And it was fairly blobby by the time he had it covered up.
Keep telling yourself that it wasn’t a Totenkopf. It’s a great argument.
Again, I think there’s plenty of room to debate why he got and kept it, but this “it’s not what it looks like” thing is ridiculous.
This is where it falls apart for me. As I understand the chain of discussions he was in, it was like:
-
“Look at these tired-ass Nazis!”
-
“How do you know they’re Nazis?”
-
“One of them has a Totenkopf.”
-
“Man, people should realize if they literally have skulls on the uniform, they’re the bad guys.”
-
“Nah, lots of soldiers just use skulls to seem scary–look at the SEALS and their use of the Punisher logo.”
-
“That’s kind of unofficial, and I’ve seen the Punisher logo more on civilians than on SEALS.”
-
PLATNER: “Nah, dude, in my experience all the SEALS had it on their armor carriers.”
This is the proof that Platner knew what a Totenkopf was well enough to identify his own tattoo as a Totenkopf?
No way.
Yes, Reddit is set up so that he would’ve had to see post 3 before seeing post 6. But Reddit is not set up to have a reading comprehension test on post 3 before posting. Having used Reddit, I’ve seen people post in a way that shows they don’t understand the post they’re responding to, let alone a post that’s three levels up in the response chain. Hell, hard as it is to believe, I’ve even seen people right here on the SDMB respond to a post that they didn’t understand!
Responding to a post is not proof that you understand the post. Responding to a post three posts later in a chain is absolutely not proof.
Alternative scenario: Platner was scrolling through combat footage, and saw an interesting picture. He idly clicked through conversation he didn’t much care about, and when a reference to “Totenkopf” came up, if he thought about it at all, it was “huh?” immediately followed by “oh, I guess it’s a skull,” given the response to the reference. He continued idly clicking/scrolling until someone downplayed the SEALS/Punisher logo, at which point he felt more confident in his knowledge and added his own anecdote.
This Reddit exchange is completely unpersuasive as proof of anything.
It wasn’t just about totenkopfs; it was specifically about how the totenkopf is specifically distinguishable from all of the many other skull emblems used by militaries, and that that constituted proof that the guy wearing it was a Nazi.
This entire thread is completely unpersuasive as proof of anything. It’s the exact same six posters saying the exact same thing over and over for 600 plus posts. Nobody is going to change their mind, nobody is even going to consider the possibility they are wrong, and I guarantee nobody will even admit it in the future if they are actually wrong.
First, you seem to be deriving all that from “The totenkopf on the dude first on the left is a good clue.” That’s a lot to read into it, even in hindsight, even in the context of an in-depth discussion of whether someone can recognize a totenkopf.
Second, again, you’re presupposing that he carefully read and considered every post in the thread above him. I think that’s a huge assumption that’s unwarranted, much less something that constitutes proof of anything.
I’m definitely persuadable.
The NYT article is close to persuading me; but I’m not seeing corroborating evidence. I think (although I’m not sure) that NYT looked for evidence that she told people at the time of the events as she remembers them now, and that they were unable to find it. If I’m wrong, I welcome correction. (And she has, I think, claimed that they ignored the evidence she offered. If that’s accurate, I’m expecting her to release that evidence herself, or to a trustworthy reporter.)
That said, I definitely think there’s motivated reasoning on the part of people who are convinced that the Reddit thread proves he knew what a totenkopf was. They’re attributing to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence, making conspiracy-theory-level webs of circumstantial evidence. I think some of these theories would best be explained with a posterboard and a bunch of red yarn and thumbtacks.
I maintain my hope that at least some of the people defending Platner right now will see the error of their ways when the identities of his Kik sexting partners drop. But there will probably be diehard defenders even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight.
And I don’t think anyone in this thread votes in Maine, so it doesn’t really matter if anyone is persuaded.
The thread’s been very persuasive to me, not in terms of changing my mind but more in the way of heaping up further confirmatory evidence for the proposition:
America is no longer a serious country.
Patently, “the best guy we can find to fight ongoing fascism has a Nazi tattoo and some domestic violence allegations, but eh, whatcha gonna do” is a failure state for democracy. It’s by no means the direct responsibility of anyone in this thread but you do all see that this shaming, right?
Everyone knows the story about keeping the Nazis out the bar, yes? Just 'cos its one quiet guy and the symbol is discrete you don’t give it a pass, you rigorously enforce the boundary because if it’s breached it gets harder and harder to redraw the line. What do you think is happening to that line here?
The problem is that there are far, far, FAR bigger indicators that America is no longer a serious country than the Platner debate. This is practically a non-issue compared to, well, everything else going on.
Nothing. The line is about people who hold Nazi beliefs. There’s no evidence that he holds Nazi beliefs, and plenty of evidence that he holds anti-Nazi beliefs. The line isn’t about maintaining a purity culture that prioritizes symbolism over action.
If you trust Platner to reliably advance Democratic interests and not throw a wrench in the gears like a Sinema, Fetterman, or Manchin. His conduct to date doesn’t inspire a high degree of trust, as has been pointed out over and over in this thread.
What “broad public record”? He’s never held elected office. He says things in public, but it’s easy to say things.
He’s done a lot that suggests he can’t be trusted to stand behind what he says. What’s on the other side of the balance? Other than trying to excuse his own bad behavior, what’s he said or done that’s established a pattern of trust for you?
Note that it’s not necessary here to believe that he’s a scheming party-switcher with any kind of advance planning for anything. You just have to believe he’s an attention-seeking or power-seeking guy without any particularly strong principles other than he’d like to hold elected office. Again, he’s said things, sure, but it’s not hard to say things.
Politically active Americans have basically adopted a guru version of politics where certain wise men tell you who’s in and out of the circle of trust.
It’s beyond frustrating to try and navigate it even in much lower-stakes elections. I voted in the primaries when Ayanna Pressley successfully challenged Michael Capuano. The only actual policy disagreement of any significance in the election was that Pressley supported abolishing ice and replacing it with a similar but extremely reformed organization, and Capuano supported reforming ice but still keeping it as an organization called ice. The whole election came down to the fact that Pelosi supported Capuano and Bernie supported Pressley. Similar thing happened in the primary between Ed Markey and Joe Kennedy. In Fetterman v Lamb, and the progressive gurus got it completely wrong with Fetterman.
I think largely the reason Platner is still getting support is that Bernie still supports him. People are happy to acknowledge that Fetterman was the wrong guy (from a progressive perspective) because Bernie and AOC have said as much. I still think Bernie is great but this approach to politics is stupid no matter how much you like the gurus and it’s getting absurd in this case. We have enough evidence that Platner is a bad general election candidate, is at least a liar and has way too many coincidental associations with antisemites all of which call into serious question whether he’ll actually be a progressive senator even if none of these are themselves electability issues. And none of these are things where Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren have any more insight than any of us.
He’s not like Manchin, because he doesn’t represent ruby-red coal country. He’s not like Fetterman, because he hasn’t suffered a debilitating stroke. Sinema is the closest of those three–but there’s no particular reason to think that he’ll follow Sinema’s arc instead of, say, AOC’s arc or Sanders’s arc.
Having a Nazi symbol literally inscribed on his body is most assuredly evidence. So is following Nazis on social media, and even doing shows and photo-ops with them. You can maybe argue that it’s not enough evidence, but “no evidence”?
Right. Manchin was tolerable, because in West Virginia, he was the best we were going to get. We can do better in Maine.
There’s no particular reason to believe anything about him other than his publicly documented deeds, which don’t inspire a high degree of trust. Unless you count his excuses for why he’s done the things he’s done. Maybe the excuses are sincere, who knows, but it’s easy to say things.
It’s evidence of a symbol, not of beliefs. Again, I get that you don’t distinguish between those two, but I do, and it’s a distinction I’m drawing here.
There is evidence he holds Nazi beliefs - he’s got a Nazi tattoo! It’s not conclusive evidence but the false positive rate on “Has Nazi beliefs given Nazi tattoo” is not big! And this might be one of those times but I’m betting that a few years, even a few months ago, your answer to the question “Should we in practice have Senators who have Nazi tattoos?” would have been pretty unequivocal. And now you’re collectively redrawing a red line such that the next time there’s a candidate with a Nazi tattoo you don’t just get to say “thank you, next”, you have to go through this same ludicrous exercise of trying to deconstruct reddit posts and the like and really, really hope you don’t get it wrong!
How have you all got to the stage where this is the best option? It’s ludicrous.One side can’t find a candidate who a) doesn’t have a Totenkopf inscribed on their skin and b) isn’t facing domestic violence accusations, and they’re meant to be the good guys.
Everything about this is a systemic failure.