Yeah, I have heard the quote before. If you’re assuming that means I’ve seen the screenshot, then that just goes to show how prominent the totenkopf is in it, if I didn’t even notice it or recognize it later.
And I spoke truly when I said they couldn’t provide one. Just because you provide one now doesn’t change that. And no, I’m not gonna go digging for an old conversation just to show you.
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.
That’s just fucking disingenuous for you to say, this whole post is about how he supposedly has so many red flags, and if you can’t glean the subtext that there have been multiple conversations about this 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.
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.”
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. It’s like you want to approach this thread in a vacuum and pretend it’s the first time anyone has ever discussed 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.”
Yeah, I mean if he didn’t know what it was when he got it, then what’s your point? People try to use it as justification to call him a nazi. That assumes intent, implying that he knew what he was getting. I’m saying I don’t find that to be very cogent. And if you can’t glean that from the context, then you’re either half-blind or being willfully obtuse.
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, and recognizable as such.
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, they’re either half-blind or willfully obtuse. See, I can say bullshit too.
who bragged about firing a mortar at civilian targets.
Source?
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.
You apparently don’t know the difference between subtext and a strawman.
And yeah, if you can’t read subtext then it would be hard to have any real media literacy at all.
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, they’re either half-blind or willfully obtuse.
Willfully obtuse it is, thank you for clarifying that.
Recognizing that Platner is a better choice than Susan Collins and we shouldn’t be doing maga’s work for them by tearing apart his campaign isn’t exactly “erecting temples and worshipping,” but go off. Clearly you want republicans to hold onto their senate majority…
Oh, so you’re just illiterate? He didn’t say he lobbed mortar fire at civilian targets. He said he improvised a grenade launcher to return indirect fire to incoming mortar sites. Yours was a wildly inaccurate mischaracterization.
And no, again, you clearly don’t know the difference between subtext and a strawman. So I don’t know why I’m wasting my time on you.
Let me break this down for you in the plainest terms:
If Platner loses, Susan Collins wins. Those are your choices. It’s unfortunate that we have a two-party, FPTP system, but we do. So if you’re contributing to the smear campaign against Platner, then you’re basically campaigning for Collins. That’s called subtext, and it says a lot about you that you needed that to be ELI5ed.
Accusing me of eating babies and erecting temples is a strawman. See the difference?
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.
Yeah, I have heard the quote before. If you’re assuming that means I’ve seen the screenshot, then that just goes to show how prominent the totenkopf is in it, if I didn’t even notice it or recognize it later.
And I spoke truly when I said they couldn’t provide one. Just because you provide one now doesn’t change that. And no, I’m not gonna go digging for an old conversation just to show you.
That’s just fucking disingenuous for you to say, this whole post is about how he supposedly has so many red flags, and if you can’t glean the subtext that there have been multiple conversations about this 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.
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. It’s like you want to approach this thread in a vacuum and pretend it’s the first time anyone has ever discussed it.
Yeah, I mean if he didn’t know what it was when he got it, then what’s your point? People try to use it as justification to call him a nazi. That assumes intent, implying that he knew what he was getting. I’m saying I don’t find that to be very cogent. And if you can’t glean that from the context, then you’re either half-blind or being willfully obtuse.
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.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t plenty of legitimate criticism as well.
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.”
My point is simply that it is, factually, a Nazi tattoo, and recognizable as such.
Who said that, in this thread? Or is this more of that fascinating “subtext?”
And if someone can’t glean that you’re asking for temples to be erected to worship Platner as a god, they’re either half-blind or willfully obtuse. See, I can say bullshit too.
Source?
You apparently don’t know the difference between subtext and a strawman.
And yeah, if you can’t read subtext then it would be hard to have any real media literacy at all.
Willfully obtuse it is, thank you for clarifying that.
Recognizing that Platner is a better choice than Susan Collins and we shouldn’t be doing maga’s work for them by tearing apart his campaign isn’t exactly “erecting temples and worshipping,” but go off. Clearly you want republicans to hold onto their senate majority…
https://xcancel.com/BenMcCombe/status/1982083117709176945
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.
Oh, so you’re just illiterate? He didn’t say he lobbed mortar fire at civilian targets. He said he improvised a grenade launcher to return indirect fire to incoming mortar sites. Yours was a wildly inaccurate mischaracterization.
And no, again, you clearly don’t know the difference between subtext and a strawman. So I don’t know why I’m wasting my time on you.
Let me break this down for you in the plainest terms:
If Platner loses, Susan Collins wins. Those are your choices. It’s unfortunate that we have a two-party, FPTP system, but we do. So if you’re contributing to the smear campaign against Platner, then you’re basically campaigning for Collins. That’s called subtext, and it says a lot about you that you needed that to be ELI5ed.
Accusing me of eating babies and erecting temples is a strawman. See the difference?
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.
No, there’s a difference between strawmanning and subtext, and the fact that you refuse to see that tells me all I need to know.
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.