|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 28, 2011 13:25:38 GMT -5
no. Not Neo-Nazis. Just White Supremacists and members of the Aryan Nations which are not in fact neo-nazis. So that's why this dude looks nonplussed. He's an aryan nations white supremacist and that cop who took the photo actually called him a Nazi? Insensitive bastard! He looks like a high-definition NPC from Oblivion. With tattoos. Something about the nose and mouth.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Oct 28, 2011 14:23:38 GMT -5
What kind of drugs do you have to be doing to do something like that to your face?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 28, 2011 14:36:39 GMT -5
What kind of drugs do you have to be doing to do something like that to your face? A superiority complex, mixed with racial prejudice, with a pinch of self-loathing. Stew in an echo chamber for 15 years and serve.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 28, 2011 15:22:17 GMT -5
The ABC article is much better.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Oct 28, 2011 15:39:25 GMT -5
That said, names that are blatantly inflammatory like the full names of dictators The problem with that is that one man's dictator is another's liberating hero. Not to mention the problems you run into where some dictators have quite common names, especially in certain ethnicities. I gather that in the '30s and early '40s, "Adolf" was a very popular name in Germany and Austria (for obvious reasons). But since then I somehow doubt the name has gotten much use.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Oct 28, 2011 16:05:30 GMT -5
'Adolph's still turn up in Europe here and there. But there's a difference between naming your kid Adolph and naming him 'Adolph Hitler'. Likewise, there's plenty of 'Benito's in Italy, which is fine and dandy unless the kid's middle name is Mussolini.
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Oct 28, 2011 18:03:17 GMT -5
I know the name Adolf has terrible connotations because it is often automatically associated with Hilter, but I've always liked the name. But I guess I'm weird like that. Also, long before I knew who Hilter was, the name was farmiliar to me because of Adolf Wolfli, who I learned about in summer art school when I was 7.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 28, 2011 18:17:44 GMT -5
Wow, that's some piss-poor reporting. The details they actually give you, they clearly want you to conclude that they're Neo Nazis. So much so that they omit small pieces of information such as, oh I don't know, the fact that the swastika isn't a "Nazi symbol."They named their children Adolf Hitler and Aryan Nation. Somehow I doubt that they have the swastikas lying around because they're Jainists. The Swastika isn't solely a symbol of white supremacy on an international or historic scale, but it's a bit disingenuous to ignore the fact that it almost always carries those connotations in modern western society. Not to mention that certain stylized forms of the swastika can rightfully be considered symbols of Nazism, or at least white supremacy.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 28, 2011 18:33:31 GMT -5
What kind of drugs do you have to be doing to do something like that to your face? A superiority complex, mixed with racial prejudice, with a pinch of self-loathing. Stew in an echo chamber for 15 years and serve. Superiority complex?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 28, 2011 19:00:48 GMT -5
I didn't ignore it. I just noted that the article was pretty desperate to pound that conclusion in, yet still did it in a half-assed fashion. It was my hypothesis that if they were white supremicists, there was better evidence that could have been used, & later articles confirmed this.
Of course, I felt the need to point out that the swastika isn't insta-Naziism because douchebaggery isn't limited to any one group. There are all kinds of documented occasions where parents name their kids stupid shit to make retarded non-points. I can't discount the possibility that the family is simply that stupid. A fondness for hooked crosses & names with unfortunate implications is not proof of supremicist leanings, though it does hint in that direction.
Granted, & if the article had been more detailed than "lolswastika," it would have been more credible. I don't deny that white supremecy was a possible story angle, but the article didn't really commit to it.
|
|
|
Post by Radiation on Oct 28, 2011 19:11:12 GMT -5
So that's why this dude looks nonplussed. He's an aryan nations white supremacist and that cop who took the photo actually called him a Nazi? Insensitive bastard! He looks like a high-definition NPC from Oblivion. With tattoos. Something about the nose and mouth. Almost looks like he's trying to make himself black.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 28, 2011 19:15:52 GMT -5
Not that I'm defending this article in particular -- it's hardly Pulitzer-worthy journalism -- but I'd say that the swastikas and children's names do more than simply hint in that direction. It's fairly reasonable to conclude that these people are likely white supremacists based on those two points alone. I think you're giving them more benefit of the doubt than they deserve.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 28, 2011 19:42:41 GMT -5
No, realistically, that is not proof. It is grounds for suspicion & further examination, but it is not proof of a claim. I hardly see it as unreasonable to demand an argument that actually proves its claim.
There's also the fact that they made some very attention-whorish comments in their own defense, such as "I couldn't get a cake, it was a circle of racism." So there was also grounds to conclude that they were simply attention whores.
With such minimal information, which conclusion was more "likely" was simply a matter of opinion.
I don't really see the point of arguing about a state of information that is no longer the case, but those are both circumstancial, while voicing racist obscenities so often that your son "can no longer be around black people" is pretty direct evidence. There is a clear difference there.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 28, 2011 20:28:23 GMT -5
I only commented on your original post because it seemed needlessly fussy. It may not be absolute, beyond a shadow of a doubt proof, but it's compelling enough for a casual observer to say, "Hey, these people probably have white supremacist sympathies," without overstepping any rational boundaries. We're not writing a scientific thesis here, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 28, 2011 21:03:42 GMT -5
Cool story, bro.
|
|