Objection

Was Platner charged with rape?

No, but the accusation is very credible.

Why now? Why did these accusations not happen in 2021?

Because he wasn't running for office then?

You guys are being played by Warren, Schumer, etc.

If Chuck Schumer planted the idea in my brain to distrust a Blackwater mercenary with a Nazi tattoo and a credible rape accusation, then man, I don't even know. He must have some kind of mind control ray, one that he uses to promote ideas completely contrary to the policies he supports. I must be deep under his control.

Or, and I know this sounds completely crazy compared to the mind control thing, it might actually be possible that multiple people can dislike someone for different reasons, that they arrived at on their own.

Seriously, I'm getting flashbacks to high school here. Every time I questioned the conservative beliefs I was raised with, it was "who's putting these ideas in your head?" as if I were incapable of having an independent thought. But maybe it was the Chuck Schumer mind control ray all along 🤔

Then I must be dense. Because you definitely did make up bullshit to assign to me instead of engaging with what I actually said.

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.

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.

Moral consideration includes whether the person has attractive morals to be considered a leader.

That's not what the phrase "moral consideration" means. "Moral consideration" means, like, if they're in a trolley problem next to an empty track, it's wrong to kill them. If there's a mosquito on one track, it probably doesn't warrant moral consideration, so it's not important to save it.

Anybody that commits a crime, that rehabilitates and demonstrates social behavior and not a social behavior, should be given the chance to run for public office.

Hard disagree. Why are you so deadset on getting people with questionable loyalties and character into leadership roles? It's self-sabotage.

ICE agents that change their minds, leave the force, and show rehabilitated behaviors should absolutely be considered for public office.

Completely ridiculous.

People demonstrate whether they’ve learned about their past wrongs through their actions.

Yes, exactly!

Speaking truth to power is an action

What the fuck? Absolutely not!

People demonstrate their character by actual actions. Which is why, someone whose character has been demonstrated as bad through bad actions should be expected to redeem themselves through actions and not just saying nice things.

I mean, seriously? "People demonstrate their character through actions" means nothing if you're counting "talking" as an "action." The whole point of that phrase is that talk is cheap!

Maybe you Euroids

I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that one from. I'm an American.

Who is Platner’s campaign manager? Who is Bernie’s? Zohran’s? AOC’s? I have no fucking clue because I’m not a political autist masking as an ML.

That's literally the point, dumbass. The campaign manager could be murderer or rapist (as you are so intent to allow into high-level positions for some bizarre reason) and it wouldn't cause nearly as many problems. Like, tbh it wouldn't be great to have such people in such roles, but Jesus Christ, at least keep them out of the top positions! It's like you're trying to tank the campaign or get co-opted!

Oh, I see. When you talk about the left, you're talking about mainstream media like MSNBC.

before they get moral consideration from the left.

What does "moral consideration" mean here, exactly? The only thing I've talked about is leadership positions. Apparently, in your mind, saying I don't want someone in a leadership position is the same as saying I don't mind if they're taken out and shot.

Any veterans that don’t immediately do that after leaving military service after as little as 1 tour and instead go on to do other normal economic things with their time like oyster farming, trucking, construction, whatever makes their living is not good enough for doing anything associated with political office.

Correct. Although, to be clear, in this case, we're talking about someone who did four terms and then signed up as a killer-for-hire with Blackwater.

Do these same purity tests apply to normal folks, the peasantry class, that have no military experience? What if some of those peasants do crimes like arson or domestic violence or murder? Do they also get banned from political office forever

Yes? Duh, why wouldn't they? Are there a lot of arsonists holding office where you live? Do you think we should be electing ICE agents?

The only double standard you can find here is that the same crimes that would be obviously and automatically disqualifying if committed domestically are somehow excused, if not admired when committed abroad.

Or should we measure people’s emotions and cognitions to see if they’ve really learned their lesson?

That's exactly what I am doing! Obviously, if you fuck up then continue seeking power for yourself, you haven't learned shit. Saying "I'm sorry" when it's politically advantageous is meaningless.

There needs to be space for people to recognize their wrongs, and try to do better about it.

Which they can absolutely do. From a non-leadership position.

Who is Graham Platner's campaign manager? Can you name them without Googling? If Platner were in a role like that, I wouldn't really care. But apparently that means I think he'd "unworthy of moral consideration" in your ridiculous framing.

Is it? From who, when?

Source?

https://xcancel.com/BenMcCombe/status/1982083117709176945

Clearly you want republicans to hold onto their senate majority…

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.

That’s just fucking disingenuous for you to say, this whole post is about how he supposedly has so many red flags

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.

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.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of legitimate criticism as well.

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.

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."

Yeah, I mean if he didn’t know what it was when he got it, then what’s your point?

My point is simply that it is, factually, a Nazi tattoo, and recognizable as such.

People try to use it as justification to call him a nazi. That assumes intent, implying that he knew what he was getting.

Who said that, in this thread? Or is this more of that fascinating "subtext?"

And if you can’t glean that from the context, then you’re either half-blind or being willfully obtuse.

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.

You even said that you'd heard the "are we the baddies" quote before, which is frequently accompanied by the screenshot. You also said:

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.

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?

Clearly you’re ignoring the context of the conversation

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."

First, i never said YOU did not think! How do you assume i have this opinion of you?

This is the part that I responded negatively to:

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.

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.

Here we go, 5 minute gimp job. But asking for proof is considered hostile now?

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.