"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
On any of the donation threads where it came up and he replied to it, the most he ever did was some half hearted corporate PR "apology" (ironic)
So, in your mind, setting aside differences in politics and raising concerns about the secretary of defense drinking to excess at work, regularly getting black out drunk, and losing inhibitions while intoxicated to the point of needing to pay someone $50k to drop rape charges is a "purity test"?
Or is it only a purity test when someone says something you agree with is actually a really shitty sentiment?
Maybe you should make note of how "the left" isn't one person. Being able to find someone for every topic who has a very strong reaction doesn't make it make sense to combine their opinions and extrapolate that to everyone.
Oh I had no idea all that happened while secretary of defense. So strange how I heard those things before he got the job though.
The point I'm making is that people calling him an alcoholic are late to the party, hes done far dumber stuff than drinking champagne out of a hot tub since hes taken his new position.
And your concern is that people can't take issue with more than one thing at once? Did those stupid things he's done recently make him not a rapist with a concerning alcohol problem?
Come to think of it, why does it matter if he raped someone before being appointed or not? We shouldn't have a rapist as the secretary of defense regardless of when he did it. Likewise we shouldn't have someone with a concerning alcohol problem handling classified military information.
Frankly speaking, "drunken rapist" is the closest you're going to get to a "middle of the road" concern about a candidate. Not that it mattered, since as you point out, only the left seems to care about "not putting rapists in positions of high power".
Is that an extreme example or did he really rape someone?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25362284-hegseth-police-report/
https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-sex-assault-payment-trump-6674cc8cfee654c374725948e01ff666
As with all things legal in nature, he raped someone in the lay sense of the word. Legally speaking, he was accused and investigated for sexual assault, with law enforcement finding sufficient grounds to forward the case to prosecutors, who declined to press charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. He later paid the woman $50,000 not to sue in civil court.
What's insufficient for the courts is more than enough to justify calling him a rapist, particularly since the police usually decline to refer rape cases to prosecutors at all, when they're even reported to police in an investigative capacity.
Maybe people should mention this instead of whether he drinks or not then? I'm sure you mention it though, so I don't mean to imply you don't.