact version. I can not tell.
And of course does the UK skull not look like this. But: skull on bone is a common symbol. Look for the example at this pre-nazi Symbol.
If we don’t question the given facts, and form our own opinion, we are not better then the real Nazis.
Discrediting political opponents was fire part of their playbook.
(I am a German anitfaschist, breaking Nazi bones since 2000, and I am not here to defend anyone, just to animate independent thinking)
Objection@lemmy.ml 14 hours ago
First off, that symbol is less similar to the tattoo than then totenkomf (that it 100% is). Second, you could also pull up images of swastikas that predate the Nazis. Should I also suspend judgement if I see someone with a swastika tattooed on their chest?
This is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say in this context. I’m seeing a picture that is, very clearly and obviously, a totenkomf, a Nazi symbol. And all I’m doing is calling it a Nazi symbol. And somehow, describing the thing that’s right in front of my eyes makes me “no better than a Nazi.”
I don’t think it’s a totenkopf because I was told it was by some influence campaign to discredit a politician, I know it’s a totenkopf because I have eyes.
I mean, come on! “The Nazis discredited their opponents too.” Ok then, should I not consider Trump discredited, for fear of being like a Nazi? Sure, my eyes have seen him palling around with Jeffery Epstein, but there’s any number of excuses people use, if they really want to. I think there was one narrative that he was just infiltrating the secret pedophile ring to take it down from the inside.
The reality is that there’s this enormous pushback whenever anyone tries to hold any politician to any standard whatsoever. It’s like some kind of internalized authoritarianism. It’s “boys will be boys” dialed up to 11.
I can say with 100% certainty based on the pictures presented that that was a totenkomf. Hell, if it wasn’t, why didn’t he provide pictures to prove otherwise? But no matter what evidence is presented, it’s always possible to just demand high and higher standards of proof to protect politicians from any scrutiny.
vapeloki@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
First, i never said YOU did not think! How do you assume i have this opinion of you? I said as much as you may be right!
Second, i did the work to CONFORM your statement, something i asked for repeatedly from people that state “trust me bro, this is true”.
Here we go, 5 minute gimp job. But asking for proof is considered hostile now? WTF???
ImageImage
Objection@lemmy.ml 14 hours ago
This is the part that I responded negatively to:
To me I came across like, “If you discredit a politician you’re no better than a Nazi,” even though in some situations, like this one, there are legitimate reasons to consider a politician discredited.
The proof was already there. I guess you needed to see it on the specific location the see the similarities? Generally, asking for proof when there’s already proof is going to get a negative reaction.
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 hours ago
That’s not a pre-nazi symbol that’s a proto-nazi symbol…