Thread by @magi_jay

Something I wish people understood better about Platner is that he switches his persona for different audiences.

For example, in 2019, he commented at length on SRA (Socialist Rifle Association) reddit about how he disapproved of Marines using Punisher Skulls and Viking Call signs as insignia because he found the insignia "reeks of fascism." All while, again, ostensibly being naïve re: the Totenkopf--the unifying symbol of the SS--on his own chest.

Then, in 2020, when writing on r/liberalgunowners, he states a completely contradictory position: Sniper/Scouts have SS bolts and that's not problematic at all. Platner's argument: "I know a bunch of black and latino HOGs with bolts, they'd be quite surprised to hear they are part of a conspiracy to infiltrate white supremacists into the Marine Corps."

So, in 2019, Punisher Skulls seem fascistic--and he always disapproved of them--but, in 2020, SS bolts are just part of a long tradition. "I know lots with bolts."

Meanwhile, all of this elaborate (but contradictory) commentary on "Insignia: Fascist or no?" is occurring as Platner sits there with the unifying symbol of the SS tattooed for perpetuity on his chest, but has never once considered what it might mean beyond being a "terrifying skull and crossbones."

Okay.

Here's another example of persona-switching. In 2020, when commenting on the Marine Corps subreddit, he wrote about his reasoning for enlisting: "Wanted to have an adventure and kill some people. Joined up in '04, did Fallujah and Ramadi, and managed both. Hell of an excellent experience."

Then, in 2021, when writing on the SocialistRA subreddit, Platner claims: "I was left-ish when I was in, vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq but somewhat supportive of Afghanistan...Every day was a stark reminder of the ethical horror show that imperialist adventures always turn into...My time in America's imperial wars definitely radicalized me further."

So which is it? Did he have an "excellent experience" in Fallujah and Ramadi (Iraq) or was he "vehemently opposed" to it, finding the experience to be an ethical "horror show" of imperialism?

Couple of things here: Overall, there's the contradictory positions for different audiences with no connecting tissue (story of change) between the contradictions. No, "I went to Iraq in 2004 because I wanted to go to Iraq to fight in a war. Up until 2020, I described it as a great experience. No regrets. Then somehow in the past 16 months I not only changed my mind about the war, but about who I was when I went to war. I didn't actually want to go to war, especially not in Iraq. Actually I specifically opposed that war. I didn't know that for the past 15 years but I know it now."

Now that explanation wouldn't make any sense, but at least it would be an *attempt* at an explanation. But Platner doesn't do that. Because it's all about performance.

Secondarily, there's the question of which one of the positions is the truly-held position? My guess would be the one Platner wrote about most frequently: He wanted to go to war and he liked it. That's the truth. He's performing for the socialists. Regurgitating buzz phrases. Claiming war radicalized him into socialism.

Take a look at the contrasts.