When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

That's in two weeks.

There are four lights.

That's not the impression I am getting. People are clearly arguing that the Totenkopf tattoo makes him actually a Nazi.

It's no different than MAGA people calling everyone a Communist. It's just unserious.

I prefer to think that words have meanings and should be applied appropriately, so that they don't lose all meaning.

If he isn't a literal Nazi, then don't call him a Nazi. It's not complicated.

What specific antisemitic things did Platner say on the podcast?

More brilliant analysis. This is what people come to Bluesky for.

I didn't know I was a type, or that gender was ever mentioned in this discussion. Whatever.

So, in the end, the Bailey is an uninhabited smoking ruins that nobody will admit to ever defending, while the Motte remains pristine, since nobody ever attacked it.
Until the next time, when the "He's literally a proven Nazi" cries arise from the ashes and it repeats with nobody leaning anything.

It's meant to benefit Trump.

Tribalism over skepticism apparently.

She blocked me. I must have touched a nerve.

The way I think of "AI" content is that it knows everything about the maps, both real and fictitious, but nothing about the territory.

I would say that the Bailey is that the tattoo proves he is a Nazi, while the Motte is that they show he is someone you shouldn't vote for.

That is quite possible, I am not denying that. However, in the continued absence of any separate evidence, it's not proof that he is a literal Nazi, which is what many people seem to be taking for granted, and that I am skeptical about.

Ironically, it's like debating flat earthers or creationists. They refuse to engage with the most serious challenges to their dogmatic claims and just keep repeating irrelevant talking points.

Here's the claim I was responding to:
"fun fact: you can hate nazis wherever you live"

Who are you quoting?

Big Hunk was nougat, not chocolate.

In response to someone referring to not being a voter in Maine, she wrote:
"fun fact: you can hate nazis wherever you live"

Where I come from, that's clearly implying that Platner is a Nazi, not simply "unqualified".

The Motte (controversial claim): Platner is a Nazi
The Bailey (easily defended claim): Platner is a bad candidate

Watson implied that Platner is a Nazi in her first post. When people ask for evidence other than the tattoo they get ridiculed.

That's not a denial.

Those are good questions.

This is what I care about. Moving the goalpost. Motte and Bailey. People should be able to think clearly no matter which side of the political spectrum they're on.

That's not good, but it's far from proof that he is a literal Nazi. Show me where Platner expresses his own explicit antisemitic views. If he is a literal Nazi that should be trivial.

The tattoo is similar to the 1914 one, but you're right, it's more like the SS one.
It's still just one piece of evidence, which is the original point of the thread.
I am just surprised that Rebecca "skepchick" Watson is sharing what looks to me like textbook groupthink and confirmation bias.

It's a symbol that was used by Nazis and is associated with them. Now it's your turn. Where is the other evidence?

I see two reasonable options:
1. Show some independent evidence.
2. Admit that there isn't any, and explain why there isn't any.

I'll wait.

The return of the freshmaker.