Comment

Comment on Context is for people that read US news

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)

source

Sort:hotnew top

Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

But: skull on bone is a common symbol. Look for the example at this pre-nazi Symbol.

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?

If we don’t question the given facts, and form our own opinion, we are not better then the real Nazis.

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.

source
- vapeloki@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨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???
  
  Image Image
  
  source
  - Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    First, i never said YOU did not think! How do you assume i have this opinion of you?
    
    This is the part that I responded negatively to:
    
    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 part of their playbook.
    
    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.
    
    Here we go, 5 minute gimp job. But asking for proof is considered hostile now?
    
    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.
    
    source
    vapeloki@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    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.
    
    Sorry, that was not my intention. Let me rephrase this: We are living in a political environment, where old Nazi tactics are applied, based on my observations mostly from the political right. I see many echoed statements from people, that never even had a look at the images, his comments and more.
    
    This is bad. We should assume that everything anybody says about a politician is a lie until proven otherwise. Thats the assumption of innocence and always true, but especially now.
    
    Also, again, not claiming YOU do this.
    
    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.
    
    As i stated multiple times, i could not say if it is the same or not. I am autistic, so, it maybe a personal thing, but for me it was not clear at all. Proof is not “i can see it, trust me!”, but, "Here it is, everybody now has the same facts and information, independently from his personal feelings, past experiences and interpretation.
    
    And my conclusion currently: This dude did some very uninformed, very stupid stuff. I can not see that he is or was a rightwinger or Nazi, even in comments used against him (defining idiots that have “bolt” tattoos) he makes it political position clear.
    
    Do i think somebody that defends people with literal SS tattoos is somebody that should have political power? No, but not because he is a Nazi, no, just because he is stupid AF.
    
    source
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
That’s not a pre-nazi symbol that’s a proto-nazi symbol…

source