MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
Being a reinactor now means you're political uranium? Well, shit, public culture has reached truly toxic levels of retardedness and point scoring. What's next: you build a model train town of Moscow, 1910, and now you're endorsing the murderous, tyrannical, and oppressive regime of the Czars?
People wonder why politicians spout the blandest pabulum. Well, this is the answer. Any hint of a personality gets you tarred at the stake.
Being a reinactor now means you're political uranium? Well, shit, public culture has reached truly toxic levels of retardedness and point scoring. What's next: you build a model train town of Moscow, 1910, and now you're endorsing the murderous, tyrannical, and oppressive regime of the Czars?
People wonder why politicians spout the blandest pabulum. Well, this is the answer. Any hint of a personality gets you tarred at the stake.
No, being a re-enactor does not mean you are political uranium. Being a re-enactor exlusivly of the Waffen SS while at the same time praising them for being " misunderstod defenders of home and liberty" makes you political uranium.
I wonder why people find that so hard to understand.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Defending the SS soldiers is definitely inexcusable and unforgivable, so I'd like to retract my defense of this man, but just to keep the facts straight he most definitely did not cosplay exclusively as SS.
Being a reinactor now means you're political uranium? Well, shit, public culture has reached truly toxic levels of retardedness and point scoring. What's next: you build a model train town of Moscow, 1910, and now you're endorsing the murderous, tyrannical, and oppressive regime of the Czars?
People wonder why politicians spout the blandest pabulum. Well, this is the answer. Any hint of a personality gets you tarred at the stake.
No, being a re-enactor does not mean you are political uranium.
Uh, yeah it does. It's a "weird", "geeky" hobby that involves dressing up in crazy costume usually with with permanent documentation. Most people won't get it and most people think things they don't understand are silly.
That it is a Nazi that they guy is re-enacting moves it from political liability into the realm of serious scandal.
I just got a call from the voter registration office. I had reregistered this year because they managed to misspell my name last time even though I registered through the DMV. In order to avoid needing my neighbor (who was in full Black Panther regalia at the time) to vouch for me again, I just filled out the paperwork again.
Now they're giving me crap about having two similar names registered at the same address.
Pennsylvania voter registration is such a clusterfuck.
Yeah, I think the issue is not just that he's a re-enactor, but that he's a member of a group which can be fairly categorized as "Nazi apologist."
When you go out of your way to talk about how Nazism represented a last stand against Bolshevism for many people wishing to breath free in Europe, and how the military achievements of Germany are technically impressive, blah blah blah -- I'm not cutting you any slack.
And frankly, while there's nothing necessarily wrong with cosplaying as a Confederate solider or a Nazi, I do believe it probably is correlative to being a shithead who thinks those groups were misunderstood and not really that bad. Confederate cosplaying is very popular in the South, after all, and so is Confederate apologism.
I think it's fair to be skeptical of someone who would do that sort of thing, even if it weren't a club that exclusively dresses up as Nazis and whitewashes history.
Yeah, I think the issue is not just that he's a re-enactor, but that he's a member of a group which can be fairly categorized as "Nazi apologist."
When you go out of your way to talk about how Nazism represented a last stand against Bolshevism for many people wishing to breath free in Europe, and how the military achievements of Germany are technically impressive, blah blah blah -- I'm not cutting you any slack.
And frankly, while there's nothing necessarily wrong with cosplaying as a Confederate solider or a Nazi, I do believe it probably is correlative to being a shithead who thinks those groups were misunderstood and not really that bad. Confederate cosplaying is very popular in the South, after all, and so is Confederate apologism.
I think it's fair to be skeptical of someone who would do that sort of thing, even if it weren't a club that exclusively dresses up as Nazis and whitewashes history.
I think the technical aspects of the German military are a fair point for military re-enactors, that's why they're there in the first place, unless they're actual Nazis. And I don't believe there are many actual Nazis in the US, with the exception of a meetup at StormfrontPAX. Otherwise, I agree entirely with your post.
Not knowing much about cosplaying/reenacting, isn't it a Big Fucking Deal that he was listed on the VViking homepage (until they hastily removed all mention of him Friday)?
Nice bit, but doesn't matter because people still ultimately will trust a conservative more on the issue of spending, now matter how much evidence you have on his past behavior.
When are Democrats going to learn this? We can literally never win the deficit argument. It's physically impossible for any Democrat ever to win an argument on fiscal responsibility, because (a) conservatives are fundamentally more trusted on the issue than liberals, and (b) it's not literally about the deficit. It's about a complex web of moral principles, and frankly it's more about the government spending money on those deemed "undeserving." No one gives a shit if you increase the deficit by tax cuts except liberals who don't want tax cuts for the rich in the first place.
The deficit is an intensifier, but it's not something people actually care about in and of itself. It's used as a sort of cudgel of objectivity, a way to lend an air of authority to one's opinion. Most Americans agree that they don't like the deficit, but it's very abstract and not actually something that motivates people to vote. It's that, because we agree on it, we can use it to tack on to any argument.
When Republicans bitch about spending programs that will increase the deficit, and then turn around and pass tax cuts, it doesn't matter, because it was never about the deficit in the first place. It's about the fact that they don't want government money going to poor people or minorities, and you can amplify this and lend it a certain air of respectable objectivity by hammering the fact that such spending will grow the deficit. The reverse is true of Democrats hammering the Bush tax cuts for the rich, while admit it, we're totally OK with growing the deficit if it meant a public option, effective anti-poverty measures, stimulus spending, etc.
Neither of us really cares about the deficit. The deficit is a way of saying "I don't hold the same values as you. The things you want to spend money on are abhorrent to me."
The problem, then, with rebutting a Republican argument on deficits and government spending with "but you want to cut taxes, you're so fiscally irresponsible" is that no one cares. You're attacking the intensifier, but you're letting the meat of the argument (the government shouldn't give money or help to lazy poor people or untrustworthy minorities) go completely over your head.
Meanwhile, instead of staking out your own argument (the government shouldn't be giving money to greedy, undeserving rich people at the expense of the noble and hurting middle-class), you're spending all your time attacking an intensifier on the other guy's argument, which has a very limited effect.
The way to get someone to care is to emphasize the moral problem of tax cuts for the wealthy. And you can maybe talk about the deficit effects of that if you want, but I'd still be wary of making it the crux of your argument, because (a) technical arguments are unpersuasive, and (b) conservatives are fundamentally more trusted on the issue of deficits.
Edit: looking at my post, I think an interesting conceptualization arises. This may be too reductive, but tell me what you think:
Both parties mainly target the middle class, as the poor and the rich are both firmly in one camp or the other.
As a result, both parties essentially make a case for allocation, for us-vs-them. Conservatism is, perhaps, fundamentally a way of saying "fuck those dirty undeserving poor people and n*****s, they're trying to take a piece of your pie."
And progressivism is fundamentally a way of saying "fuck those greedy rich bastards and honkies, they're trying to take a piece of your pie."
The problem is that conservatives are making that case explicitly and fluently, and we're not making our case.
The reverse is true of Democrats hammering the Bush tax cuts for the rich, while admit it, we're totally OK with growing the deficit if it meant a public option, effective anti-poverty measures, stimulus spending, etc.
I would disagree that stimulus spending, a public option, or effective anti-poverty measures increase the deficit long term.
In fact I think there's quite a bit of evidence that these things, which help the middle class to exist, increase revenues in the long run.
There's a metric fuckton of evidence that tax cuts on the rich make the deficit balloon up
The reverse is true of Democrats hammering the Bush tax cuts for the rich, while admit it, we're totally OK with growing the deficit if it meant a public option, effective anti-poverty measures, stimulus spending, etc.
I would disagree that stimulus spending, a public option, or effective anti-poverty measures increase the deficit long term.
In fact I think there's quite a bit of evidence that these things, which help the middle class to exist, increase revenues in the long run.
There's a metric fuckton of evidence that tax cuts on the rich make the deficit balloon up
But my point is that we don't give a shit if they do.
And really, there's the big three: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
The Welfare State as we know it -- nothing even touches these, except defense spending.
Do you see many liberals out there clamoring for increased retirement ages, or cuts in Medicare/Medicaid?
The reverse is true of Democrats hammering the Bush tax cuts for the rich, while admit it, we're totally OK with growing the deficit if it meant a public option, effective anti-poverty measures, stimulus spending, etc.
I would disagree that stimulus spending, a public option, or effective anti-poverty measures increase the deficit long term.
In fact I think there's quite a bit of evidence that these things, which help the middle class to exist, increase revenues in the long run.
There's a metric fuckton of evidence that tax cuts on the rich make the deficit balloon up
But my point is that we don't give a shit if they do.
And really, there's the big three: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
The Welfare State as we know it -- nothing even touches these, except defense spending.
Do you see many liberals out there clamoring for increased retirement ages, or cuts in Medicare/Medicaid?
No?
I didn't think so.
You see many Republicans clamoring for cutting those, I mean mainline party people? Last I heard they were bashing Obama for cutting medicare and blaming him for social security being insolvent
The fact is you can't balance this budget with cuts unless you abolish medicare or social security (and with SSI you'd still have to keep the tax on it after abolishing it!). There really is no way to fix the deficit without raising revenues in some way - it just cannot be done.
When a liberal claims the deficit can be solved with taxes on the rich he's correct, historically that has fixed overwhelming deficits without causing long term damage to the economy (realistically both cuts and new taxes are needed). When a conservative claims he can fix the deficit with spending cuts AND tax cuts, he's lying.
I see a lot of republicans touting the line that the bush tax cuts need to be extended because of small businesses.
which makes no sense. how would taxes on individuals making more than 250k a year apply to businesses? because I can guarantee most small business owners don't make anywhere near that amount.
I see a lot of republicans touting the line that the bush tax cuts need to be extended because of small businesses.
which makes no sense. how would taxes on individuals making more than 250k a year apply to businesses? because I can guarantee most small business owners don't make anywhere near that amount.
when republicans say "small businesses," they mean "the biggest businesses"
literally
they define business size by the number of owners, not employees
I see a lot of republicans touting the line that the bush tax cuts need to be extended because of small businesses.
which makes no sense. how would taxes on individuals making more than 250k a year apply to businesses? because I can guarantee most small business owners don't make anywhere near that amount.
Who said their talking points need to hold up to critical analysis. This is the party that can wharblegarhble about how evil medicare is then blast Obama for cutting medicare.
There isn't much of an analog between cosplaying a Confederate and cosplaying an SS officer either.
The singular difference is that people who lived through WW2 are still alive. The Confederates did abhorrent stuff too.
That and over a hundred years removal are some pretty big differences. You can't really compare the Holocaust and similar atrocities to the Confederacy (and Unions) actions either.
There isn't much of an analog between cosplaying a Confederate and cosplaying an SS officer either.
The singular difference is that people who lived through WW2 are still alive. The Confederates did abhorrent stuff too.
That and over a hundred years removal are some pretty big differences. You can't really compare the Holocaust and similar atrocities to the Confederacy (and Unions) actions either.
Sure I can. But why would I here? I would be shouted down if I tried to have that sort of discussion.
In fact I don't even know why I posted in D&D again.
There isn't much of an analog between cosplaying a Confederate and cosplaying an SS officer either.
The singular difference is that people who lived through WW2 are still alive. The Confederates did abhorrent stuff too.
That and over a hundred years removal are some pretty big differences. You can't really compare the Holocaust and similar atrocities to the Confederacy (and Unions) actions either.
Sure I can. But why would I here? I would be shouted down if I tried to have that sort of discussion.
In fact I don't even know why I posted in D&D again.
The fact is nazi imagery resonates more than confederate imagery. It's even socially acceptable to identify ideologically with the confederacy in much of the US (didnt virginia display their flag until recently?) because to many whackos it was all about states rights and nothing to do with slavery
And it's not just that he's a reenactor, he thinks the Waffen SS were the bees knees
That was Mississippi with the Confederate flag in their state flag. Although I think Virginia may also have had a minor kerfuffle with displaying the Stars and Bars over some official building.
Given that the Confederate Constitution had three clauses explicitly banning the outlawing of slavery and no significant expansion of states' rights, I'm going to go ahead and say it wasn't a loose basis, and the right of the states to do their own thing didn't have much to do with it.
Here is the thing: slavery fundamentally caused the Civil War. However, nowadays we're struck most by the moral implications, and back then it was the political implications that really changed things.
One war was a continent wide bid for domination coupled with genocide on a scale humanity has never seen.
The other war was a civil war in a young nation over the roll of states vs the federal government with a loose basis in slave trade.
Yeah, they're just the same.
Sorry to nitpick, but the South was making hubbub over wanting the federal government to trample the Northern states' rights (in that northern states refused to return slaves that fled).
One war was a continent wide bid for domination coupled with genocide on a scale humanity has never seen.
The other war was a civil war in a young nation over the roll of states vs the federal government with a loose basis in slave trade.
Yeah, they're just the same.
Sorry to nitpick, but the South was making hubbub over wanting the federal government to trample the Northern states' rights (in that northern states refused to return slaves that fled).
So yea, states rights my patootie
Sinha[6] and Richards[7] both argue that the states' rights that the Southern states claimed were actually:
* States' rights to engage in slavery;
* States' rights to suppress the freedom of speech of those opposed to slavery or its expansion, by seizing abolitionist literature from the mail;
* States' rights to violate the sovereignty of the non-slave States by sending slave-catchers into their territory to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, to seize supposed runaway slaves by force of arms.
* States' rights to send armed Border Ruffians into the territories of the United States such as Kansas to engage in massive vote fraud and acts of violence; see Slave Power and Bleeding Kansas;
* States' rights to deem portions of their population "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect", by means of the Dred Scott decision;
* States' rights to secede from the United States after an election whose result they disagreed with, the election in 1860 of Abraham Lincoln;
* States' rights to seize forts and arsenals of the United States following their purported secession; see Fort Sumter;
* States' rights to have a less democratic form of government; Sinha, in particular, argues this point, illustrating that the state of South Carolina, home of John Calhoun, the ideological godfather of the Slave Power, had a far less democratic order than the several other United States. Although all white male residents were allowed to vote, property restrictions for office holders were higher in South Carolina than in any other state.[4] South Carolina had the only state legislature where slave owners had the majority of seats.[4] It was the only state where the legislature elected the governor, all judges and state electors.[4] The state's chief executive was a figurehead who had no authority to veto legislative law.[4]
* States' rights to overturn the ideal expressed in the Declaration of Independence — that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
States' rights was a justification to destroy freedoms, not extend it.
I know a few WW2 reenactors. From what they've said, the policy is to only go as Wehrmacht soldiers, not SS. Both because there is a really creepy subcurrent of SS fetishists in the reenactor/historical interest community, and because the SS weren't really all that elite (with a couple of exceptions) and most SS divisions didn't do much other than murder civilians and then get their ass kicked by real soldiers.
I've got no problem with people reenacting battles as rank and file German troops. Most of them weren't really ideologues. Hell the military was a pay check in a rough economy. Cosplaying the SS is sort of creepy though.
Being a reinactor now means you're political uranium? Well, shit, public culture has reached truly toxic levels of retardedness and point scoring. What's next: you build a model train town of Moscow, 1910, and now you're endorsing the murderous, tyrannical, and oppressive regime of the Czars?
People wonder why politicians spout the blandest pabulum. Well, this is the answer. Any hint of a personality gets you tarred at the stake.
No, being a re-enactor does not mean you are political uranium. Being a re-enactor exlusivly of the Waffen SS while at the same time praising them for being " misunderstod defenders of home and liberty" makes you political uranium.
I wonder why people find that so hard to understand.
He's made public pictures of himself dressed in other costumes from other eras of history. He is not exclusively a re-enactor of the Waffen SS.
Bionic Monkey on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
I know a few WW2 reenactors. From what they've said, the policy is to only go as Wehrmacht soldiers, not SS. Both because there is a really creepy subcurrent of SS fetishists in the reenactor/historical interest community, and because the SS weren't really all that elite (with a couple of exceptions) and most SS divisions didn't do much other than murder civilians and then get their ass kicked by real soldiers.
The gaming analogue I can think of is that on a given BF1942 server, most axis players you can safely assume aren't really nazis, and are just on that side because it had open spots, or they found it the most fun.
And then there are the creepy guys with clan tags like -=*SS ELITE*=- and whatnot where you're just not sure.
I would just like to say once again, now that we see it in action:
Fuck you, John Roberts.
"This Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy."
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
People wonder why politicians spout the blandest pabulum. Well, this is the answer. Any hint of a personality gets you tarred at the stake.
No, being a re-enactor does not mean you are political uranium. Being a re-enactor exlusivly of the Waffen SS while at the same time praising them for being " misunderstod defenders of home and liberty" makes you political uranium.
I wonder why people find that so hard to understand.
Uh, yeah it does. It's a "weird", "geeky" hobby that involves dressing up in crazy costume usually with with permanent documentation. Most people won't get it and most people think things they don't understand are silly.
That it is a Nazi that they guy is re-enacting moves it from political liability into the realm of serious scandal.
I'd personally give the guy the benefit of the doubt, let him explain why he likes it, etc.
But the reality is is that he cosplays a Nazi. That doesn't go over well no matter how innocent.
Yeah. Cosplay or affiliation with the 3rd Reich alone is enough to raise alarm, but combined?
Fairly indefensible.
I gottas say, the Nazis did have some pretty spiffy uniforms.
Oh no doubt. Hitler (or more likely, Goebbels) was well-versed in the effect of fashion on the subconscious.
But you can't put on a black SS jacket because you like how it slims your figure.
Now they're giving me crap about having two similar names registered at the same address.
Pennsylvania voter registration is such a clusterfuck.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
When you go out of your way to talk about how Nazism represented a last stand against Bolshevism for many people wishing to breath free in Europe, and how the military achievements of Germany are technically impressive, blah blah blah -- I'm not cutting you any slack.
And frankly, while there's nothing necessarily wrong with cosplaying as a Confederate solider or a Nazi, I do believe it probably is correlative to being a shithead who thinks those groups were misunderstood and not really that bad. Confederate cosplaying is very popular in the South, after all, and so is Confederate apologism.
I think it's fair to be skeptical of someone who would do that sort of thing, even if it weren't a club that exclusively dresses up as Nazis and whitewashes history.
Is there a website dedicated to Forrest's Cavalry Corps as well?
Nice bit, but doesn't matter because people still ultimately will trust a conservative more on the issue of spending, now matter how much evidence you have on his past behavior.
When are Democrats going to learn this? We can literally never win the deficit argument. It's physically impossible for any Democrat ever to win an argument on fiscal responsibility, because (a) conservatives are fundamentally more trusted on the issue than liberals, and (b) it's not literally about the deficit. It's about a complex web of moral principles, and frankly it's more about the government spending money on those deemed "undeserving." No one gives a shit if you increase the deficit by tax cuts except liberals who don't want tax cuts for the rich in the first place.
The deficit is an intensifier, but it's not something people actually care about in and of itself. It's used as a sort of cudgel of objectivity, a way to lend an air of authority to one's opinion. Most Americans agree that they don't like the deficit, but it's very abstract and not actually something that motivates people to vote. It's that, because we agree on it, we can use it to tack on to any argument.
When Republicans bitch about spending programs that will increase the deficit, and then turn around and pass tax cuts, it doesn't matter, because it was never about the deficit in the first place. It's about the fact that they don't want government money going to poor people or minorities, and you can amplify this and lend it a certain air of respectable objectivity by hammering the fact that such spending will grow the deficit. The reverse is true of Democrats hammering the Bush tax cuts for the rich, while admit it, we're totally OK with growing the deficit if it meant a public option, effective anti-poverty measures, stimulus spending, etc.
Neither of us really cares about the deficit. The deficit is a way of saying "I don't hold the same values as you. The things you want to spend money on are abhorrent to me."
The problem, then, with rebutting a Republican argument on deficits and government spending with "but you want to cut taxes, you're so fiscally irresponsible" is that no one cares. You're attacking the intensifier, but you're letting the meat of the argument (the government shouldn't give money or help to lazy poor people or untrustworthy minorities) go completely over your head.
Meanwhile, instead of staking out your own argument (the government shouldn't be giving money to greedy, undeserving rich people at the expense of the noble and hurting middle-class), you're spending all your time attacking an intensifier on the other guy's argument, which has a very limited effect.
The way to get someone to care is to emphasize the moral problem of tax cuts for the wealthy. And you can maybe talk about the deficit effects of that if you want, but I'd still be wary of making it the crux of your argument, because (a) technical arguments are unpersuasive, and (b) conservatives are fundamentally more trusted on the issue of deficits.
Edit: looking at my post, I think an interesting conceptualization arises. This may be too reductive, but tell me what you think:
Both parties mainly target the middle class, as the poor and the rich are both firmly in one camp or the other.
As a result, both parties essentially make a case for allocation, for us-vs-them. Conservatism is, perhaps, fundamentally a way of saying "fuck those dirty undeserving poor people and n*****s, they're trying to take a piece of your pie."
And progressivism is fundamentally a way of saying "fuck those greedy rich bastards and honkies, they're trying to take a piece of your pie."
The problem is that conservatives are making that case explicitly and fluently, and we're not making our case.
I would disagree that stimulus spending, a public option, or effective anti-poverty measures increase the deficit long term.
In fact I think there's quite a bit of evidence that these things, which help the middle class to exist, increase revenues in the long run.
There's a metric fuckton of evidence that tax cuts on the rich make the deficit balloon up
But my point is that we don't give a shit if they do.
And really, there's the big three: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
The Welfare State as we know it -- nothing even touches these, except defense spending.
Do you see many liberals out there clamoring for increased retirement ages, or cuts in Medicare/Medicaid?
No?
I didn't think so.
You see many Republicans clamoring for cutting those, I mean mainline party people? Last I heard they were bashing Obama for cutting medicare and blaming him for social security being insolvent
The fact is you can't balance this budget with cuts unless you abolish medicare or social security (and with SSI you'd still have to keep the tax on it after abolishing it!). There really is no way to fix the deficit without raising revenues in some way - it just cannot be done.
When a liberal claims the deficit can be solved with taxes on the rich he's correct, historically that has fixed overwhelming deficits without causing long term damage to the economy (realistically both cuts and new taxes are needed). When a conservative claims he can fix the deficit with spending cuts AND tax cuts, he's lying.
which makes no sense. how would taxes on individuals making more than 250k a year apply to businesses? because I can guarantee most small business owners don't make anywhere near that amount.
when republicans say "small businesses," they mean "the biggest businesses"
literally
they define business size by the number of owners, not employees
Who said their talking points need to hold up to critical analysis. This is the party that can wharblegarhble about how evil medicare is then blast Obama for cutting medicare.
Logic has no place here.
The singular difference is that people who lived through WW2 are still alive. The Confederates did abhorrent stuff too.
That and over a hundred years removal are some pretty big differences. You can't really compare the Holocaust and similar atrocities to the Confederacy (and Unions) actions either.
Sure I can. But why would I here? I would be shouted down if I tried to have that sort of discussion.
In fact I don't even know why I posted in D&D again.
The fact is nazi imagery resonates more than confederate imagery. It's even socially acceptable to identify ideologically with the confederacy in much of the US (didnt virginia display their flag until recently?) because to many whackos it was all about states rights and nothing to do with slavery
And it's not just that he's a reenactor, he thinks the Waffen SS were the bees knees
The other war was a civil war in a young nation over the roll of states vs the federal government with a loose basis in slave trade.
Yeah, they're just the same.
Here is the thing: slavery fundamentally caused the Civil War. However, nowadays we're struck most by the moral implications, and back then it was the political implications that really changed things.
Sorry to nitpick, but the South was making hubbub over wanting the federal government to trample the Northern states' rights (in that northern states refused to return slaves that fled).
So yea, states rights my patootie
He's made public pictures of himself dressed in other costumes from other eras of history. He is not exclusively a re-enactor of the Waffen SS.
The gaming analogue I can think of is that on a given BF1942 server, most axis players you can safely assume aren't really nazis, and are just on that side because it had open spots, or they found it the most fun.
And then there are the creepy guys with clan tags like -=*SS ELITE*=- and whatnot where you're just not sure.
Fuck you, John Roberts.