PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — His U.S. Senate campaign under fire, Maine Democrat Graham Platner said Wednesday that a tattoo on his chest has been covered to no longer reflect an image widely recognized as a Nazi symbol.
The first-time political candidate said he got the skull and crossbones tattoo in 2007, when he was in his 20s and in the Marine Corps. It happened during a night of drinking while he was on leave in Croatia, he said, adding he was unaware until recently that the image has been associated with Nazi police.
I’m tired, boss
Some people are very very angry that Graham Platner is a communist because they found deleted Reddit posts from years and years ago and that’s why they can’t support him and you shouldn’t either
Some people are very very angry that Graham Platner
is a secret Nazihas a death’s head tattoo even though he’s very very clearly not a secret Nazi. This whole endeavor is honestly a textbook example of Control the Conversation. We’re not talking about whether Graham is a Nazi (the “frame”), because he’s clearly not. We’re talking about the “next argument” – whether he covered it up and why, whether it might indicate that he’s another Simena, all that kind of stuff.Honestly, to me, the fact that Chuck Schumer, lemmy.ml, and the mainstream media are all falling over themselves to manufacture little scandals about this guy is the strongest indication so far that he is probably the real deal. Personally, I don’t give a shit whether Jewish Insider found it in their heart for some random reason to start reporting something from some anonymous source who swears he’s
actually a Naziactually we can’t make that argument, but we are going to say he knew this was a Totenkamf he got accidentally and we can kind of imply that other thing. Even though detailed analysis of his not-intended-for-public-viewing Reddit communications seems to show the exact opposite. And of course we can do other equally honest things like grabbing one Facebook photo from right before Graham told the 88 guy to fuck off and pretend it means something. And of course we’re performatively freaking out, to a different audience, about how he’s a secret communist instead, and that’s why we can’t vote for him.I’m so so tired boss. I hate that our social media is this way. I actually took some screenshots of the comments here before the army of “Graham is a problem” people showed up, and it was all normal. No one was saying something that was a little off the main point of what they were implying, no one was vigorously responding over and over to anyone who disagreed with them, none of that. It was just people, most of whom actually seemed like they took the take “well he’s clearly not a Nazi and he is talking about medicare for all and other things we really badly need so what they fuck even is this.”
I’m tired
Edit: Also no one was claiming firsthand experience in the military that proved that Graham was lying, while also not knowing shit about how the military works, and other equally honest comments, read on if you want to see some bullshit
Not sure you’re responding to the right person. Maybe get some sleep, boss.
Definitely I am responding to the right person.
It’s not really for you. It’s for the people who read your comment and then had the same reaction I did. Apparently there are quite a few of them.
My statement was in regard to PBS not including a photo of the thing the story is about.
Was it, though? Was it?
Yes. It was. But you go ahead and cherry-pick the content that fits your narrative. I’m just trying to tell you you’re wasting your time responding to me.
Thank you for your feedback lol
I am also so, so tired boss.
It might be the fascism
Whether he is or isn’t is irrelevant, it’s the image of him portrayed by media that counts. The medium is the message. You should really look into Vladislav Surkov, the architect of Russia’s post-truth society, which the Trump admin imported to the states and is now common practice. The guy is clearly an idiot, maybe he means well but again that is irrelevant. This has Republican hit job written all over it from the get-go, I wouldn’t be surprised if Collins team found out about the tattoo (before he even decided to run) and directed “political technicians” to infiltrate his social circle and subtly nudge this guy to run, consequently becoming an unwitting accomplice to sabotage a genuine left-wing movement.
I may be reading too much into it, but consider “His former political director said he “knows damn well” what the tattoo signifies.”.
I understand you’ve invested a lot of emotional energy into this guy. It’s best to disconnect those feelings from things you can’t change, if he wins he wins, if not that’s ok, learn and grow from the experience.
This part, I halfway agree with. I don’t think he’s an idiot, but I do think that him coming as an outsider and maybe not being super-skilled at politics and policy might hurt his ability to be effective. It’s pretty much the only downside that I see to him. But then, counterbalance that against the upside that there is something about him that makes the establishment start making up all kinds of malicious innuendos about him, and the fact that no one he’s running against even seems to mean well, and it winds up that for now at least I am fine supporting him.
No idea what you’re talking about. I am emotional about the truth, and defending our systems of media against malicious interference. I don’t even know if this guy is a good idea or not, I just know that these particular smears against him are very clearly a bunch of shit, and that’s the part that’s got me heated up about it.
Ahh gotcha, well I recommend reading some Baudrillard, you’re angry over something that doesn’t exist anymore (if it ever did). Truth is all just relative now, shifting like sand in the desert.
The truth is truth. It’s not relative, it’s not subjective, it’s not ideological, and it’s not partisan - it just is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_FnmQ1PspI
Even in the realm of science, there is no such thing as absolute truth, at least not in any capacity humans can ever understand. We have theories based on empirical evidence which we accept as “truth” because that is as good as we can get, some things have more truth than others, which closes the gap on things we have to take as self-evident and better align with understanding and reality.
Refer to Agrippa’s trilemma: it is theoretically impossible to prove any truth.
Nice reference.
Although I’m not demanding absolute truth, I mean in the context of society truth is relative and convincing everyone of truth (not absolute, but the best objective truth we have) is virtually impossible, if you want to convince people it has to be simple and seductive, a caricature of the truth, a lie. Half the country subscribes to magical thinking, and most place more value in image over substance.