Objection
@Objection@lemmy.ml
- Comment on You can't argue with his logic 2 days ago:
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
Then I must be dense. Because you definitely did make up bullshit to assign to me instead of engaging with what I actually said.
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
In both cases, you’re just making up bullshit and trying to put it in my mouth. You can quibble over definitions all day long, doesn’t change that.
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
I usually find that discussions are more protective when they focus on things people actually said, and not bullshit that you made up and assigned to them. Whether making up bullshit and putting words in other people’s mouths is called “subtext” or “strawmanning” doesn’t really matter, it’s equally unproductive and bad faith either way.
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
Oh, I see. When you talk about the left, you’re talking about mainstream media like MSNBC.
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
Is it? From who, when?
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
Source?
xcancel.com/BenMcCombe/…/1982083117709176945
Clearly you want republicans to hold onto their senate majority…
Let me guess, this is also “subtext.” This is such a neat trick. I really don’t think you should eat babies, like you’re subtextually talking about.
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
That’s just fucking disingenuous for you to say, this whole post is about how he supposedly has so many red flags
Having a Nazi tattoo is a red flag, in itself, regardless of whether I can prove that he knew it was a Nazi tattoo when he got it. Obviously, the bigger red flag was that he was a Blackwater mercenary, a killer-for-hire who bragged about firing a mortar at civilian targets.
then I don’t know what to tell you other than he’s been heavily astroturfed and smeared by establishment politicians who are terrified of losing ground to progressives and the DSA.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t plenty of legitimate criticism as well.
That’s not a retreat, that’s spelling it out for you in block letters because you can’t seem to glean that from the subtext.
Oh, fascinating, so now it’s “subtext.”
Alright, well the “subtext” that I’ve been picking up from you is that Graham Platner is a divine being who we should all build temples to and worship. So, I’m going to need you to prove Platner’s divinity, or else you’re clearly full of shit.
What a ridiculous tactic. You can’t just strawman me based on nothing and then claim that it’s “subtext.”
Yeah, I mean if he didn’t know what it was when he got it, then what’s your point?
My point is simply that it is, factually, a Nazi tattoo.
People try to use it as justification to call him a nazi. That assumes intent, implying that he knew what he was getting.
Who said that, in this thread? Or is this more of that fascinating “subtext?”
And if you can’t glean that from the context, then you’re either half-blind or being willfully obtuse.
And if someone can’t glean that you’re asking for temples to be erected to worship Platner as a god, you’re either half-blind or willfully obtuse. See, I can say bullshit too.
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
You even said that you’d heard the “are we the baddies” quote before, which is frequently accompanied by the screenshot. You also said:
I told them to show me a single screenshot of this symbol appearing in any media that depicts nazis or WWII and they couldn’t provide one, they just kept deflecting and calling me a dumbass.
This is very obviously bullshit. When and where did this supposedly happen? Can you link to it? It’s incredibly hard to believe that nobody on here would have been able to link to the clip I did. Not to mention that any media depicting the SS is going to have it.
Clearly you’re ignoring the context of the conversation
Where in the context was it discussed whether Platner knew what it was when he got it? That’s something you added as part of moving the goalposts.
I see this a lot from you lot. It starts off with, “Nobody would know that symbol” and then when pressed you retreat into “He probably didn’t know what it was when he got it.” Nobody in this conversation said shit about whether he knew what it was when he got it, until you pulled it out of your ass and assigned that position to me, insisting based on nothing that that was the “context.”
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days 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.
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
I chimed in to correct a false statement that you said and now you’re trying at assign a bunch of bullshit I never said to me. Whatever.
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days 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.
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
I feel like you didn’t read this:
You asked for “a single screenshot” and claimed people couldn’t produce one, I showed you a whole sketch specifically about the symbol, and now the goalposts have moved to “high definition photos that I personally see on a daily basis.”
it doesn’t help your argument that he knew what it was if it wasn’t even out yet
Where exactly did I make that argument?
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
You asked for “a single screenshot” and claimed people couldn’t produce one, I showed you a whole sketch specifically about the symbol, and now the goalposts have moved to “high definition photos that I personally see on a daily basis.”
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
Maybe even just the fact that he’s white and/or a man. Men are inherently sexist and white people are inherently racist, so either of those characteristics alone would be enough.
We’re just gonna completely ignore that the most prominent figure on the American left is Bernie Sanders, then? Someone who somehow, incredibly, didn’t need to rape anyone to appeal to the working class?
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
- Comment on Context is for people that read US news 3 days ago:
The 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.
- Comment on perplexing 1 week ago:
Print out your posting history and fax it in triplicate to the embassy or corporation of your choice, you can expect payment within 7-10 business days.
- Comment on perplexing 1 week ago:
That’s a ridiculous thing to assume just because someone disagrees with you… b-baka!
- Comment on perplexing 1 week ago:
It’s actually impossible for two people to have different reactions to something, no matter how different their beliefs or life experiences are. There are only two reasons a person might disagree with you are that they’re being paid off by sinister forces or they’re a bot.
- Comment on No room for romance when there's rising and grinding to be had! 1 week ago:
People ask me how I got promoted so quickly.
The answer is simple: I don’t ask what my company can do for me. I ask what more of myself I can sacrifice for quarterly earnings.
Don’t forget the part where they casually drop that their dad owns the company as if it has nothing to do with anything.
- Comment on "influencers" are setting us back 2 weeks ago:
That sounds like “getting rid of anti-intellectualism,” and the literal opposite of “intellectual elitism.”
- Comment on "influencers" are setting us back 2 weeks ago:
Could just say we need to get rid of anti-intellectualism but has to be phrased in the most provocative way possible because it’s on social media 🙄
- Comment on What do you think about the dead internet theory? 2 weeks ago:
Sure, I can’t know if there are bots that are really good at imitating people. But it’s my choice to go them the benefit of the doubt.
I think the most likely case of encountering a non-obvious bot would be if there’s a human behind it copy-pasting responses, which means there’s still some degree of engagement. If you don’t tailor it to the specific context and don’t double check it, it’s likely not going to be that convincing.
- Comment on What do you think about the dead internet theory? 2 weeks ago:
Funny thing, I actually got banned from Twitter ages ago because I just made an account lurk and follow some political accounts and I didn’t Tweet anything or customize my avatar, so it looked exactly like I was a bot follower to boost numbers.
- Comment on What do you think about the dead internet theory? 2 weeks ago:
I believe in live internet theory. Bots are rare and relatively easy to detect, nearly every account I interact with online is a real person.
People just use the bot thing as a way of explaining away contrary views. I don’t need that explanation, because I have this crazy idea that actual human beings can believe different things and even be wrong.
- Comment on Finally an explanation 2 weeks ago:
The “trickster demon” who in episode 1 hears Light’s plan and responds, “If you do that, you’ll be the only bad guy left?”
Ryuk didn’t make him do shit, he was just in it for the apples.
- Comment on Do you think that Trump is being blackmailed? 2 weeks ago:
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
- Comment on Do you think that Trump is being blackmailed? 2 weeks ago:
And the US has done the same to other countries. And there are countless billionaires and corporations that influence US politics just as Israel does.
Maybe we should focus more on the general problem of class conflict rather than looking at it in terms of nations. If you got all the Israeli money out of US politics but did nothing about the other corporate money and corruption, it’s hard to imagine much would change.
- Comment on Do you think that Trump is being blackmailed? 2 weeks ago:
We’re talking about blackmail material. If AIPAC is sufficient explanation for why congress supports Israel, why do we need all this conjecture and supposition that Trump is being blackmailed, when we know for a fact that he takes AIPAC money too?
