denied was implied by comparing musk's salute to that of the pope waving his arm - but fair, she didn't outright say it
still the timing is most definitely not coincidental - but I can see how that can seem that way if you didn't browse xitter when it happened
her tweet was made a day after musk's salute and consequent "funny" nazi puns - alongside posts denying the salute as sincere, therefore enabling nazi normalization
the issue isn't if JK is a swastika waving nazi - she most likely isn't - the issue is she's siding with fascists because they share the same hateful rhetoric and is willing to defend and normalize their behavior because she sees them as allies and the "woke leftists" as the enemy.
we couldn't agree on an illustrator. He wanted Eva Braun, but the sample sketches he showed me were shit.
If he wanted Eva Braun to be the illustrator why would he show JK his own sketches and not hers? Why even mention Eva at that point?
Idk but imma head out as I don't have the energy to dissect a poorly written attempt at a joke by a known nazi apologist..
I mean Eva Braun was a photographer so not sure why her sketches would have been good? But I guess she was trying to shoehorn hitler being a bad artist but just didn't know how to tie it in?
Call be old-fashioned but I prefer my jokes to be funny because they're clever not because "haha hitler couldn't draw amirite"
Also just to note - that "trans" account posting AI slop is actually a terf masquerading as a trans person to "own the libs"
nooo, you don't understand - she was just saying this a day after the inauguration to defend musk doing his nazi salute - I'm sure all of this has nothing to do with her doing trans Holocaust denial either...
damn snowflakes always getting triggered by lighthearted fun from nazi apologists... 😤😤😤
100% agree - I think people shouldn't use somebody's inborn body features as an insult.
However, based on OP's post history I do believe they're a fragile man that really ought to touch more grass.
So your argument is "people will break the rules so we shouldn't have any rules because it doesn't matter"?
This is the classic nazi bar argument - which has been proven time and time again that "free speech absolutism" consistently leads to spaces becoming hostile to marginalized groups
I see you have your heart in the right place but by insisting on everyone having equal rights to say anything - you are inherently favoring the oppressor over the oppressed.
I don't think we'll come to an agreement so I'll stop replying as this feels futile to argue over.
EDIT: Just FYI this is what you're defending in this instance
So why leave this comment? You yourself identify the social impact of "assigning a label (i.e. how others react to it)" - so for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?
Can you not just accept that the people impacted by this label (and the scientific community) have recognized that this label is harmful to individuals and not feel the need to chime in?
Or do you feel your desire for pedantry is more important than the negative impact such a label can have on marginalized groups?
What's gained by insisting on potentially harmful labels?
Even by your own admission, labels have social impact. So why are you choosing to argue for harmful ones?
EDIT: If you're actually arguing for better acceptance of people with mental disorders - I would recommend volunteering at a mental health institution or defending people's right to self-determination.
idk i think our incentive should be to cure diseases with public funding and make people healthy instead of for profit but what do i know