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
240 points (82.3% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
40722 readers
4705 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
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.