So, for the “seig heil” photo, three people have their arms up. Two of them have their arms angled forward (could be Nazi) but with clenched fists (not Nazi), and the third is waving. The arm angled forward with a clenched fist is reminiscent of the black power salute. If we’re inferring politics from stances, we could say these dudes are Nazi Black Panthers.
And for the 14 words: notice the ellipsis in the middle of the quote. That means the journalist dropped some words to condense the text. Does that mean the writer is a Nazi? Probably not.
Like other people said: not everybody we disagree with is a Nazi. They are wrong for a bunch of very obvious reasons, so focus on those.
I have to agree - looking at the full quote in the article and ignoring the [and], I count 19 words, plus whatever was omitted. And that isn’t a seig heil in the photo.
Is this a collection of idiots and (probably) some bad actors? Yeah. Do white nationalist groups recruit people of this kind? Absolutely. Is the term “Pureblood” troubling, given all the eugenic overtones it carries? 100%, though I’m willing to note the connotation of ‘not adulterated by artificial means’ too.
The information in the article does not support this being a Nazi thing. Damaging and troubling in its own right, sure, but for different reasons.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
So, for the “seig heil” photo, three people have their arms up. Two of them have their arms angled forward (could be Nazi) but with clenched fists (not Nazi), and the third is waving. The arm angled forward with a clenched fist is reminiscent of the black power salute. If we’re inferring politics from stances, we could say these dudes are Nazi Black Panthers.
And for the 14 words: notice the ellipsis in the middle of the quote. That means the journalist dropped some words to condense the text. Does that mean the writer is a Nazi? Probably not.
Like other people said: not everybody we disagree with is a Nazi. They are wrong for a bunch of very obvious reasons, so focus on those.
I have to agree - looking at the full quote in the article and ignoring the [and], I count 19 words, plus whatever was omitted. And that isn’t a seig heil in the photo.
Is this a collection of idiots and (probably) some bad actors? Yeah. Do white nationalist groups recruit people of this kind? Absolutely. Is the term “Pureblood” troubling, given all the eugenic overtones it carries? 100%, though I’m willing to note the connotation of ‘not adulterated by artificial means’ too.
The information in the article does not support this being a Nazi thing. Damaging and troubling in its own right, sure, but for different reasons.