(04-13-2023 05:45 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The bottom line is that you presented a bunch of reasons which a rich guy might invest in Nazi momentos. I don't think any of your potential reasons are "wrong" but none of them explain why the rich guy decides to display this Nazi stuff in a prominent enough place in his house that multiple visitors report being shocked by the items.

I'm not disagreeing with any of possible explanations as to why Crow owns this stuff... I'm maintaining that it's weird to display them like he apparently does.

I think there are plenty of people with agendas who would claim to be 'shocked' at things that most people wouldn't. I see it all the time from both sides. I'm sorry, but I simply don't take some unknown, un-named (not saying they can't be named... saying they haven't been named on here) person's account of things. As I said, it would be one thing if he had a display of WWII momentos that included items from ALL sides of the war, and something else entirely if he had a display solely dedicated to the Nazis. His collection of Socialists and Communists statues makes me strongly suspect the former rather than the latter. You're free to disagree, but that doesn't make you correct. I don't have to be right about how it is displayed... because I'm not claiming I have any idea. I'm merely claiming that your supposition is one of numerous potential and equally logical ones.

I would actually be MORE concerned if he had his art in some 'private vault' where only he could see it. That to me would be just as hard to explain... maybe harder. If you're not a closeted Nazi, why do you feel compelled to hide it??

Quote:I'm sure he does. Maybe put more of the obsure stuff out and less of the Hitler-y stuff out? IDK. Personal choice I guess.

So you know he doesn't do this??

You've been told that he has this stuff on display. I read that he has other stuff on display... I'm sure there is even MORE on display, aren't you?

Quote:You are lecturing me about things like "Rich people buy art to pass along wealth to their descendants" and I'm simply saying that displaying Nazi stuff in his house is a weird move. I'm not feigning ignorance about why rich people own art or rare artifacts.

That isn't really a fair characterization of what I said. What I said was more along the lines of... Rich people buy art often based on the ability to buy it relatively cheaply today with the hope of selling it at some point in potentially 100 years at a higher price.

The ignorance I'm accusing you of feigning (because I think you KNOW all of this, hence the word) has to do with the idea of 'money' being a potential motivator that makes 'topic' potentially meaningless. My beanie-baby comment was part of this. If I could buy a beanie baby worth $10,000 for $2, I'd do it.... and if I thought it might appreciate to $20,000 in a short period, I might even put it on display... especially if i wanted to gin up publicity for the existence of the item.

Quote:I can either go by first-hand accounts of multiple people who have been to Crow's house or I can go by your best guesses about what it is on display and why. Are your guess more likely to be accurate?

It depends on whom those people are and whether or not they have an agenda.

I think it pretty obvious that a Republican and Democrat can look at the same things and reach totally opposite conclusions.... especially when such subjective terms like how prominently they are displayed. I'm sure they are displayed as if they are in a museum... and not wadded up in a corner. That means for certain that he respects the VALUE of the item, but doesn't mean with any certainty that he respects the 'creator' of the item.

Quote:I think I've summed it up as something like "It is his right to own the Nazi stuff, I don't think that it makes him a Nazi, but it is weird if he displays it prominently in his house" about what feels like a thousand times at this point.

You've similarly summed up your position on AOC's comment... The difference is all the other stuff you've said about Crow that you haven't even remotely touched on with AOC.

Your response here isn't in any way in conflict with what I said. Yes, you've said that... but you've ALSO said a whole lot more.

Quote:So when I say... wow... this Nazi collecting thing is a weird, surprising side note to this Thomas story but let me be clear that it does not mean anything when it comes to this Thomas story... I actually mean for it to mean something when it comes to the Thomas story? Gotcha.

This implies that you are unaware of the salaciosness of the comment, and the 'guilt by association' that can be raised. Whether you intended it to be that way or not, only you know... But I'm pointing out to you that it DOES mean something... even if you don't think it does.

Quote:I wasn't meant to "cast shade" on your comment. I meant to discuss how a certain sector of people might feel about the topic at hand that maybe you hadn't considered.

Do you honestly think I don't know how a Jewish person might feel about a celebration of the Nazi's??

I actually pointed out that although not related to Race, Crow's mother survived a ship sunk by the Nazis. He potentially has a similarly personal reason to NOT celebrate in any way the Jews. It's not the same... they didn't target his family... but they STILL almost killed his mother. You speak of a generic Jewish person, who may or may not have even known anyone subjected to their psycopathy... and I'm speaking of someone directly impacted by them

Quote:So I shouldn't have mentioned the Nazi collection side note because of course it was going to cast shade on Thomas even though I took great pains to say... "let me be clear... this story has nothing to do with Thomas?" Huh.

I'm not sure that you started the conversation off with a disclaimer... but that aside...
1) the story DOES have something to do with Thomas because Democrats LOVE to make this sort of inference.
2) that's a bit like saying 'no offense, but....' Obviously you KNOW the comment is going to be offensive and you want to distance yourself from it... but if you really didn't want to risk offending someone, you simply wouldn't say it.

Don't go off on a tangent here about 'offending' anyone... that's just an example where a disclaimer like the one you note is ultimately meaningless. You COULD have said something about his unusual apparent fascination with Socialist and Communist leaders as well, but you didn't. Odd that, huh??

had he had Elephant man bones on display, how convinced are you that those same 'first-hand accounts' would have been just as 'shocked'?? I'm not at all. The value is in the salacious claim and inference