itsalways1312somewhere

itsalways1312somewhere wrote (edited )

And no I didn't realize someone (OP) was breaking the rule until I did a search. I can't read every link that gets posted and if it's posted by a long time user, I just assume they're not breaking the ToS.

I meant it when I said I believe you. Although I do sometimes think of you as having Santa-like abilities when it comes to what's going on on raddle /j

I appreciate your explanation. Especially in regards to f/direct_action as from my perspective with the information given at the time, it looked like you deleted it to spite a throwaway account.

5

itsalways1312somewhere wrote

The big difference is, I think, - and that's similar to other stories about anatchists getting in trouble for content on their sites - raddle never hosted any of that shit, the offending content was merely linked to.

I don't know if that makes a legal difference, nor if that difference really matters, since states don't really give a shit about their law when they sniff the opportunity to lock up an anarchist and some legality wouldn't allow it.

4

itsalways1312somewhere wrote (edited )

Trusting the admins goes against the spirit of an anarchist site :P

As an admin, ziq has some power over the sites users, it is fair to question them about how they use it.

That other guy arsonal

It's not about them. This would have had to be discussed even if they didn't show up.

Why do people want to post some arsonist's manifesto?

There are several news forums here. When someone burns shit down (especially when it's politically motivated), we wanna know that it happened, we want to know who did it and we want to know why they did.

The earliest (and sometimes best) source about that that you're gonna find online, especially when you care about motive, is the statement of the person who did it. Sometimes, there's good reason to burn shit down, ya know

Edit: it would also be useful for me to know when I'm moderating stuff.

3

itsalways1312somewhere wrote (edited )

You're telling me they didn't realise we had a direct action forum?

No, I'm pretty sure ziq changed their mind on what is allowed on raddle.

One of the removed posts that shows up in the mod log as removed by ziq shows up in the modlog at an earlier point as well, comments locked - by ziq. So I'm gonna assume they saw that one. (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say which one and by whom, my comment in the other thread was edited by ziq to remove usernames, so idk.)

As for the other posts that show up in the modlogs, while I'm not allowed to name the users, you can look at them in the modlog and some of them are by users who would a) have a good understanding of the rules and b) not willingly break them.

I won't say ziq knew of those posts when they said they just found them, but I believe they just found them because they were looking for posts with certain content that they had decided is now against the rules. One of the posts was by an account that was last active more than 3 years ago, the post is therefore older than that, I assume some of the others are similarly old. I think that as long as you're not looking for that stuff, you don't just find it.

6

itsalways1312somewhere wrote

I’m surprised it seems desirable to anybody.

Well, no, but when posts that were on this site for a really long time suddenly get removed because now they violate the rules but back then they seemingly didn't, I'd expect that change to be reflected somewhere, in some manner. Otherwise how is someone who missed this recent drama supposed to know?

Or actually, I am aware of the drama and am still not sure where exactly the line is.

6

itsalways1312somewhere wrote (edited )

I don't know if I understand what dialectics is. Isn't it just that you have a topic and then you have two conflicting truths and bam! that's dialectics?

Like, dialectic of enlightenment (not sure if that's the right word?): On the one hand, humans have intelligence and reason, we are able to think for ourselves and figure shit out, we put a man on the moon and shit. On the other hand there's antivaxxers. Bam! dialectics. Is that it?

I don't know how that applies to materialism or history or whatever

6

itsalways1312somewhere wrote

where having to eat goose at Christmas mean im not a vegan anymore.

Is eating 360 instead of 365 days a year enough or am in no real vegan?

I'm not sure if that means you're not vegan anymore, but it does mean you put your own comfort of not having to confront your family with their animal cruelty over the life of another being.

2

itsalways1312somewhere wrote (edited )

Afaik they did get around. iirc it was, for example, said that they may be hiding in the netherlands. Earlier RAF generations even trained with PFLP fighters in the middle east.

In 2016 they allegdedly robbed a money transporter with 2 automatic rifles and a bazooka, in a country where even handguns are strictly illegal. I assume that if they could get their hands on that, they could get their hands on some fake ID.

3

itsalways1312somewhere wrote (edited )

none of your examples pass the 1942

These here don't give a time frame:

an account that Dr. Kalechofsky found "consistent with other descriptions of Hitler's diet, which always included some form of meat, whether ham, sausages or liver dumplings."[24] Frau Hess's comments are also backed up by several biographies about Hitler, with Fritz Redlich noting that Hitler "avoided any kind of meat, with the exception of an Austrian dish he loved, Leberknödl".[25] Thomas Fuchs concurred, observing that a "typical day's consumption included eggs prepared in any number of ways, spaghetti, baked potatoes with cottage cheese, oatmeal, stewed fruits and vegetable puddings. Meat was not completely excluded.

.

It is just that around the year 1942 he stopped eating meat

His health was deteriorating, presumably from all the weird drugs he was on. Including stuff very similar to meth. And btw. also including animal products, though I'll admit it is not known if Hitler knew that.

and called himself vegetarian.

No, he called himself that way before 1942.

I don't care if he was vegetarian because I think it would say anything about him or vegetarianism, I just enjoy being pedantic and I hate it when nazi propaganda is successful. As a vegan, I think vegetarians are only slightly better than thise who eat meat, if they're any better at all.

1

itsalways1312somewhere wrote

Maybe it's worth to archive it on the vegan forum

Probably not, for a vegan vegetarians are still animal abusers, so it doesn't really matter. There is absolutely no one contesting that he consumed eggs and dairy.

I'm only doing this argument because I enjoy being pedantic, not because Hitler being a vegetarian would say anything about Hitler, nor vegetarianism.

Other common claim by neon azis is that they banned vivisection and hunting, never checked this one maybe you know something about?

They did introduce animal protection laws. However, that was before the war, so it might have been to polish their public image, just like the olympic games.

5

itsalways1312somewhere wrote (edited )

Literally the words before those you put in bold

his public image as a vegetarian was fostered;

--

An examination carried out by French scientists on a fragment of Hitler's skull in 2018 found no traces of meat fibre in the tartar on Hitler's teeth.

As another part of your quote shows, he was ordered to not eat meat by his doctor, for health reasons

3

itsalways1312somewhere wrote (edited )

In a 1937 article, The New York Times noted "It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. The lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham

Adolf Hitler made the great exception last week of nibbling clear through the State banquet he gave Benito Mussolini and toasting his guest in sweet German champagne. Menu: caviar, soup, sole, chicken, ices and fresh fruit"

According to Ilse Hess (wife of Rudolf Hess), in 1937, Hitler ceased eating meat except for Leberknödel (liver dumplings)

Rochus Misch (who served as Hitler's bodyguard from 1940) states that during a train ride in 1941 he "saw Hitler eat meat for the only time in the five years I was with him".

Prior to the Second World War, there are many accounts of Hitler's eating meat (including stuffed squab and Bavarian sausages) and caviar.[11][23] According to Ilse Hess, in 1937, Hitler ceased eating all meat except for liver dumplings,[12] an account that Dr. Kalechofsky found "consistent with other descriptions of Hitler's diet, which always included some form of meat, whether ham, sausages or liver dumplings."[24] Frau Hess's comments are also backed up by several biographies about Hitler, with Fritz Redlich noting that Hitler "avoided any kind of meat, with the exception of an Austrian dish he loved, Leberknödl".[25] Thomas Fuchs concurred, observing that a "typical day's consumption included eggs prepared in any number of ways, spaghetti, baked potatoes with cottage cheese, oatmeal, stewed fruits and vegetable puddings. Meat was not completely excluded.

Some people have theorised that claims of Hitler ever being vegetarian were untrue and just for his image. English historical biographer Robert Payne, in his book The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (Praeger, 1973) believed that Hitler's diet was ascetic and deliberately fostered by propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels to emphasise Hitler's self-control and total dedication to Germany.[27] Rynn Berry—a vegetarian activist and author on vegetarian history—supported the notion that Hitler's vegetarianism was "a marketing scheme concocted by Nazi propagandists" who wished to create a better public perception of Hitler, and was mostly due to health reasons rather than moral ones

Despite Hitler's plans to convert Germany to vegetarianism after the war,[14] some authors have questioned Hitler's commitment to the vegetarian cause due to the Nazi ban on vegetarian societies and the persecution of their leaders

3