I think the issue is with the interpretation rather than the message itself. They said a german officer, not german officers. There was German resistance to the Nazis. It was to varying amounts of activity and effectiveness as well as for varying motives, some admirable others less so. It wasn’t a majority of Germans, but to say they shouldn’t even be mentioned for fear that others might think that other Germans might have also been cool kinda feels more like you’re saying any resistance doesn’t matter if the initial government was formed via a legitimate method, because some large portion of the population supported it.
I think this is a risk of being too sensitive to various dog whistles. The whole point of them is to blend in so they sound or look like normal things but have a hidden meaning, which means normal things can also look like them, but doesn’t mean the normal thing now represents whatever the dog whistle is about. 4chan was already abusing that to troll the media with fake dog whistles (which then became real ones because they also fooled people who wanted to use them, but my point is that they were started in the first place to cause conflicts between people who agree when one inadvertently uses some dog whistle they aren’t aware of, like the a-ok hand sign being taken to mean white power).
I think the ones actually trying to dog-whistle will have other signs that they are pieces of shit.
“We should be more tolerant of dogwhistles” is a new one for me, damn. No, in this case “the Nazis even broke their own laws” was the point - which was false, and is in line with sentiments expressed in other common nazi propaganda.
We risk nothing by calling out and rejecting it. It doesn’t devalue resistance movements, there was no resistance movement mentioned, just some vague officer (who might even be real!) who was investigating something and was presented as a counterpoint to the lawlessness of the Nazis.
I’m not sure why we’re discussing sensitivity to dogwhistles? If I mentioned them, which I don’t see that Ive done, it was by accident - nothing here has been a dogwhistle. This is just plain misinformation, and as I’ve repeatedly said, I do not think it was done intentionally (so the poster’s previous behavior wouldn’t be an indication).
More like don’t assume anything that looks like a dog whistle actually is one. Which I think I was pretty clear about and no longer think you’re engaging in good faith.
You really weren’t, if that’s what your message was - you even used the 4chan example of how innocuous symbols can be co-opted by hate groups as dogwhistles. But if your reaction to several messages of patiently explaining myself to you is to declare I’m acting in bad faith after one mildly hyperbolic remark about your comment then there’s really nothing to be gained for me here.
Why were we even talking about dogwhistles, anyways? That hadn’t come up before, and really wasn’t at all relevant to the discussion. Nothing they said was a dogwhistle. I’m very confused where that came from.
When I wrote that reply, the comment I replied to only had that first sentence. But yeah, this is a waste of time. I brought up dogwhistles because I thought maybe that’s what you were getting at with calling this specific line of argument a defense of nazis because I still don’t see it and likely won’t.
I think the issue is with the interpretation rather than the message itself. They said a german officer, not german officers. There was German resistance to the Nazis. It was to varying amounts of activity and effectiveness as well as for varying motives, some admirable others less so. It wasn’t a majority of Germans, but to say they shouldn’t even be mentioned for fear that others might think that other Germans might have also been cool kinda feels more like you’re saying any resistance doesn’t matter if the initial government was formed via a legitimate method, because some large portion of the population supported it.
I think this is a risk of being too sensitive to various dog whistles. The whole point of them is to blend in so they sound or look like normal things but have a hidden meaning, which means normal things can also look like them, but doesn’t mean the normal thing now represents whatever the dog whistle is about. 4chan was already abusing that to troll the media with fake dog whistles (which then became real ones because they also fooled people who wanted to use them, but my point is that they were started in the first place to cause conflicts between people who agree when one inadvertently uses some dog whistle they aren’t aware of, like the a-ok hand sign being taken to mean white power).
I think the ones actually trying to dog-whistle will have other signs that they are pieces of shit.
(Sorry, lemmy is having a moment)
“We should be more tolerant of dogwhistles” is a new one for me, damn. No, in this case “the Nazis even broke their own laws” was the point - which was false, and is in line with sentiments expressed in other common nazi propaganda.
We risk nothing by calling out and rejecting it. It doesn’t devalue resistance movements, there was no resistance movement mentioned, just some vague officer (who might even be real!) who was investigating something and was presented as a counterpoint to the lawlessness of the Nazis.
I’m not sure why we’re discussing sensitivity to dogwhistles? If I mentioned them, which I don’t see that Ive done, it was by accident - nothing here has been a dogwhistle. This is just plain misinformation, and as I’ve repeatedly said, I do not think it was done intentionally (so the poster’s previous behavior wouldn’t be an indication).
More like don’t assume anything that looks like a dog whistle actually is one. Which I think I was pretty clear about and no longer think you’re engaging in good faith.
You really weren’t, if that’s what your message was - you even used the 4chan example of how innocuous symbols can be co-opted by hate groups as dogwhistles. But if your reaction to several messages of patiently explaining myself to you is to declare I’m acting in bad faith after one mildly hyperbolic remark about your comment then there’s really nothing to be gained for me here.
Why were we even talking about dogwhistles, anyways? That hadn’t come up before, and really wasn’t at all relevant to the discussion. Nothing they said was a dogwhistle. I’m very confused where that came from.
When I wrote that reply, the comment I replied to only had that first sentence. But yeah, this is a waste of time. I brought up dogwhistles because I thought maybe that’s what you were getting at with calling this specific line of argument a defense of nazis because I still don’t see it and likely won’t.
Ah yeah sorry, lemmy decided to post the 2nd half as a reply for some reason (that was the “moment”).
No, there was no dogwhistling, just reputation laundering. I’m sorry, I don’t know of a way to explain this more clearly to you.
deleted by creator