I couldn’t find the post you commented on because it was removed, but I think it was the one about Julius Streicher.
If it was, then…
The hanging of Julius fucking Streicher after his conviction at Nuremberg is a little goddamn different from hanging journalists who don’t politically align with the current government.
Scene: A meme of a German Shepherd with the caption “Adolf Hitler was a socialist vegetarian and took serious action to solve what he saw as problems in society.”
SatansMaggotyCumFart: this guy sounds great, we should all be more like Hitler! Go Hitler!
*Mod pulls pro-Nazi comment *
SMCF: Why’d you call me a Nazi?!
Mod: you supported a Nazi.
SMCF: I didn’t know Hitler was a Nazi. I don’t have to know who everyone is before I comment and that’s a ridiculous statement to make.
That’s true, you don’t have to know who everyone is before you comment. But if there’s literally one person named in the image you’re commenting on, and you’re commenting about that one singular person, you don’t reckon it might be worth just popping their name into a search engine at all? Rather than just going ‘hmm, I don’t know what I’m talking about here but I’m just gonna whack a comment in anyway’?
Not sure how this meme wasn’t enough context. I saw your comment as nazi apologia as well and I was only going based on this meme. Sometimes we post things that a large amount of people would, in good faith, think is suggesting something that we don’t mean and sometimes those things get removed. If you weren’t banned, seems like a pretty decent way for the whole thing to be handled.
Regardless of your opinion of capital punishment, "well ackually"ing a 1940s nazi getting the death penalty is in pretty bad taste.
A man tried and sentenced at Nuremberg, german surname, accessory to violence as a journalist, black and white photo, armbands in the background… You had all the clues you needed, dude.
That’s an incomplete idea, usually used by law enforcement in order to get more arrests or convictions.
Ignorance is very much a defense. A bad one yes, but no one can know everything. We are all quite ignorant of many things in general.
Ignorance is not a defense when it’s one’s job to know the things one is ignorant about. It’s incompetence without a doubt then. Criminal incompetence if it has victims.
But generally speaking, we’re all ignorant in many ways.
And it’s one thing to bring attention to it so one may become less ignorant, but quite another to punish someone because it’s on a subject one finds disagreeable.
Actually on the side of law enforcement here, accuser has to provide burden of proof. It’s pretty hard to prove how stupid and ignorant someone is or is not. Edit: It would make defense by ignorance the default plea and abused horrendously.
Only thing I think law enforcement gets wrong is THEY are allowed to take the defense of being ignorant of the laws they are supposed to be protecting. If anything a cop wrongfully charging someone with an offense and then admitting they didn’t know what they were talking about should result in a larger punishment for them, not less.
We’re not taking about simple incompetence anymore. It’s another kind of ignorance entirely to receive a mild correction for fucking up — in this case having a few comments removed, misrepresent the situation to strangers for validation, and choose to be ignorant despite all attempts to explain the fuck up.
Hanlon’s razor is an adage, or rule of thumb, that states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
Was ignorant, given proof that they were wrong, doubles down on statements, given more proof for assurance, continues to go with previously beliefs.
So they first defended a Nazi journalist and enabler, was given more context to explain they were defending that person who was found guilty of enabling the Nazi regime, and continued to act like giving Nazis any punishment was somehow the bad thing in that moment.
I couldn’t find the post you commented on because it was removed, but I think it was the one about Julius Streicher.
If it was, then… The hanging of Julius fucking Streicher after his conviction at Nuremberg is a little goddamn different from hanging journalists who don’t politically align with the current government.
I agree with the mod.
Here’s the meme.
I did not and still do not know who it is I took the meme at face value.
It’s on you to figure out what you’re talking about before you comment.
At face value it looks like someone comparing the Nuremberg trials to punishing a political opposition.
Nah, I don’t have to know who everyone is before I comment and that’s a ridiculous statement to make.
It was a great statement to make.
Don’t have to know shit, no. People don’t have to give you the benefit of the doubt if you don’t want to be informed, either.
Scene: A meme of a German Shepherd with the caption “Adolf Hitler was a socialist vegetarian and took serious action to solve what he saw as problems in society.”
End scene
Not everyone, but dude, this is specifically talking about a time with extremely bad guys around.
That’s true, you don’t have to know who everyone is before you comment. But if there’s literally one person named in the image you’re commenting on, and you’re commenting about that one singular person, you don’t reckon it might be worth just popping their name into a search engine at all? Rather than just going ‘hmm, I don’t know what I’m talking about here but I’m just gonna whack a comment in anyway’?
So you feel like you don’t need to know what you’re talking about anything? Even when defending someone involved with the Nazi regime? Yikes.
Not sure how this meme wasn’t enough context. I saw your comment as nazi apologia as well and I was only going based on this meme. Sometimes we post things that a large amount of people would, in good faith, think is suggesting something that we don’t mean and sometimes those things get removed. If you weren’t banned, seems like a pretty decent way for the whole thing to be handled.
Regardless of your opinion of capital punishment, "well ackually"ing a 1940s nazi getting the death penalty is in pretty bad taste.
Maybe in that period at those specific trials it would be prudent to check real quick when you don’t know who someone is?
A man tried and sentenced at Nuremberg, german surname, accessory to violence as a journalist, black and white photo, armbands in the background… You had all the clues you needed, dude.
Ignorance is not a
defenseexcuse. With respect, take the L and learn from it.That’s an incomplete idea, usually used by law enforcement in order to get more arrests or convictions.
Ignorance is very much a defense. A bad one yes, but no one can know everything. We are all quite ignorant of many things in general.
Ignorance is not a defense when it’s one’s job to know the things one is ignorant about. It’s incompetence without a doubt then. Criminal incompetence if it has victims.
But generally speaking, we’re all ignorant in many ways. And it’s one thing to bring attention to it so one may become less ignorant, but quite another to punish someone because it’s on a subject one finds disagreeable.
The L is on both sides.
Actually on the side of law enforcement here, accuser has to provide burden of proof. It’s pretty hard to prove how stupid and ignorant someone is or is not. Edit: It would make defense by ignorance the default plea and abused horrendously.
Only thing I think law enforcement gets wrong is THEY are allowed to take the defense of being ignorant of the laws they are supposed to be protecting. If anything a cop wrongfully charging someone with an offense and then admitting they didn’t know what they were talking about should result in a larger punishment for them, not less.
We’re not taking about simple incompetence anymore. It’s another kind of ignorance entirely to receive a mild correction for fucking up — in this case having a few comments removed, misrepresent the situation to strangers for validation, and choose to be ignorant despite all attempts to explain the fuck up.
Was ignorant, given proof that they were wrong, doubles down on statements, given more proof for assurance, continues to go with previously beliefs.
So they first defended a Nazi journalist and enabler, was given more context to explain they were defending that person who was found guilty of enabling the Nazi regime, and continued to act like giving Nazis any punishment was somehow the bad thing in that moment.
Fair, I’ll take that.