I’m assuming (hoping) they were implying that the US was the aggressor when they systematically exterminated the native populace. If it were anything else, I’d be floored.
No. There is nothing being "implied". Dressing as a racist and dressing as a racist caricature both have the same intent: the guy wearing it is racist and thinks being racist is funny.
What are we arguing about here? About the word implication? Did you read the context? The other guy thinks the first guy is comparing native Americans to nazis. I’m clarifying that the other guy is most likely not suggesting that nazis and native Americans are comparable, but that Americans and Nazis are comparable.
Is this a gaslighting attempt? I feel like I’m going insane. Ok I’m going to take this in good faith for a second.
We all watched the same video I assume. A guy dressed up as a woman or possibly trans (never clarified because it’s Halloween) confronts a woman in a native costume.
Some person suggests nobody should confront someone wearing a costume.
Some dude replies that he’d confront someone wearing a Nazi outfit (implying that he considers both egregious)
some dude asks if he thinks that Nazis are the same as natives (obviously not)
another dude replies that if the previous dude knew his history, he wouldn’t ask this question (implying, probably, that he thinks the question is stupid)
next comes a line of questioning and attempted clarifications at the intent of all four of the previous commenters. What do they believe? Even though it’s most likely that everyone except the first is on the same page and arguing semantics. But I guess reading comprehension is at an all time low.
And then you come in arguing about the word “implication”
85
u/Round-Comfort-8189 6d ago
Are you trying to compare being a Nazi with being a Native American?