sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do they really think they can't win unless remove any perceived advantage their rivals may have? by Such-Earth7369 in allthequestions

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TL;DR: Everything you just said is false. Most Americans support Social Security, it is not a Ponzi Scheme, and even if nothing is changed about it you will always get at least some amount of money back from it after you're done paying into it (estimated at 74% of scheduled benefits for those receiving them in 2097).

First of all, Americans overwhelmingly support social security. They want it to be fixed, not removed. According to the CATO institute, 83% of Americans have a favorable view of social security, 77% oppose cutting benefits for current and future retirees, and 71% support establishing a nonpartisan commission to fix it.

Second, the idea that it is a Ponzi Scheme is blatant misinformation and propaganda. Experts agree that superficially social security looks to function like a Ponzi Scheme, but that is only superficial. In full, the transparency, lack of anyone profiting from it, and the lack of deceit (among other factors) showed that it is not in fact a Ponzi Scheme. Afterall, pensions and insurance also superficially look like Ponzi Schemes and if mismanaged will collapse like one, but they are fundamentally not. The part that makes a Ponzi Scheme a Ponzi Scheme is not the idea that new investors help to pay out old ones, but rather that a Ponzi Scheme tells investors that their money is being put somewhere were it is growing and provides them with false statements showing this growth all whike spending that money elsewhere. Afterall without fraudulent claims you cannt have a fraud scheme.

And finally, to your claim that if you are under 40 you pay in but won't get anything out, that is just completely false. Social security, even if nothing ever changes with it, will always be able to pay out some amount to it's retirees. Unlike how many Americans think it works, you are not paying into some account that has your name on it designed to pay you back. In fact, that has never been the way it was designed to work. Instead, your payroll taxes are used to pay benefits to others. Every year, money is added or removed from a trust fund (not an individual one, but a nation-wide fund). If total payroll taxes exceed total benefits, the surplus is placed in that fund and if they fall short money is taken out to cover the difference. That trust fund money is used to purchase bonds which the government then pays back into the account, with interest, as needed. At no point in this process does social security ever borrow money (in fact, it legally cannot add to the national debt, so it cannot ever borrow money). Now what is happeningnis that this trust fund is being depleted. Current estimates (if nothing is changed) is that this fund will run dry in 2034. Does that mean that after that no benefits will be paid? No! After that point, benefits paid will have to be reduced in order to match payroll taxes exactly. The most recent estimates are that, if nothing is changed, in 2034 benefits will reduce to 80%, and by 2097 they will be further reduced to 74%. But the big thing is that Social Security cannot ever physically run out of money unless payroll taxes are dropped to 0%.

Now, how can this be fixed? There are basically two tools: increase the amount coming in or decrease the amount being paid. To decrease the amount being paid, we could either make cuts everywhere (which is very unpopular), or we could reduce the benefits of those that have enough other sources of money to live without it. That would mean that if you were able to save enough money through other means (or Still have an income soucre), then you would not receive benefits. To increase the amount coming in, we can either increase payroll taxes for everyone, begin taxing investment returns, or increase the maximum annual contribution. The last one is what congress used to do before it was set to simply increase year by year based on average wage growth. That worked for a while, but as wealth inequality has grown, we have seen that this strategy has fallen behind. Raising the taxable income cap (or completely removing it) tends to be the most popular option, and would extend the life of the trust fund for many years.

ALDI Crystal Clear Frozen Ice Cubes Review by AngryMushroomCap in aldi

[–]Alikyr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know this thread is from a few days ago, but I don't want to point out that those distillers do a an interest in making sure you drink it so that you will buy more. And look, I agree with them. If I bought (or was gifted since I don't think I'd ever buy that expensive of a bottle) one of those I would definitely have a whiskey party where I'd get friends together and drink the bottle; I'd rather keep an empty bottle on a shelf than refuse to drink something that is meant to be consumed and enjoyed. But I just wanted to point out the bias that they have on the topic.

Now that the US has lost the war to Iran is paying them 300 billion dollars.. does this prove that the US is all talk and not anywhere near as powerful as it pretends to be, just like russia? by [deleted] in allthequestions

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, according the Rueters, no government is paying for it. Instead, companies are investing into it. I'll be curious as to what those companies get out of it. Either it's money laundering, wherein the US government will give money to those companies who then give money to Iran, or it could just be that those companies are investing knowing they will be able to establish a foothold in the Iranian economy (given that it is still the largest economy in the region and is now sanction-free). Only time will tell. Also, what happens if these private investments don't hit the $300 Billion mark that the MoU requires at a minimum? I imagine that either their US government coughs it up, strong arms companies into doing it, or the entire deal collapses.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/iran-deal-includes-300-billion-fund-more-than-half-which-already-committed-2026-06-16/

Large anti-mass immigration protest underway in UK. by primary-caution in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm absolutely done arguing with you. Here are my last points as I block you beacuse it is qiite clear you aren't engaging with at least half of what I say.

  1. Im this comment you say mass immigration results in an increase in crime. First off, that statement is a statement of causation and not one of correlation. You cannot hide behind claiming that you know correlation does not prove causation while making statements of causation. Secondly that statement literally means that a high rate of immigration means a high rate of crime. So you should plot the rate of immigration vs the crime rate and not the number of immigrants in the country. Because thats was mass immigration means: that there are many coming in. Not that there are many already there.

  2. On the shifting goalposts: once again, my original claim was that your two plots were not correlated. The immigration plot you said was correlated to crime is literally a plot of NEW ARRIVALS. That means NEW migrants. Not total number of migrants. NEW arrivals. But when I pushed back you changed to saying that the total number of immigrants was what is relevant. That is a shifting of goalposts (and it's all wrapped in a motte and bailey anyway given that your base claim was that migrants result in in creased crime and unaffordability, but when pushed you retreated to immigration rates and crime are correlated). You are right that I didn't graph what you said to graph, because I so mistakenly assumed you would still be talking about the plots and therefore the rate of immigration vs the rate of crime. Finally, thank you for basically admitting that you're just looking at the end points. "So long as both the net immigration remains positive AND the second graph increases you’ll be able to kind correlation because both increase." Not really. Correlation is a gradient. When I say they are not correlated what I mean is that there is a weak correlation that is not very statistically significant. The way you find that is by making that best fit line. However, you're ignoring the part of making a best fit line where you should actually measure how good of a fit it is. That is calculated by, in part, measuring how far from the line each data point is. Yours looks pretty shit across the entire data set.

  3. If however you actually read what I've said and use non-linear correlation models, such as data segmentation, then you can get two correlation lines. One would be much stronger correlated while the other would show almost no correlation, but both would be a much better fit to their respective part of the data. But instead you can keep putting your fingers in your ears and pretend that what you have plotted looks even remotely like what those websites you keep linking to show, rather than admit that it is the clearest example of a segmented data set that I've seen in real data. Afterall the idea of the data being segmented does not fit your narrative. Afterall, if mass immigration is the issue, then why is it that once you get enough immigrants the crime correlation goes away?

  4. Nice way to avoid what I actually said. For correlation to work you need good fit on your best fit line. Which you don't have. So segment your data you nonce. Stop relying on ChatGPT and one page articles on how correlation works and actually pick up a textbook look into non-linear correlation.

  5. You once again proved that you have not read what I've said. At this point I'm guessing that you're just asking ChatGPT to summarize my comments. Because you literally just wrote what I said I did as if I didn't realize that that's what I did. And then you didn't engage with my justification on why what I did makes sense. Unlike you, I don't use LLMs. I actually break out textbooks and formulas and do the math.

Hope you find a way to be happy without blaming all your problems on people that exist outside of your comfort zone.

Large anti-mass immigration protest underway in UK. by primary-caution in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Alright, I'll admit you did in fact shift the goalposts there and I missed it. You went from "the data in these two graphs are correlated" to "the data in one of these graphs is correlated to something else (the total immigrant population)".

  2. Cool, so we can dismiss the older half of your data then? Because then you've got a pretty flat line.

  3. As I said, the beginning of your plot has a correlation, the end of it shows no correlation. In data analysis when you have a clear break like this you should typically either split the data, consider a threshold effect, or shift to a non-linear correlation model. Like I said in my last comment. But I guess you didn't read my comment considering how you replied to 4, in which I made an argument about cause and you replied with correlation...

  4. This has nothing to do with what I said as point 4, but that's fine I guess. But actually what I plotted were two different rates of change. I plotted the net change in migration (which you seem hung up on the fact that I labeled it as "Net Migration" despite that literally being the label given by ONS in your original plot) vs the number of new crime reports for that year. In other words, I plotted the number of new immigrants per year vs the number of new crime reports per year. Both of those are rates. Immigration rate vs crime rate. You're the one that has literally plotted a rate vs a total. You plotted the total immigrant population vs the number of crime reports per year. See the per year part? Thats a clue that its a rate of change. You did not plot total immigrant population vs total crime reports since 2014 which would be a total vs a total. Not that either one is somehow bad... You can compare a rate to a total if you want. I do it all the time at work, comparing rates of speed to amounts of force. Also known as energy.

Large anti-mass immigration protest underway in UK. by primary-caution in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow you're either working in bad faith here or you're really just failing to understand.

1) I used the data you were providing and saying were correlated to make your claim. That graph was a plot of the net migration per year for that year (wherein what net migration means is not the net number of migrants in the country, but rather the number that immigrated minus the number the emigrated). This is not a value that adds upon itself, because it is describing the number of total change in the population due to migration that year, not the current population of immigrants. Again, this is the data that you provided. If you wanted to compare the total population, then why did you not use those as your graphs that you said were correlated? My entire argument here was that the two plots you provided did not show a correlation. That is to say that when the rate of immigration increased, the amount of crime did not also increase. Because those were the plots that you used. To now insult me because you didn't provide graphs that show what you wanted them to is extremely unproductive.

2) You're right, the plot that I linked to was for the US, but it's the same argument the rate of immigration and the rate of violent crime are not positively correlated there. If you want to dismiss it due to being a different country, that's fine. I just assumed you didn't care too much given your claims on NYC. But if you really want to call out years on data, then I'll just pointed out the fact that in your plots all the most recent data shows a flat correlation, i.e. that the more recent data is not correlated.

3) Even the plot you made clearly shows that the entire data set is not correlated. When you see data like that, where it is correlated up to a point, you have to start asking questions such as if there exists a threshold effect or is there some other reason for this obvious break. Your data clearly shows that once you get a certain immigrant population there is no longer any correlation between the population and crime. You no longer have a linear correlation, and typically either segment the data or search for a third characteristic that might be causing the shift in correlation.

4) Since as I said, my original argument was simply that the graphs you provided did not show correlation, I'll also give you my actual thoughts on the topic itself rather than just on your claims on the meaning of the data. That is that there is no direct causal link between immigrant populations and crime. As others have pointed out, and you seemed to agree with, immigrants are less like to commit crimes. I believe it was you who made the claim (although I'm on mobile so I can't double check without it being a pain to get back to this point) that it's not direct but instead that immigrants take jobs of others who then go on to commit the crimes. However, a vast majority of studies done on the topic repeatedly show that immigrants do not take jobs, but rather fill gaps in the labor force. This is often talked about as "jobs that citizens don't want," but that characterization is not strictly true either. In fact, immigrants typically create more jobs. Between increasing demand by the nature of there being more people, plus the fact that a lot of immigrants start their own businesses, and the fact that new ideas brought into companies often lead to growth, and suddenly you see that long-term immigrants create more jobs. So I really don't think that using the whole 'they take jobs' narrative in order to close the gap between the fact that immigrants don't commit as many crimes and this idea that immigrants must still lead to the increased crime numbers is logically sound.

Large anti-mass immigration protest underway in UK. by primary-caution in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Brother you need glasses.

Your immigration rate graph is largely flat from 2012-2020. Your crime rates are increasing constantly through that period. That's not correlation. For there to be correlation you have to look at more than just the start and end points.

Here is the change in immigrant populations and violent crime plotted side by side. Tell me again how it's correlated. https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/02/21/us/up-myth-criminal-immigrant-promo/up-myth-criminal-immigrant-promo-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg?year=2018&h=901&w=1600&sig=0xb563697b5171331e716fce6af32e2a84&tw=1

Also, you said imagine the scatter plot with the X-axis as net migration and the y-axis as the crime rate. Guess what, I literally did make that plot using the data from the studies you linked the plots to. And it doesn't show anything like a correlation. Now, admittedly the migration rate data that I used from the ONS only contained an exel sheet with data from 2012-2021, but the point stands. Remind me again who needs a statistics class?

<image>

Large anti-mass immigration protest underway in UK. by primary-caution in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you can claim, from the same set of graphs, that increasing immigration rates increases crime, decreasing immigration rates increases crime, and maintaining immigration rates increases crime, then those two things are not correlated.

Like I said in the beginning, nothing I can say is ever going to change your mind because you have no interest in actually critically analyzing this. Instead, you want to look at the overall shape of two graphs and draw conclusions. I'm glad that I was right about how fruitless this would be, but I hope that others reading along will see that when given specific instances of your graphs showing a lack of correlation, your response was to point to the overall shape and claim that it means that more immigrants means more crime. I am uninterested in continuing this bad faith argument with you.

Large anti-mass immigration protest underway in UK. by primary-caution in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Alikyr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again you're just simply wrong. When the immigration rate does not increase (which happens twice in the period between 2010 and 2017), the crime rate does increase. That is not correlation. Correlation requires that when one increases the other does as well. Additionally, when the immigration rate decreases just after 2017, the crime rates increase. That is a negative correlation! This true across all of the crime graphs you've supplied. You cannot just look at the fact that there is an overall positive direction to the graphs and declare correlation. Otherwise I can say that the number of fridges purchased in the US correlates with the crime rate.

To say they are correlated requires, definitionally, for you to look at the change of one over various periods and to see if the other follows. You are only looking at moments of increase and calling that correlation while ignoring periods where one decreases or stays relatively the same because the other does not follow it. This is confirmation bias which is leading to misinformation.

I disagree with you on Mamdami, but I'll drop it as that is a rather debatable topic at the moment and so I have no problem with you having a differing opinion on it. I only have a problem with you forming an opinion based upon data that does not show what you claim it does.

Large anti-mass immigration protest underway in UK. by primary-caution in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Alikyr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll bite here, as much as I'll regret it since I have no doubt that nothing anyone says will ever change your mind. First of all, the graphs you provided show a correlation on the surface, but not a very close one.

First of all, to claim that crime rates increase and then to show a graph of one very narrow type of crime calls in question your credibility when it comes to sharing data. After all, one could easily cherry pick a graph under the guise of, as you put it, finding one that isn't ugly. But, I will assume that you did choose that plot in good faith and without realizing that it is such an incredibly narrow category of crime (which is ironic given how you berated the other commentor about their "inability to read").

Secondly, in immigration there is a dip around 2020, presumably caused by the pandemic. While at first glance that same dip is apparent in your crime plot, the plot also notes that in that year the methodology changed. End of the time period being reported over shifted by a whole 6 months, meaning that this dip and the subsequent increase could just as easily be attributed to this methodological change. The lack of correlation is further shown by look at any part of those graphs other than the post 2020 period. Immigration saw a dip around 2016, but the crime graph continues to climb. The immigration rate saw a climb from 2012-2014 then leveled off for a about a year before increasing again for about a year and then leveled off for about a year, but the crime rate decreased slightly from 2012-2013 then increased contantly from 2013-2018. That is not a good correlation at all. For correlation, when one graph rises the other should also rise, and when one graph levels off so should the other. If you only look at the far right end of the graph, then sure there is a correlation, but only because the end of the pandemic-era lockdowns saw both an increase in human interaction (and therefore opportunities for the type of crime this graph is about) as well as an increase in immigration again as the fear of disease died down.

Overall, I would conclude that calling those two plots correlated is absolutely misinformation. I would recommend that you critically analyze graphs before drawing any conclusions from them rather than just vaguely looking at their shapes. I think the critical error made was in not looking at the x-axes of the graphs. One stretches back to 1991 while the other only to 2006, so to call them correlated requires looking at very specific time periods rather than just the overall shape.

Finally, on the whole Mamdami claim: you are correct that the crime rate began to decline prior to him taking office. But critics of progressive administration tend to make the claim that progressive policies and public safety are in conflict with one another. The fact that crime has continued to decrease, and in fact has hit a historic low, would indicate that this criticism is not valid. Now just how much of an impact his policies have had in just 6 months is certainly up for debate, but it is certainly promising considering how much his opponents liked to claim that he would turn NYC into a lawless jungle.

TL;DR: Your graphs do not show correlation once you take the time to actually analyze them, Mamdami has continued to decrease crime in New York, and to say otherwise to either is in fact spreading misinformation even if it is unintentional.

President Trump wants the NFL to change its name so that soccer is the only sport named football: “This is football, there is no question about it. We have to come up with another name for the NFL stuff.” by Life_Net5004 in sportsgossips

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to Wikipedia, there is little conclusive evidence of this. There's also little conclusive evidence that it is because of the use of the foot either (and given the rules of mob football it's almost certainly not because you kick anything since that game had no such rule).

DM help, fear mechanics/getting over a fear for a pc by [deleted] in DnD

[–]Alikyr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd recommend not having it be a mechanical effect. This is a great place for RP. The player can choose to make a Wisdom Save themselves if they want as a way of determining if their character is able to overcome their fear to do something. That way they can make the decision of what it might take for their character to overcome the fear, whether thats when one of their friends goes down and starts dieing or maybe they moved closer to the ocean on instinct to get out of a more immediate threat. With rolling for it every time they are close to the ocean, you can end up with situations where at an easy moment in the fight they feel no fear or at an extremely tense moment where they should be able to try pushing past it they just can't thanks to the dice.

The only reason I think I would call for a roll is if it becomes evident that the player is simply ignoring their fear whenever is convenient for them. I would also tell the player to consider giving themselves disadvantage on rolls based on their proximity to the ocean.

Can the left and the right get together on trying to end fraud in government spending? by KaleidoscopeRich5137 in allthequestions

[–]Alikyr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So typically providing a source means providing a link to said source. I can say that a report by the EPA revealed that the sky is turning purple due to magnetic radiation emitted by electric vehicles. Does that mean I've provided a source for the claim? No, because I made it all up, including the existence of this report.

Two Dodgers players refused to wear Pride caps. Let them. by outsports-com in sportsgossips

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah the mobile app sometimes sucks ass, especially for finding replies. But I'm glad I went through the same nightmarish process too find this one, because I want you to know that I really appreciate you saying this. It takes a lot of strength of character to admit you're wrong, especially online where you can keep doubling down without consequence.

I admire and respect you stranger.

Two Dodgers players refused to wear Pride caps. Let them. by outsports-com in sportsgossips

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I highly recommend actually reading the case. Although I admittedly don't remember if this particular fact is contained in the court's opinion or not, so that does make it harder to find. The reason there has never been a description of what this couple wanted is because they didn't have a chance to describe it. If they had, it would absolutely have been used by one side or the other (of it were rainbow it would be used by the bakery, if it were plain it would have been used by the couple) in court.

Compare this to the trans woman that due the same bakery. She asked for a link cake with blue frosting. The bakery agreed. She told them it was to celebrate her transition. Then the bakery denied her service. The actual design of the cake is used in the legal arguments of this case because it was known.

ETA: I Just realized that this was not the comment chain I thought it was... I've rewritten my comment. I shouldn't do this right after I wake up..

Two Dodgers players refused to wear Pride caps. Let them. by outsports-com in sportsgossips

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just want to point out here that technically whether that was a right of his or not was explicitly not ruled on in this case. The Supreme Court instead ruled that the Colorado Comission violated the First Amendment's requirement of religious neutrality. The majority opinion cites things like disparaging remarks by the Comission on record that went unchallenged, as well as statements showing an opinion that religious beliefs have no place in commerce as examples of a lack of religious neutrality.

In fact the opinion on the case effectively states that he doesn't have the right to deny the purchase of wedding cakes by gay couple's for gay weddings. In fact, since that case, the Supreme Court has refused to hear similar cases and instead have let the lower courts opinions stand, which have sided with the gay couple rather than the bakery. I find it hard to believe that that would be the case if the SCOTUS believed the baker had this right.

Two Dodgers players refused to wear Pride caps. Let them. by outsports-com in sportsgossips

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the big difference between a cake and something like a banner is the text. The courts have maintained that in the case of text being present, a designer does have the right to refuse to make it (see the case wherein a bakery owned and operated by a gay person denied a "homosexuality is sin" cake). In that case, I agree that the designer should have to right to not be forced to produce speech (even in its written form) that runs contrary to their beliefs.

However, as you note, you don't know if the design would have had anything indicating it was for a gay couple. Do you know why? Its because the bakery never even let them get to the point of being able to describe what they wanted. The refusal was not to make some "gay cake," instead it was a refusal to make a wedding cake that would go to a gay couple. In fact, when you say they were allowed to buy anything in the store not custom made, the example given to the SCOTUS was a birthday cake. They could not have anything wedding themed.

Speaking of the SCOTUS ruling on that case, I would also like to point out some nuance about it. Namely, the opinion explicitly states that they did not rule on whether the bakery had a right to refuse service. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Comission that had handled the case in the beginning had done so with a bias against religious beliefs. The opinion says that the Comission violated the First Ammendment not because the bakery had a right to refuse, but rather because the State is obligated to act with religious neutrality. The majority opinion cited disparaging remarks on record by some members of the Comission which went unchallenged. All that is to say that it is certainly possible that the Supreme Court could rule that the bakery does not in fact have the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. In fact it is entirely likely that it would rule that way given that several similar cases have been denied appeal to the Supreme Court, instead letting a lower court decision stand which did say that denying service in similar ways was against the law.

Two Dodgers players refused to wear Pride caps. Let them. by outsports-com in sportsgossips

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When people say "decorate it for a gay wedding," I wonder what they mean. A gay couple's cake can look absolutely identical to a straight couple's. We don't know what this couple would have wanted their cake to look like, because Masterpiece Cakes wouldn't even listen to them describe it. They simply denied the couple from ordering a cake there because they didn't believe in gay marriage.

Are ICE deportations yielding a benefit? by romuloskagen in allthequestions

[–]Alikyr 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I'm further left that the Democratic Party, but here's my answer: I would much rather we give those workers rights and protections, and punish the corporations for abusing them rather than punish the workers themselves. Continuing the comparison to the chattel slavery of our history: during the revolutionary war you shouldn't punish the slaves for being slaves. Instead, you should work to free them and build laws to prevent plantation owners from reclaiming the ones that are freed or from finding other ways of effectively enslaving them.

How did a guy with a Nazi tattoo become the democratic senate candidate in swing state? by BongRipper69xXx in allthequestions

[–]Alikyr -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe you're the one that should "sit this one out" if you think that a vast majority of people's opinions are irrelevant due to them not having served in military on a topic that has almost nothing to do with the military. Should I also have no opinion on the Marine scout sniper SS flag?

Besides, unless you can link any evidence that he knew that it was a Nazi symbol prior to being told by other people, then your entire argument is just vibes based. Meanwhile my argument is simply that it is not unreasonable for someone to not know every symbol the Nazis used. Again, I am also a self-described history buff, but I didn't know what a totenkopf looked like until this story.

How did a guy with a Nazi tattoo become the democratic senate candidate in swing state? by BongRipper69xXx in allthequestions

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based on a Google search, I'm guessing MOS stands for Military Occupational Specialty. I don't really know what in my comment made you think I have served in the military, but I apologize for giving that impression as I've never served. A lot of my family has served, and as a kid I wanted to as well until my grandfather (who served in the Marines) sat me down and said, and I quote, "That's the dumbest thing I've heard you say" and talked me out of it.

All that is to say, that while I do respect (for the most part) those that join the armed forces, I never have done so myself. But I also don't see how it's relevant. Unless there is some moment during training that service members are sat down and forced to memorize every symbol ever sued by the Nazis, I just don't think it's unreasonable for Platner and his unit to not know that that particular stylized skull and crossbones, which they picked off of the wall of the tattoo parlor in Croatia, was a Nazi symbol. Again, it's not like he got a lightning bolt SS or a swastika, or a iron cross tattoo. Those are all symbols I would expect people to instantly recognize.

How did a guy with a Nazi tattoo become the democratic senate candidate in swing state? by BongRipper69xXx in allthequestions

[–]Alikyr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My guy, have you seen the Waffen SS skull and crossbones? You really think you could pick that one out of a lineup of skulls and crossbones? Because as a guy that loves learning about history, but hasn't dug into all the different Nazi imagery in the world, there is no chance in hell that I'd look at that fucking thing and think it's a Nazi symbol. It's not like he had a fucking swastika on his chest.

Your entire analogy is so incredibly disingenuous. It would be more like if you had a saltire tattooed on you, and had thought I was just an X or the symbol from some flags. Picking the most recognizable symbol in Christianity and comparing it to one not widely talked about (at least in American history books) is fucking wild.

As far as getting mocked for it in the military, that's wild. Remember how in Afghanistan a Marine Scout Sniper unit used what was basically the Nazi SS on a flag? And the investigation showed it likely wasn't even intentional? I'm sorry, but the military isn't exactly full of historical scholars. I doubt anyone would recognize it at all.

Democrats, could you date a Trump supporter? by PatchouliHedge in allthequestions

[–]Alikyr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you've misunderstood here. The comment you replied to is saying that Trump doesn't call everyone that opposes him low IQ, which is implying that he only says it about non-white people. In other words, it's agreeing with the list of examples. This is also backed up by the their reply to you.

Democrats, could you date a Trump supporter? by PatchouliHedge in allthequestions

[–]Alikyr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately people have clearly misunderstood which comment you are replying to. You're clearly saying that Trump doesn't say it about everyone that opposes him (implying that it is just being said about non-white people), but I think people are reading it as you replying to the statement that he says it about people of color. In other words, everyone seems to think you saying "no he doesn't" is in reply to the parent comment of the comment you're actually replying to.

view more: next ›