This is a new interpretation: the Zionists had the Germans intentionally starve the jews to death to get the state of Israel as an elaborate plot. This is, frankly, the dumbest way to try and get statehood that I've ever heard but okay. The other stuff about allied countries not taking in jews is true. Yes Germany didn't exactly try to deport them, as much as exile them and rob them of all their possessions in Germany. Being socialists, the jews were considered a bourgeois race that had stolen all wealth they had accrued, thus all wealth could be taken back. And they would be deported to... Madagascar: a tribal and undeveloped island after being robbed of all worldly possession. In reality, deporting was never a solution because the goal was to exterminate jews as a whole because Judeo-Bolshevism suggested that they were a plague upon all nations already, so killing them would save Europe. Deporting them, on the other hand, would keep them alive, and keep them a threat to Europe.
This also ignores the fact that the holocaust was undertaken for speed and efficiency. Same reason you shouldn't be using bullets to shoot every jew in a war: you run out of bullets when you're trying to kill all the jews in Europe. Starvation is far too slow, and requires far too much space.
Even then, if we were to say that starvation as a method of execution was the only method in the holocaust, we can see that food was not rationed so tightly that it was impossible to feed jews. American POWs and Russian POWs were also starved in different rates depending on the political animosity that the Germans may have had towards the different groups. We see the Germans doing the same thing during WW1, as killing off the vast swathes of Russian prisoners by refusing to feed them happens in both wars, but it is the Russians being directly targeted with starvation over other groups. In WW2, the Jews get worse treatment than the Russians, which is really saying something.
So, all in all, there's plenty of issues with the original statement that could be disinformation, but there's other parts that aren't, but the real problem with it is actually just the fact that OP is asserting the jews conspired to commit the holocaust against themselves for Israel (which didn't exist yet).
This isn't so much about refuting claims as about responding to the idea that it's intentional disinformation. The claims are wrong, but are they disinformation, is it known to him to be intentionally false. Honestly, with Holocaust Deniers, it's hard to say. Genuinely, a lot of them are ideologically captured into this exclusively American National Socialist narrative that "the holocaust didn't happen but should have", where as none of the German National Socialists denied it. They accept why it happened, they accept that it should happen, but then they claim that somehow Hitler wasn't a massive hypocrite, tried to save the jews, but then the jews created this argument that he exterminated them.
That's certainly disingenuous enough to be considered something that is said to be intentionally false because it's so inconsistent, but adherence to Holocaust Denial seem to be entirely devoted to that contradiction (Excluding the weird realm of "holocaust skeptics" which aren't NatSocs but end up running around in circles trying to disprove it, and normally come to conclusions after years to: "Auschwitz doesn't real but Dachau is", or "It's not 6 million, it's 4 million, because we shouldn't count starvation or disease at concentration camps" or odd things like that... none of which are regularly presented here.)
So, I still want to explain my thinking about whether or not the comment is disinformation, opinion, or genuine belief, for transparency.
So why still remove the comment? Same reason I remove the comment even after explaining what it is when I remove it: that is still the official punishment for the comment.
To what end are you being such a censorious faggot? Who even asked for this? You can't use the same excuse as you would on reddit where the admins are demanding it, and aside from the handful of bootlickers who keep reppering these comments the majority of users were don't want it. So seriously, to whom to you serve here?
How's this for 'disinformation': you are a shill for the jews. Whether thay means you're jewish yourself or are just a cuck for them I don't know, and honestly it doesn't really matter. But one thing is clear, you're poisoning the well for them all the same.
Ok upvoted for the considered explanation but I just don't agree that even intentional disinformation should necessarily be removed, as long as it's appropriately countered. I would apply a higher standard to top-level posts though, which is what I thought Rule 12 was about.
We absolutely need to counter disinformation (again: actual disinformation: knowingly false, non-satirical, propaganda designed to damage the person who believes it) if it's already spread. However, it also makes sense to stop it's spread early by removing it's accessibility early on.
This is why I specifically carve out: "genuine belief". It's a subjective call, but if you believe disinformation... your actually the victim of it. You need to know what it is, and to have it countered.
However, if it's clear you're spreading the disinformation because you are the aggressor, it should be censored and removed.
This is why misinformation shouldn't be acted against. It's just a mistake. You believed something that's wrong, that's not even a problem, and can be so broad that it makes a moderator an "arbiter of truth". You don't want to do that either.
Disinformation is a weapon, fired at the innocent, by an enemy. Remove the enemy, not the victim.
It's subjective, but it's also why I rarely ever remove anything for Disinformation. I think I've done it maybe twice. Again: it was knowingly false information spread by someone who knew it to be false in order to make others believe in the lie. And it wasn't some obvious falsehood like hyperbole. It was false enough to make you realize that OP knew better, but pushed it anyway to fuck with people. It's very contextual: not "OP should have known better", but "OP did know better and is playing stupid."
So, for example, Imp makes a post. I know Imp believes women are genocidal. He's already clearly tipped his hand to his specific bugaboo. But he makes a post that says, "Local woman kills man for rejecting her!", and he posts a screenshot of an article which claim that "neighbors say the man may have met her at a local bar". But, someone realizes that there's a video that's been released to the public that shows her yelling, "give me all your money!" and the police are claiming that they are investigating a robbery. Worse, it's in the article that he screenshotted instead of linked.
Well, where the hell did "rejecting her" come from? Nowhere, he inserted it. "Met at a local bar" doesn't really tell us anything, and the article couched the words in qualifiers, meaning they don't even know that it's true. Moreover, there's evidence that it was a stick-up.
So, what happened here? This is right-up imp's bias. He inserted a fact that didn't exist. He ignored contradictory evidence to his claim. He likely would have seen it in the article, and intentionally cropped it out. To me, the fact that he inserted information and excluded contradictory evidence, but didn't give people the ability to check him, would demonstrate his "mens rea" of a malicious sort. Hence, it's not just an accident from bias or bigotry, but intentional disinformation. It should be removed before others buy into it, and he should be punished for pushing it.
Post Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Post Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
This is a new interpretation: the Zionists had the Germans intentionally starve the jews to death to get the state of Israel as an elaborate plot. This is, frankly, the dumbest way to try and get statehood that I've ever heard but okay. The other stuff about allied countries not taking in jews is true. Yes Germany didn't exactly try to deport them, as much as exile them and rob them of all their possessions in Germany. Being socialists, the jews were considered a bourgeois race that had stolen all wealth they had accrued, thus all wealth could be taken back. And they would be deported to... Madagascar: a tribal and undeveloped island after being robbed of all worldly possession. In reality, deporting was never a solution because the goal was to exterminate jews as a whole because Judeo-Bolshevism suggested that they were a plague upon all nations already, so killing them would save Europe. Deporting them, on the other hand, would keep them alive, and keep them a threat to Europe.
This also ignores the fact that the holocaust was undertaken for speed and efficiency. Same reason you shouldn't be using bullets to shoot every jew in a war: you run out of bullets when you're trying to kill all the jews in Europe. Starvation is far too slow, and requires far too much space.
Even then, if we were to say that starvation as a method of execution was the only method in the holocaust, we can see that food was not rationed so tightly that it was impossible to feed jews. American POWs and Russian POWs were also starved in different rates depending on the political animosity that the Germans may have had towards the different groups. We see the Germans doing the same thing during WW1, as killing off the vast swathes of Russian prisoners by refusing to feed them happens in both wars, but it is the Russians being directly targeted with starvation over other groups. In WW2, the Jews get worse treatment than the Russians, which is really saying something.
So, all in all, there's plenty of issues with the original statement that could be disinformation, but there's other parts that aren't, but the real problem with it is actually just the fact that OP is asserting the jews conspired to commit the holocaust against themselves for Israel (which didn't exist yet).
Fuck off.
Your comment does a fine job refuting his claims (or providing an alternative explanation) so why the need to delete his comment?
Ya’ll stick together that’s for sure.
?
This isn't so much about refuting claims as about responding to the idea that it's intentional disinformation. The claims are wrong, but are they disinformation, is it known to him to be intentionally false. Honestly, with Holocaust Deniers, it's hard to say. Genuinely, a lot of them are ideologically captured into this exclusively American National Socialist narrative that "the holocaust didn't happen but should have", where as none of the German National Socialists denied it. They accept why it happened, they accept that it should happen, but then they claim that somehow Hitler wasn't a massive hypocrite, tried to save the jews, but then the jews created this argument that he exterminated them.
That's certainly disingenuous enough to be considered something that is said to be intentionally false because it's so inconsistent, but adherence to Holocaust Denial seem to be entirely devoted to that contradiction (Excluding the weird realm of "holocaust skeptics" which aren't NatSocs but end up running around in circles trying to disprove it, and normally come to conclusions after years to: "Auschwitz doesn't real but Dachau is", or "It's not 6 million, it's 4 million, because we shouldn't count starvation or disease at concentration camps" or odd things like that... none of which are regularly presented here.)
So, I still want to explain my thinking about whether or not the comment is disinformation, opinion, or genuine belief, for transparency.
So why still remove the comment? Same reason I remove the comment even after explaining what it is when I remove it: that is still the official punishment for the comment.
To what end are you being such a censorious faggot? Who even asked for this? You can't use the same excuse as you would on reddit where the admins are demanding it, and aside from the handful of bootlickers who keep reppering these comments the majority of users were don't want it. So seriously, to whom to you serve here?
How's this for 'disinformation': you are a shill for the jews. Whether thay means you're jewish yourself or are just a cuck for them I don't know, and honestly it doesn't really matter. But one thing is clear, you're poisoning the well for them all the same.
Ok upvoted for the considered explanation but I just don't agree that even intentional disinformation should necessarily be removed, as long as it's appropriately countered. I would apply a higher standard to top-level posts though, which is what I thought Rule 12 was about.
Yes, it's a very tricky call, tbh.
We absolutely need to counter disinformation (again: actual disinformation: knowingly false, non-satirical, propaganda designed to damage the person who believes it) if it's already spread. However, it also makes sense to stop it's spread early by removing it's accessibility early on.
This is why I specifically carve out: "genuine belief". It's a subjective call, but if you believe disinformation... your actually the victim of it. You need to know what it is, and to have it countered.
However, if it's clear you're spreading the disinformation because you are the aggressor, it should be censored and removed.
This is why misinformation shouldn't be acted against. It's just a mistake. You believed something that's wrong, that's not even a problem, and can be so broad that it makes a moderator an "arbiter of truth". You don't want to do that either.
Disinformation is a weapon, fired at the innocent, by an enemy. Remove the enemy, not the victim.
It's subjective, but it's also why I rarely ever remove anything for Disinformation. I think I've done it maybe twice. Again: it was knowingly false information spread by someone who knew it to be false in order to make others believe in the lie. And it wasn't some obvious falsehood like hyperbole. It was false enough to make you realize that OP knew better, but pushed it anyway to fuck with people. It's very contextual: not "OP should have known better", but "OP did know better and is playing stupid."
So, for example, Imp makes a post. I know Imp believes women are genocidal. He's already clearly tipped his hand to his specific bugaboo. But he makes a post that says, "Local woman kills man for rejecting her!", and he posts a screenshot of an article which claim that "neighbors say the man may have met her at a local bar". But, someone realizes that there's a video that's been released to the public that shows her yelling, "give me all your money!" and the police are claiming that they are investigating a robbery. Worse, it's in the article that he screenshotted instead of linked.
Well, where the hell did "rejecting her" come from? Nowhere, he inserted it. "Met at a local bar" doesn't really tell us anything, and the article couched the words in qualifiers, meaning they don't even know that it's true. Moreover, there's evidence that it was a stick-up.
So, what happened here? This is right-up imp's bias. He inserted a fact that didn't exist. He ignored contradictory evidence to his claim. He likely would have seen it in the article, and intentionally cropped it out. To me, the fact that he inserted information and excluded contradictory evidence, but didn't give people the ability to check him, would demonstrate his "mens rea" of a malicious sort. Hence, it's not just an accident from bias or bigotry, but intentional disinformation. It should be removed before others buy into it, and he should be punished for pushing it.