I can't believe a former US marine who joined specifically for Iraq would be violent towards women.
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2026
239 points (82.7% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
40722 readers
4004 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
German here. Is there any real image of the tattoo anywhere? I could only find some images with a big black blob.
https://houseandwhips.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/graham-platner-totenkopf-tattoo.jpg
Also it's not like he denied having it, he for sure had a Totenkopf-tattoo that he put a "celtic knot" over.
https://jewishinsider.com/2025/10/graham-platner-ss-tattoo-maine-senate/
The issue with this kind of stuff is history. As a 40 you’re old American, whose grandfather served in World War II, I had no idea what that tattoo meant before this whole scandal.
The only symbolism we ever went over in school was the flag and swastika. I believe they thought dumb kids would mimic the iconography to look edgy.
Yeah, I keep saying this but idiots keep telling me I must have been a dumbass not to recognize it. 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.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totenkopf_(Symbol)#/media/Datei:German_SS_uniform._Peaked_visor_cap_with_skull_emblem_(Totenkopf)._Norwegian_Armed_Forces_Museum_(Forsvarsmuseet)_Oslo,_Norway_2019-03-31_DSC01646_(cropped).jpg
Oh great, you've proven that there's a wikipedia article for it. This is proof that anyone who hasn't already stumbled upon it by chance is clearly a willfully ignorant nazi! /s
The only reason you're even linking it now is because we're already discussing it. My whole point is that hardly anybody knew what this symbol was prior to the discussion around Platner.
Now find a movie, TV show, book, comic, or video game that depicts that symbol on a nazi. Because that's what I meant from the start and you know it.
Read my other comments. I link this because this is the only real source, and for reference. A German! Wikipedia article.
No, nobody was an idiot for not seeing this, most Germans would not know that this was a Nazi symbol. And wearing those symbols is illegal here.
I see. Thanks for clarifying
It's on every SS uniform
It's prolific enough that's it's specifically mentioned in that "are we the baddies" video. They're wearing it too.
Yes, we all see so many of those on a day-to-day basis, and photos from the time are such high-def it's astounding that anyone could miss it!
(/s, just in case)
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."
Okay, so what's that sketch from? I've heard the quote before but I couldn't tell you what it's from. I've never seen the video, and I'm sure I'm not the only one
Also, what year did it come out, and was it before Platner got the tattoo? Cause if that's the only media representation you're gonna rely on, obscure as it is, it doesn't help your argument that he knew what it was if it wasn't even out yet
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.”
Where exactly did I make that argument?
Okay, I guess you're just gonna ignore the entire context of this conversation and call it "moving the goalposts." Whatever.
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.
A false statement? That I had never seen or heard of the symbol before reading about it in the context of Platner, and that I find it very believable that he didn't know what it was when he got it?
When precisely did you correct that? I'm not sure how you even would.
You showed an example of a media clip that I've never seen, that likely hadn't even come out yet when Platner got his tattoo. How does that change anything about what I said?
Clearly you're ignoring the context of the conversation in favor of a cheap gotcha, and it's not working.
You even said that you'd heard the "are we the baddies" quote before, which is frequently accompanied by the screenshot. You also said:
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. Who was "unable" to provide a single screenshot of the SS?
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."
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.
Subtext is not "making up bullshit" and if you think it's the same thing then you really are dense.
Then I must be dense. Because you definitely did make up bullshit to assign to me instead of engaging with what I actually said.
I fully admit I am not the smartest or best student of history. However I recall no lessons un symbolism in any history class other than ancient Egypt and Neolithic era or late Stone Age.
Make not mistake I am not supporting any hatred other than towards Nazis. However when I first saw the image I honestly thought it was from Warhammer or something.
Yeah, I thought it looked tacky and stupid. I wouldn't have gotten it myself. But I also didn't know it was a nazi symbol until I read about it in the context of platner. Never would have guessed.
I love how the main defense is "bro we all are so ignorant about history that we don't know one of the most recognizable symbols of the nazis, but trust, we can definitely tell this guy isn't one"
Thanks a lot!
Ok, after some closer look, it could resemble the SS "Mützenabzeichen", but it could also just be a generic skull.
BTW, the British atme are no nazis are they? https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/about-the-army/corps-regiments-and-units/royal-armoured-corps/royal-lancers/
I can not say what exactly that tattoo was there is no clear image I found, so I can not jump to conclusions in any direction.
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.
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 blobs/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 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)
That's not a pre-nazi symbol that's a proto-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?
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.
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???
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.
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.
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.
He doesn't even deny it though?? He confirmed it was a totenkopf in interviews with cenk uygur for example. Good god, the amount of proof you all require to confirm that the tattoo of a guy defending people getting SS doppelrune tattoos, goes on murder spree's in west asia and sexually assaults women matches the SS Totenkopf just to confirm that what? He actually is a piece of shit??
I do not need nothing.
Why should I care? I want to understand, that's all. Maybe just read my other comments..
And, maybe you should read the fucking comments of him defending the SS dudes. He is not a nazi. He is just as stupid as one.
On the rape, no idea. Of course, believe women and investigate, but still, assumption of innocence holds.
But after all, America vote a class of Nazis and Neop Babies into power. A convicted rapist, fraud and openly corrupt man.
But hey, this dude is your biggest problem ATM?
Yeah. Nobody can help America anymore. You are lost
read this again but slowly...
This not a courtroom?? The guy is running for office?? He should meet higher criteria, like e.g. not "defending the SS dudes"?? Or carelessly lobbing grenades into dense population areas?? Or raping women?? What the fuck??
And, again you did not read his commwnts, you did not have a look at the deleted comments database
You asshole just echo some sentiment without checking the facts for yourself.
You did not read my other comments ...
This moron called white America racist, around the same time he defended the SS dudes.
He called himself a communist and more.
I did not found anything about him throwing granades, and I DON'T CARE. USA, the land where kids can walk with full automatic weapons in a school and shoot other kids, and all You do is fucking thoughts and prayers.
I'm the one that dug it out for you! What the hell?
So?? I don't know how confused the guy was vs how much he was just masking but he got a nazi tattoo and went on a rampage with his SS buddies in west asia.
And the nazis called themselves "socialist" in order to appeal to a greater mass of people. Actions speak louder than words and nothing this guy said is incongruent with being an ignorant little nazi, whether he acknowledges it or not.
The platner left in a nutshell
I don't care because I have no relation to this guy, and honestly, fighting the AfD and our current government is more important for me then some idiot in the USA, that should never have bin put on a ballot in the first place.
Do you no exit e. V.? A German organization that helps neo nazis to exit the scene? No? Maybe check this.
Bo defending a nazi is not the same as being a Nazi.
Read the fucking comments.
And I said: I don't know.
I never said you can't say what you want.
Now. I am not allowed to thing critical because this is not a courtroom?? WTF?????
Ja ich kenne exit e.V. keine Ahnung was das hiermit zu tun hat aber ist mir auch egal. Jemand der diese Typen hier verteidigt gehört an die Wand und nicht ins Amt.
Die Unschuldsvermutung bis zum rechtskräftigen Gerichtsurteil ergibt keinen Sinn ausserhalb eines Gerichtssaales. Und wenn es einfach in das Bild passt weil der Typ eh schon als Mörder und Nazi-apologet bekannt ist, es selber zugibt so ein Tattoo gehabt zu haben, was für einen Sinn hat es denn dann noch groß die Pixel zu studieren??
Gut, wenn du Exit kennst. Dann weiß tdu auch das es genügend menachen gibt die fa Landen weil sie es nicht verstehen was es bedeutet. Ernsthaft, ließ seine Kommentare. Der Typ ist einfach zu blöd es zu verstehen. Der gehört nicht in die Politik. Punkt