Pink triangle was reclaimed though. So IMO pink triangle with a cancel sign over it shouldn’t be seen as nazi-level homophobia, just regular homophobia for Trump. Admittedly, Trump’s a nazi, so…
I’m sorry, so you’re saying that using the hard R is fine because black people reclaimed the word?
Or would that be different?
That is certainly different. Trump’s not black. In contrast, “queer,” pink triangle, and other reclaimed homophobic slurs are encouraged for general use. Try another slur instead as a counterargument please.
As an illustration of what I mean – IMO it’d be much worse if he said “no fags” or something like that.
I’m not going to sit here and type out slurs. The long and the short of it is that just because something has been reclaimed, doesn’t mean it is always benign. Context is king.
Well yeah, this is obviously not benign. I don’t want him saying “no queer people” even dressed up in the most polite language.
Edit: I would honestly be happier if he said it in the most abrasive, nazi, slur-riddled way possible and tore the mask off. Incrementalism is what he hides behind.
love this guy. I always upvote nathan fillion.
You love him because he’s Canadian all us good ones are. Except that Wayne Gretzky guy. Fuck him lol
Oh! I didn’t know he was Canadian. Now I love him even – well, tbh, exactly the same. But I hate Gretzky even more because he’s Canadian that’s for sure.
You would think the GOP and right wing in the U.S. would have put the main culture war issue behind us after Barack Obama and the Roberts Supreme Court told them it’s all good now… But here we are…
Show of hands anyone who truly expected differently from this miserable attempt at an administration or from the occupant of the oval office.
🤦♀️ 🙄
I’m not a brain-rotted idiot, so, obviously, yes.
Please excuse me while I go bury my hand.
Sometimes I wonder if this dude is an actual nazi or just a delusional wacko steeped in nazi ideology…
(jk they’re the same thing)
He should be arrested
He was. Not for that. Didn’t stick.
Far too kind.
Somebody should propose something effective and realistic.
It would just be another photo op for merch and the White House Wall of Fame.
It’s gotta be uncomfortable being a journalist on Truth Social who only has an account there specifically so they can capture screenshots of Trump’s latest dogwhistle post to publish in articles.
And doesn’t Truth Social require users to upload photos of their drivers licenses in order to sign up? Or am I thinking of Parler?
I dunno if that photo id requirement is TS or Parler, but I do know that ironically enough Truth Social is a self non-federated Mastodon instance.
TIL. Ew. Thanks, I hate it.
I guess that’s part of the definition of Open Source, though. “No discrimination against fields of endeavor.”
I think that should stop at Nazis. Like how the seeming paradox of how to have a tollerant society is that you cannot tolerate the intollerant.
My conception of the Open Source movement is that it was basically forked off of the Free Software Movement by a bunch of Libertarians (as in United States Libertarian Party with a capital “L”, not anarchism). (Eric Raymond has never been shy about going on about how the free market is the solution to every problem anyone has ever had. And Bruce Parens is the one who has been doing the whole “Post-Open Source” thing that has a bunch of rules about adding more capitalism to Open Source.)
And on that basis, it feels to me like the Open Source movement isn’t really the most likely to sympathize with anti-fascist sentiments.
The FSF, doesn’t strike me as that much more likely to care.
But, maybe Bradley Kuhn and the SFC (and FSFE) might be more inclined to be on board with that idea?
The result couldn’t really be called “Open Source” or “Free Software” (or “F(L)OSS”.) And I kindof doubt any of the organizations involved with the two movements would stick their necks out so far as to certify a license that was like “AGPLv3, except Nazis can fuck off”.
So, maybe a new term is needed. I propose “Hate-Free Software”. As a purposeful play on “Free Software” that makes it pretty clear it’s “Free Software” except for Nazis.
All that said, to make any of this work, there’d have to be a license that did the necessary magic legalese to convince courts to enforce it in the way that’s going to accomplish the goals of the whole movement.
I think I vaguely remember hearing about some almost-FOSS project out there somewhere that used some GPL-based license except with an added restriction that said “except this specific company gets nothing”. IIRC, that provision was legally dicey as to whether it could/would actually be enforced. But I guess that approach might be a place to start researching at least.
However the legalese worked, you know the Nazis would push its boundaries. Like, if the license specifically said “except hate groups”, the Nazis would use the courts to push the agenda that anti-genocide activists are antisemitic.
Theoretically one could make it a non-open license in the sense that the copyright owners individually hand-pick who gets to have the permissive license terms and who can fuck right off, but I probably wouldn’t want to go to the trouble to seek a license to use any software like that for fear they’d yoink my license rights away without notice.
I guess what I’m getting at is that I don’t necessarily disagree with the concept, but the execution isn’t going to be easy.
My head canon has the ‘Greatest Generation’ rising up from their graves ghost-like to attack the White House like a scene out of Peter Jackson’s 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King’ movie.
(Assuming the Nazi claim is true and Trump wasn’t just being his normal clueless self.)
[Because the various Allied countries considered homosexuality a crime, those prisoners who had not finished serving their sentence under Paragraph 175 had to do so]
The 1935 version of Paragraph 175 – one of the few Nazi-era laws that remained in force and unaltered in West Germany – was upheld by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1957 and remained in force until 1969, when homosexuality was partially decriminalized.
I suspect that this undead army would be happy with Trump’s attack against the LGBTQ
FYI, I was talking about Allied citizens who fought in World War II, not Nazis.
I do understand that you were talking about Nazi citizens, in relation to your LGBTQ comment.
I was also talking about the Allies. The Allies kept homosexuals in prison when the camps were otherwise freed. The Allies kept the law banning homosexuality, while removing all the nazi era laws.
Never understood people of today trying to judge other people from yesterday’s gone by to the same morals standard that they have today.
Humanity evolves forward, societies change from the past to the present and into the future.
There was a lot of wrongs that societies of that day were doing, not only to homosexuals, but to people of different skin colors as well. But say what you will about it, we’re all here today to argue about it because they stepped up and did the thing that none of us had to do, fighting a global war where everything they know might go away and be replaced with evil.
For that, we owe them a level of respect, and to judge them through a lens of time.
Then maybe leave them in the past. Don’t wish for them to rise up out of their graves and fight your foes.
Then maybe leave them in the past.
You should never forget your heroes.
Sodomy was illegal in most of the allied countries as well, not just Nazi Germany.
I think his actions speak far louder than symbols in articles he links.
I’m sure it’s not the first, and absolutely positive, that it isn’t the last time
deleted by creator
I don’t want to defend trump, but does the article author he linked to, know what that is?
Thr article seems to just talk about saying trump wants to make the army “tougher” more “formidable” with ads not focusing on the diversity of the army, its many missons and soldiers but just in raw individual “masculine” strength.
Yes, a military formed on that sort of ethos can be persumed to work agianst anyone not vehemently masculine, physically and mentally,
It doesn’t seem the author or trump knew the meaning of the symbol.
Washington Times is a right wing rag started by the Unification church which is pretty much a cult, and tries to trick people into thinking it’s as legitimate as the Washington Post(which we can also argue it’s legitimacy, being owned by Bezos). It’s been criticized often, and any public figures who has quoted it more than once should know that, and are likely just ignoring the facts.
Just using the Washington Times makes him responsible.
He’s a West Point Graduate. Writing an article about the culture of the Army with an anti LGBTQ symbol and specifically calling out LGBTQ ads under previous administrations.
So no obviously he’s dumb as a box of rocks and just stumbled into all of this bigotry…
I don’t want to defend trump, but does the article author he linked to, know what that is?
It doesn’t seem the author or trump knew the meaning of the symbol.
You may be totally right, sincerely, but also, its funny how each and every time the ‘Nazi accusation’ comes up that it can be potentially hand-waved away/excused as a simple mistake/misunderstanding, almost like if someone is doing that on purpose so that they can still signal but have an ‘out’ for the signaling. The President of the United States of America should be the LAST person to make those kind of mistakes.
Also drives up conflict so that people are not looking at “what the other hand is doing”.
Also, once you did one accidental Nazism, someone who’s very opposed to Nazis would double-check every future statement to make sure they didn’t do that again. You can’t make that mistake twice and plead ignorance.
Eh somewhat, In this day and age every symbol has some meaning and most people might not know it. but also trump wouldnt care, he isn’t opposed to nazis.
Agian my comment wasn’t saying trump wasn’t a nazi, just in this one case he, and the author, seemed to not know the meaning of the symbol. but trump would love a toxicly macho army to oppress gays, so he when/if he finds out he wouldn’t care.
This applies just fine to the author, who has presumably not been publicly castigated for using Nazi symbolism, but it does apply to Trump, who has. So he either is not opposed to Nazis so he didn’t make any effort to avoid repeating the error or intentionally promoting Nazis, and we shouldn’t view those traits as meaningfully different.
I’m sorry, but no. The author, as a journalist, posting to a publication with editors, does not get a pass about using a very, VERY well known symbol of the Holocaust.
Particularly in a time where the comparisons to that era are flying fast and furious, even if they somehow managed to be that poor a student of history that they somehow missed that, they should have taken the time to at least brush up on that period.
The author knew exactly what they posted and their editors who let it through did too.
Oh, trump is clearly a hiitler fanboy, and he shows this clearly on a daily basis, yes. This is one the rare occasion he might have not known what he was sharing. Of course if the article was about using the army to put gays in concentration camps, im sure he would still support it.
It doesn’t seem the author or trump knew the meaning of the symbol.
Dude doesn’t know anything. He’s a delusional wacko. But a delusional wacko who regularly promotes nazi propaganda is still a nazi.
Any other newspaper should know better. The Washington Times doesn’t want to know better, because “I didn’t know” is a very convenient excuse when you publish Nazi shit every day.
It used to matter. 10 years ago, this would have been a non-starter for a political career. Now it’s, “Well, maybe he doesn’t know better. 🥺”
Take the article with the image and post it at your work. If you wouldn’t, do you think someone who did should get fired? I do.
It’s not a “misunderstanding.” He should take responsibility if he didn’t know better, but he won’t.
The dignity of that office has fallen so far. While the “lines went up” elsewhere in society, they went far down here.
I don’t know anyone at my work who might recognize that symbol. It looks like an article saying trump want a an army like russia, a toxicly masculine dictator machine. This doesn’t make me think less of trump, 8 years ago when he talked about bombing innocents, I knew he was scum and maybe he crazy. Agian I’m not defending his character, but the yahoo article reeks of ai slop and it just feels like its made to hate for hate sake.
Yeah, society has fallen everyone is out to hate, no one cares to think and form structured opinion, just spouting hateful rhetoric, and yes I know one side is trying to kill innocents while the other is trying to kill the people vying for thier death.
It’s not a Yahoo article, it’s a Snopes article.
Bullshit.
and really, people think trump is smart enough to use critical thinking and inference to read between the lines and make a conclusion that isn’t spoon fed to him?
did you read the ai slop yahoo article or the Washington post op?
The original article read more to say trump was trying to make a dictator machine, like russia, NKz or china, not concentration camps,
of course trump would still support and share it if it was.
Im not saying he’s agianst putting us in concentration camps, he already has stsrted, im saying this was not our red flag
It’s a Washington Times op, not the Washington Post. It is not an “ai slop yahoo article”, but Snopes article aggregated on Yahoo News.
Like you’re trying to attack the credibility of these criticisms while seemingly being completely unaware of who wrote them or who they’re responding to.
The stuff on yahoo, seems like ai slop, it keeps repeating the same thing, maybe that’s how the yahoo aggregate works idk, im not familiar with it. I was not attacking the Washington post op, I said whats linked, the yahoo thing feels like what id expect from an ai generated article and the Washington post opinion piece didn’t seem to read so much about “gays in concentration camp” but that trump seems to (which I agree with) want to change army culture to a more “Masculine strength” (Like China, russia and NK) where its not about the effectiveness or such of the military but the “strength” of its individual soldiers.
It seems more pointed to trump trying to make his own dictator army, like stalin, or hitler, with the emphasis people seemed to give on the image, I expected more commentary on “how the army should be used to control undesirables” or something, which Im sure trump wants,
but what I read was about trump trying to copy the ultra masculine face of armies in NK or Russia but instead of any discussion or that, everyone it talking about the image, like trump was smart enough to be liking this for the image and not him agreeing “Ya ya, I want army to be stronk”
Again, it was a Washington Times article, not Post. The Washington Post was not linked because neither Trump nor Snopes cited them. Likewise, whether or not the “stuff on yahoo” that “seems like ai slop” to you doesn’t change whether it is AI authored (it isn’t, it was written by a human working at Snopes and posted to Snopes) nor whether it is accurate (it is). Trump did post the article with the image in question to his Truth Social account on March 9, 2025.
The discussion raised by people in this thread is not about the content of the linked Washington Times article, it is about the fact that the president of the United States is using iconography developed by the Nazis in the same manner as the Nazis. That said, to take the obvious bait you’ve set up, we’ve seen how ineffective both Russia and North Korea’s army are. They are clearly a poor model for a well run and organised army, regardless of their supposedly “masculine strength”. I also reject your claim that strength is a purely masculine trait. The US has had a (if begrudgingly) diverse military for as long as it has been a global superpower. Gay people, trans people, people of color, and more recently women have been contributing successfully to that strength for longer than you or I have been alive. Many of those groups are typically cast as non masculine, yet clearly display great strength.
I’m not going to be responding to you any further, I don’t really feel like you’re engaging in good faith.
){kind=link}