• barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Nazis advertise with free pudding does that make all pudding eaters Nazis?

    this isn’t tough stuff. stop defending nazis.

    You’re trying very hard to hold up a connection which is tenable at best. Also, stop fucking insulting people as Nazis for disagreeing with you. Have I expressed anything but disagreement with Nazis here, anywhere? I haven’t for my whole fucking life. Touch grass.

    • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I never called anyone disagreeing with me a Nazi. It’s worth noting though that a moderator of this very website called you a Nazi as their reason for removing your post equating the swastika and the unexpounded upon Germanic culture the Nazis appropriated.

      Azov marches under a Nazi banner. We both know it’s a Nazi banner because we agreed it was chosen to dogwhistle to nazis. If someone marches under a Nazi banner, would you say they’re a Nazi? If not, what if they march under a Nazi banner for a state that banned all communist parties?

      Azov is nazis. Stop defending nazis.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I never called anyone disagreeing with me a Nazi.

        You’re saying I’m defending them. To me that is no different than calling me one, which is a direct and severe insult. I mean I’m German I’m used to foreigners (especially Americans) throwing the term around with abandon, thereby trivialising it so I’m not really taking it personally but that still doesn’t make it right for you to do. Or Antifa praxis: You’re blunting a weapon.

        It’s worth noting though that a moderator of this very website called you a Nazi as their reason for removing your post equating the swastika and the unexpounded upon Germanic culture the Nazis appropriated.

        Which website? I see nothing being removed here on my end. I also didn’t equate the Swastika to anything, the thing I did was contrast the Wolfsangel to the Swastika. Explained why they’re different.

        Oh, just noticed, back to the actual Azov insignia: This is the original thing. When Azov became National Gurad it was replaced with this one. Notice what’s missing? The pretty much only symbol that is 150% unambiguously Nazi, as in invented by them, not appropriated, not used elsewhere: The black sun. I was also incorrect previously, the Wolfsangel isn’t Svoboda’s Wolfsangel any more, the design differs.

        Azov is nazis.

        You still haven’t given an argument for that but “they use a symbol that also the Nazis used”. They also eat bread, that’s also a thing the Nazis did. To accuse someone of being a Nazi is an allegation which needs a bit more care than semiotic first impressions.

        People can also wear Lonsdale without being Nazis. Even showing the “nsda” with an unzippered jacket. Shit tends to be complicated.

        If you can actually provide a solid argument that Azov is Nazis I’ll change my mind immediately.

        • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          okay, here’s a solid argument: you can’t display their banner in your home country because it’s a nazi symbol.

          you just tried to equate using a symbol with its own ADL page in a right wing nationalist millitia with eating bread.

          do you see the absurdity of your position here?

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            you can’t display their banner in your home country because it’s a nazi symbol.

            I could, because it’s not a Nazi symbol. It would be illegal to use the specific style used by the 2nd SS tank division as that is (as the rest of the SS) an organisation which got declared unconstitutional.

            In a nutshell: The Wolfsangel is only forbidden if you’re using it specifically to refer to a forbidden organisation. Unlike with other more recognisable symbols it’s not immediately assumed that any use of them refers to such organisations. Which would be a problem as it’s used in coat of arms, in forestry, whatever.

            Which brings me to the next thing:

            okay, here’s a solid argument:

            …no, it wasn’t. If you want to go the way of German laws then tell me why the Azov regiment should be declared unconstitutional, then their symbol would be outlawed. Not the other way round.

            You know what is illegal? Running around with a Z flag: Condoning of crimes, to wit, waging war of aggression.

            • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well, you’re definitely German.

              Did you hear that guys? It’s cool, the Nazi militia is totally fine now because they changed the font of their wolfsangel and rotated it 90 degrees. Yeah, that makes them not Nazis. I know! It sounds weird but those are the rules, you can be an out Nazi organization but if you switch to comic sans and throw a little word art action in the mix you’re good.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Curious how you left out the disappearance of the black sun in your polemics.

                • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We aren’t talking about the black sun.

                  We’re talking about how you will accept nazis using known hate symbol the wolfsangel when they change the font and rotate it 90 degrees.

                  • barsoap@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You’re still insisting that the current Azov is a bunch of Nazis and therefore the wolfsangel needs to be interpreted as a hate symbol and not neutral heraldry. However, you also base them being Nazis on them using the wolfsangel, unwilling (or unable) to bring up actual evidence of actual Nazi shit in today’s Azov.

                    As I said in the comment that started this whole thread: Azov got denazified by the state. They went in, removed the black sun (hence why it’s very much relevant), they cracked down on Nazi political expression in the regiment, and even before that tons of Nazis left because they didn’t want to be part of a state organisation that would denazify them.

                    How can you ignore all that? And why that pin-point focus on Azov? There’s other cases such as the unit now known as the 67th Mechanised, formerly right sector. They also kept the symbols of the Ukraine Volunteer Corps. (Though sword to knife and Kalashnikovs to some other assault rifle. Much better graphic design overall).

                    You already agreed that the Wolfsangel is not a Nazi symbol as such. If it needs to be avoided because Nazis used it, then the blade-and-rifle stuff also needs to be avoided. Tons of stuff needs to be avoided.


                    Lastly, another question: Do you have a moral issue with Nazis dying at the front.