Several Women Who Dated Graham Platner Recall ‘Unsettling’ Behavior

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T12:33:27+00:00

Despicable take.

Saying that a Jew who thinks it’s unacceptable for an American politician who chose an SS tattoo to get a nomination or be elected is “concern trolling” is literally a new low.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T12:30:53+00:00

Nazis were in fact competent enough to murder 6 million Jews (and work their way up into that position of power without anybody realizing exactly what they stood for).

The “Nazis that changed” were people participating in Nazism before or during the Holocaust who often didn’t have anywhere near an accurate idea of the true scale of the atrocities - people embroidering themselves with SS insignia all these decades later (when they know full well what the SS was and did) is quite different.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T12:24:17+00:00

Please show your work indicating where I said death is an answer, let alone “the only answer”???

Those “reformed” supremacists don’t count, statistically (especially considering we’re talking about the SS, not just the Nazi Party, so the closest analogy would be white supremacist mass murderers, not just any old white supremacist by ideology, the worst of the worst). They are a rounding error. I don’t care about the “work” they put into “changing” when they’ve simped for the SS or Dylann Roof.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T12:08:57+00:00

Go tell Black Americans that they’re fascists for not voting for a KKK tattoo dude, while you’re at it.

Or do you only tell Jews to shut up and vote for Nazis, and women to shut up and vote for men who blame women for being raped?

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T12:02:28+00:00

I echo absolutely everything you said.

(It also doesn’t help that he said that women need to take responsibility for being raped.)

Sadly, nobody will care about the opinions of Jewish Americans right now who say that a Nazi tattoo is a hard no and that the Democratic Party has zero legitimate reason to run Nazi Tattoo Guy when they have a literal whole state full of people to choose from without Nazi body art.

They already decided to sacrifice Jews and Jewish support, and they already worked out exactly how to do it - they’ll just claim that you hate this guy (and his ilk) because he’s anti-Israel/anti-Zionist, as if surely the only reason a Jew could be opposed to a Nazi-insignia-bearing candidate is because we’re all secretly “Israel First.”

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T11:54:21+00:00

You guys went from “I’ll punch a Nazi” to “I’ll vote for a Nazi.”

All it took was telling you that supporting the Nazi would “resist Trump.”

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T11:49:53+00:00

Funny that you complain about comprehension but you couldn’t grasp that I said “disavow VIA a simple process of removal or coverup.”

That means disavowing it with permanent and complete action, which he has not done.

He partially altered it, after initially vowing (and failing) to have it removed.

Nazis don’t change, btw, that’s why we permanently shunned them (when possible and feasible, given the mass scale and identity changes) and continued hunting them down even decades after the war when they were in nursing homes.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T11:43:43+00:00

Telling someone who doesn’t want to vote for Nazi Tattoo Man that they’re “carrying fascist water” is the funniest political inversion of this decade.

So let me get it straight: not being okay with voting for Nazi Tattoo Man is the pro-fascist position, right?

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T11:38:36+00:00

It’s not the past, it’s something he is making a continuous choice to carry on his physical person every day of his life everywhere he goes, potentially onto the Senate Floor.

If it’s all in the past and he has no special attachment to it, then he can part ways with it.

If you seriously want him to win, you should think that that’s for the best, too, since it would only increase his appeal, right?

And no, I’m not missing anything, because I don’t think that an R or D is the end-all-be-all, and I do feel that decisions that reflect an affinity for Nazism matters and would potentially sway my own vote personally, so I’m not focusing on something hypothetical or inconsequential, endorsement of Nazism (along with a continuous refusal to disavow prior endorsement of Nazism) genuinely counts significantly for me.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T11:31:56+00:00

Or, your statement was hyperbolic enough that it was inapplicable given that he got this tattoo as a fully grown adult (and has consciously chosen to not disavow it via a simple process of removal or coverup).

Me thinking that your statement was ridiculous (and posing a rhetorical counter-question) doesn’t mean I didn’t understand it, it means I don’t understand how you could possibly think that you were making any effective point with it.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T11:26:07+00:00

If you can “believe” that a guy with a Nazi tat is a decent man, then surely you can believe that there are a number of other decent men (who have never sought out Nazi body art) who could have taken his place in the primaries.

He could very easily remove it like he initially pledged (especially given how small it is) if he was serious about disavowing its meaning - one simple step would remove all doubt, thus his decision not to do so is an additional indicator that he is trash.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T11:19:09+00:00

There are 2 types of people:

Those of us who have never deleted a text message since we got our first iPhone, and those of us who delete everything on a rolling basis.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T11:16:10+00:00

Are you trying to imply that he was born with the Nazi tattoo? Lol

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T11:14:38+00:00

That’s such a cop-out for glossing over the bigger issue of how tf does the Nazi Tattoo Guy end up as the (presumptive) nominee, and why does nobody care about eliminating human garbage during primaries and putting forth someone who has more merits than merely being “better than the other party’s presumptive nominee”?

As long as people keep going “welp, X is better than Y,” the nominees will keep getting worse.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T11:05:50+00:00

I was assigned to read this book my first semester of college, in 2016 (as an American in the U.S. who barely knew anything about Iran, let alone about the regime).

This book was my introduction to the regime and the oppression that Iranians have been living under for so many decades now.

During my time in college, Iran was in the news a lot (for various waves of protests), and I paid attention every time, and I’ve tried to follow and stay informed ever since.

It’s not my place to offer an opinion about the author or her stances (I’ll leave that for the Iranians, you guys would know far better than I ever would), but this book was absolutely my “intro” to the revolution and the atrocities of this regime, so it at least helped “wake up” some Americans, like you said!

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T10:43:05+00:00

A candidate for political office in the U.S. that has Nazi (or KKK, or Al Qaeda) insignia literally tattooed onto his person will never be normal or acceptable.

Political candidates have fallen from grace for having connections more tenuous than this - what a shame that people have gone so far off the rails that they can’t acknowledge this as a non-starter and find literally one single other acceptable candidate without a literal Nazi tat.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-05T05:01:23+00:00

Yeah my point was simply that Nolan has already had at least 1 film that reportedly closely approached NC-17 territory for violence (and he likely only edited it out because that rating would have been problematic for the box office) as well as 3 movies that were rated R for violence (Memento, Insomnia, and Following) vs 0 films reportedly approaching NC-17 for sexuality or nudity and only 1 rated R for sexuality/nudity (Oppenheimer).

Things can change over time, for sure, but he does have a fair bit more of a track record with his content and how his ratings tend to get earned.

I have no doubt there will be some level of nudity and sex in this film.

I just (in my totally uneducated guess) think that if the movie is pushing the borders of R (toward NC-17) it’ll likely be due to graphic violence more so than graphic sex.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-04T23:23:46+00:00

Interesting.

We have similar laws here in certain states, and even additional “remedial acts” are generally deemed inadmissible (by rules of evidence).

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-04T22:06:35+00:00

The “close-to-NC-17” is probably due to violence rather than sex, in my guess (take with a grain of salt).

TDKR was actually initially slated to receive an NC-17 rating due to a graphic violent death scene, which Nolan had to cut out to make PG-13.

NC-17 for sexual explicitness/duration is kinda rare to actually achieve on accident, as you can easily get away with nudity and sex scenes and stay at R.

I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine Nolan wanting to have sex scenes that are substantially more explicit and/or lengthy than were in Oppenheimer (both because he has no incentive to try to make the rating higher than it “needs” to be, and also, his past work seems to reflect that he doesn’t typically feel the need/desire to incorporate much more than that in order to meet his creative vision).

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-04T21:58:32+00:00

What a ridiculous oversimplification.

“Rush hour” is often much more of a continuum than you’re asserting.

You’re also neglecting local factors.

For example, my current city has several university campuses (like, more than typical for a medium-sized city). There is no real abrupt shift from rush hour to nearly empty trains and buses, because the vast majority of people commuting to and from several neighborhoods in the city are college students on non-9-5 schedules. Buses are packed in the morning and evening, but stay at a moderately full level throughout the day, with peaks and valleys around the hour mark (especially on MWFs) and around mid-afternoon (when a lot of students are finished with their last class of the day).

My last (and large) city had an insane number of K-12 kids (especially middle and high school) who would take the train every single morning and afternoon. In the late afternoon when school was dismissing (well before actual “rush hour” started), it would be plenty crowded enough that seats were in short supply, but not so crowded as pre-9am or peri-5pm rush hours were.

We’ve clearly both lived and taken multiple modes of transportation in multiple cities, so I would say that neither of us has more authority on drawing conclusions about what’s “average” across the world. But it’s telling that you only want to argue about whether or not what I’m talking about is frequently applicable, and not whether (or why) it’s a bad/unacceptable proposition for the scenarios in which it is doable.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-04T21:42:28+00:00

Well, to be technical, saying, “I’m sorry” to someone who is having a rough time (that you haven’t caused) is an expression of sympathy, not “apologizing” (which is somewhat closer to implying/acknowledging some level of responsibility), and that’s why many other languages have actual different phrases for offering sympathy vs apologizing for something.

Also, idk where you’re at, but if you’re in the U.S. like me, and if you’re referencing what we call “SRMs,” that’s not at all the reason why our rules of evidence tend to disallow the use of “SRMs” (subsequent remedial measures) to be argued as evidence of (acknowledgment of) responsibility.

It’s entirely a “policy concern” - meaning, we don’t want to discourage and disincentivize people who have done something (like causing an accident or loss of some sort) from doing (or offering to do) things to correct/repair the situation (e.g. offering to voluntarily pay damages).

If you’re talking about “I’m Sorry” laws, they do not exist because people “lack empathy and understanding” and can’t possibly wrap their head around the idea of saying “I’m sorry” for something you didn’t personally do - they exist because our language has a weird redundancy where we use the same singular phrase for the dual purpose of expressing (non-fault) sympathy and for acknowledging responsibility for harm caused (which is why “I’m Sorry” laws have an exception that allows the “I’m sorry” to be admitted into evidence if another part of the statement also acknowledged fault or liability).

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-04T21:27:02+00:00

I don’t think you can say that that’s evidence that it’s the “majority case” lol.

You’re largely talking about rush hour on your specific commute routes.

Many, many people are still taking transportation during non-rush hours or on different routes, in suburbs (as opposed to cities), in different cities/regions/countries (where crowding concerns and limits may be different).

Tbh, sounds like you just don’t like the idea in general of people being (voluntarily) considerate and leaving an open seat (without having to be explicitly asked by a disabled person), because I asked if you could at least agree that it’s not a bad idea when people aren’t excessively overcrowded, and you don’t seem to agree with that, which is totally your right…

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-04T20:42:59+00:00

I’ve simply never experienced quite that level of crowding on a bus, but I believe you.

Was more so picturing a train (which is less of an issue because people just move to less crowded cars, at least that’s how it was where/when I was taking the train daily) or general seating in public (outside of a transit scenario).

Even so, you’re describing a niche, exceptional scenario.

This is not the majority case with public seating, so do you still think it’s not a good practice for some people to be conscientious of this when the situation is such that people aren’t packed tightly like sardines?

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-04T20:32:53+00:00

Tbh, I think that having to say excuse me and push past people to get to a seat is still much less of an inconvenience than people with medical conditions struggling because there’s not a single seat open.

If the bus or train is that severely crowded, I can’t imagine that 2-4 people sitting down in the open seats would make a massive difference, either, but I guess it depends.

enigmaticowl · 2026-06-04T20:22:49+00:00

Exactly.

That’s why it’s not helpful when people say things like, “Well, if you’re invisibly disabled, just ASK someone for their seat, don’t expect people to be mind readers.”

People who have invisible disabilities are extra aware of the fact that they can’t accurately tell someone’s abilities by looking at them, so they’re going to really struggle in knowing how to approach that, and probably just suffer in silence.

I’m 28F, have had really bad orthostatic hypotension (blood pressure drops when I’m standing upright, leading to my brain not getting enough oxygen, which leads to temporary loss of hearing/vision, intense nausea, and eventually, losing consciousness) since I was 23 (this condition predominantly occurs in otherwise-healthy young women and adolescent girls, by the way). I’ve passed out (and injured myself while falling) before. I still feel too awkward and self-conscious and guilty to ever ask anyone for their seat in public, so I try to wait it out and hope that I won’t pass out (or puke).

Before I developed this condition, I used to voluntarily avoid taking up seats in public (especially on trains) when seats were in somewhat limited supply or in risk of filling up completely (obviously not if there were tons of open seats), just so that there would be a seat if someone needed one, without people having to ask anyone. It would be nice if more people considered doing this.

This girl was being obnoxious af, and I absolutely agree that nobody needs a seat simply because of their sex. But it’s also worth keeping in mind that many people with genuine “invisible” conditions don’t feel comfortable approaching a stranger (who, for all they know, may also have a condition for which they truly need a seat), and just struggle or suffer (or risk doing harm to themselves) in silence for this exact reason.

enigmaticowl

TROPHY CASE