This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
He is someone who glorifies the Waffen SS and thinks the Holocaust was a good thing, to the extent he admits it happened. He has said so on this forum.
Now he's claiming that it is simply a hollow shtick and a breach of the rules if he be called a hater of Jews.
This is dishonesty to the level of utter contempt for you.
It didn't happen though. How could I think it was a good thing and it didn't happen?
I don't think it's a good thing that millions of Jews were tricked into walking inside gas chambers that were disguised as shower rooms, it is something that simply never happened.
It is significant that Eric Hunt, notable and prominent holocaust revisionist, left the movement and officially admitted that the holocaust happened roughly as described by mainstream history.
He hadn't become "repentant and reformed Nazi", he just found out that holocaust revisionism is not true, and also not helpful at all.
...
Eric Hunt left Revisionism for a bunch of reasons, internal politics of the movements and such. It's a pretty tough job being a high-profile Revisionist, enormous pressure with little or no pay.
But in the past couple years Hunt has disavowed that article and he is a Revisionist again and he stands by his content, including that video I posted.
Keep in mind he was doing this when nobody else was talking about it, and YouTube basically increased their censorship solely because of Eric Hunt, his content was the very first victim of a high-censorship YouTube. Now that a lot of people on X and such talk about it he's found more satisfaction in the impact of his work. Nick Fuentes cited that video I linked by Hunt as being influential on Nick.
So he's a Revisionist and he stands by that work and he takes credit for the proliferation of Revisionism which he should, he did great work.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because Holocaust deniers (most of them, with the possible exception of the really low information ones) don't actually think it didn't happen.
Maybe you do really believe there were never gas chambers, and that the numbers are inflated, and there are discrepancies in the accounts of what happened in this camp or that camp. There are always question marks and inaccuracies in the historical record and "Holocaust deniers" excel at cataloging these to argue that the whole thing is a hoax. Like 9/11 truthers, like every other conspiracy theorist, it's not that there aren't questions, and things the public believes because they've become widespread knowledge that aren't actually true, or were taken from one particular account (soap made of Jews, for example, or human skin lampshades). So there are always things you can JAQ about.
But "the Holocaust" - a concerted effort to exterminate Jews - happened, and the strategy of the Holocaust denier is to try to convince people that actually the whole thing was fake because record books at Dachau don't match what someone said in an interview, or what have you. The reality of course is that they know the effort was made to exterminate Jews and they think it was a good thing, but they also know that the public is extremely unsympathetic to this and that Jews benefit from the widespread guilt generated by the Holocaust. So it's a political strategy to try to erode belief that the Holocaust happened, not a historical investigation.
This is why every time we talk about the Holocaust, you immediately jump to the specific things you have canned spiels about, like showerheads in Auschwitz and whether Hitler ever signed an order saying "Kill all the Jews." And try as hard as you can to avoid the obvious glaring holes in the narrative, like where did all those Jews go and how are thousands of people, from Nazis to Jews to German civilians to Allied soldiers, lying about what they saw?
If you were actually interested in historical truth it would be pretty interesting to hear you out, but I can't take any of your arguments seriously because to the degree you might have some interesting research about specifics, I know it's always in service of a very specific agenda and that you selectively omit or fabricate details according to whether the narrative serves that agenda.
No it did not. There has famously never been any written document or order found demonstrating a concerted effort to exterminate all the Jews. Such an order never existed and that was not the German policy.
Some Jews were killed definitely in reprisals etc. But there was no "extermination plan" as claimed, that is a lie as much as the gas chamber story.
You are doing, without a hint of irony or self-awareness, the exact thing that Amadan just criticised you for doing.
You just jumped from "was there an organised attempt to kill all the Jews?" to "was there a specific individual document that said to kill all the Jews?", even though that is not the same question at all, and that is exactly what Amadan just said you would do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link