this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
292 points (87.1% liked)

The Right Can't Meme

885 readers
12 users here now

About

This community is about making fun of dumb right wing memes. Here you will find some of the cringiest memes that the right has ever posted on the internet.

Rules

  1. All posts must be memes containing right wing cringe

  2. No unrelated content

  3. No bigotry

  4. Spammers and Trolls will be instantly banned. No Exceptions.

Other Communities

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 48 points 3 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Is that a nazi prison gang sex slave? That's pretty horrific.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I don't see any nazi iconography in the image OP posted, can you point them out to me?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I was applying the claim to something else

If you are talking about graffiti on buildings then you haven’t been to Frankfurt if you’ve not seen nazi imagery

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Lemmy cannot handle abstract reasoning. If you change the scenario at all to make a point, they shit circuit

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We really didn't need to bring the "criticizing our community in the third person" farce over from reddit. You are Lemmy too, and I suspect you can handle abstract reasoning, yes?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

Thinking you're a special online community is also a reddit trope.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not bothered by the amount of tattoos. I'm bothered by the nazi swastika front and center. I would be just as bothered if they were just wearing a nazi arm band or Trump hat.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're pretty close to the point.

The point is that it's subjective, and given the right content or quantity, it looks bad to you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, I think I'm on the point. I don't care about other people's appearances and I don't care to subject other people to what I think self respect looks like. I'm bothered by what their morals are and how they're going to make that my problem. Nazi tattoos mean that person wants to make life worse for other people. I'm not bothered by the dye, but by the ideas they represent. The woman in the picture doesn't have any hate symbols that I recognize.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You find the tattoos distasteful for a reason of your own. I share such a reason, but it's your own. Therefore you find the display graffiti-like: a blight on the visual landscape (in that interpretation of grafatti)

Edit The significance of Nazi iconography being distasteful is an easy one, and that's why it was used as an alternative display to prove the point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I've already stated that I do not find the tattoos themselves distasteful. It's the meaning behind them.

We're assuming that the owner of the building didn't do that themselves, but if they did it's not my problem.

I've already stated elsewhere that the real difference between a women getting her body tattooed and a building getting tagged is one consented and the building owner(presumably) didn't.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Consent is not part of the point being made. The woman, the Nazi dude, whatever. It's the perceived appeal. You identified you have no issue with the art of the woman, but do with the art of the man. That's the point. Don't conflate into other topics, of course the woman is free to choose her art, even a swastika. The point is the others perception of that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I disagree. The Consent is the point.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

A building is inanimate , so it's irrelevant to consider what it likes.

Therefore comparing tattoos to graffiti is about the style/perception of the art. (Especially as all involved tattoos are clearly applied with consent)

Therefore it isn't a point of comparison or distinction. The top comment in this chain is suggesting "for those that think tattoo don't look like graffiti, consider this:...". It is a relevant point because it challenges the viewer's possible acceptance / enjoyment of the woman's tattoos, by showing obviously, (or at least widely) distasteful tattoos. Conclusion being that some tattoos could be perceived as junk.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you have to change the scenario to make your point then your point doesn't belong in this comment section.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's a common way to illustrate a point, by describing it with other variables.

Your reply is telling lol

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago

Telling of what? The dude brought up something that didn't happen in the image and being like "Oh yeah well you're wrong because of something irrelevant"

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I was applying the claim to something else

What are you applying the claim to?

Why the reference to illegal Nazi iconography in Frankfurt? The building posted looks to me to be in the contiguous US.

You posted an image of a person's mugshot who has a swastika on their forehead and I assumed you were conflating their tattoos to the person in the original image of this post.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What are you applying the claim to?

People with nazi tattoos

Why the reference to illegal Nazi iconography in Frankfurt? The building posted looks to me to be in the contiguous US.

I thought you might not have known racist graffiti existed

were conflating their tattoos to the person in the original image of this post.

Oh no, nothing about her. Just the “Tattoos = graffiti, guys” part was applied to the person I posted

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Oh ok, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. Thanks for the clarification.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The building is most likely in São Paulo. Not that it matters for for the point you’re making :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's no Portuguese in any of those tags. Three of the tags are east coast crews. If I were to have to put a location down I'd say North East Miami FL.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Well, look at this documentary and see if it might change your mind ;)