Its also just a terrible fucking source. Its just a list of sexual violence committed against Jews and others during the Holocaust, which tells you nothing about what they were doing prior.
Its entire purpose is to shut you down with immediate panic about how bad the Holocaust was, pure guilt tripping to end the topic.
Also you can tell it was likely one man's one handed project because the entirely page is littered with typos and grammar mistakes like it was written frantically and with heavy sexual breaths. Handmaid's Tale for Jews.
Anyone remember teachers telling you to not use Wikipedia back in the day? Today, especially seeing how biased it is and how forgetful it gets about some topics I don't trust it in any way if it's anything that can be political. If it's about I dunno titanium or something it might be more useful.
Then you have the fucking midwits who claim "it's a great jumping off point" and "just use Wikipedia's sources" despite being shown time and time again that Wikipedia is heavily biased in who they consider a credible source and how they prioritize secondary sources over primary sources.
Probably not. Look up any popular board or card game, even those taught to young children.
The articles never actually explain the rules or how to play, ever. How could an informational resource fail to convey the most basic aspects of a topic?
Pick anything you know well, and it will be mostly trash on wiki.
They still have sources, just some of them are super biased. No matter the language I speak weirdly enough they have some not so credible sources. Websites known for biases and outright lefty shithole pages. Not trustworthy.
How appropriate for a wikipedia citation, considering that wikipedia itself is built upon the fake and gay REPUTABLE/RELIABLE qualifier, which should have never become a thing. A claim is either true or not and needs to stand on its own merits, whether it comes from Alex Jones or the WHO.
They should probably ban secondary or tertiary sources from being cited in community notes in the first place.
context aside, does anyone know if there's any validity to the claim in the original post? it would make sense to me seeing that the Nazi party was in many ways a reaction to the degeneracy of Weimar Germany. but I don't know of any sources that specifically state that there was child prostitution running rampant.
I mean, it's impossible to end all of pretty much any crime, but I'm sure a police state also cracked down hard on it just like they cracked down hard on all crime. Police states are good at that, just not all their laws are particularly good.
And yes, the article in question does have sources, oddly enough. This article (From Salon, of all places!) goes more into direct references detailing child prostitutes;
Indeed, the sheer variety of odd sexual tastes Gordon documents in "Voluptuous Panic" is astonishing. For instance, Gordon identifies 16 different types of prostitutes, including "telephone girls," enormously expensive child prostitutes ages 12-17 labeled "Marlene Dietrichs" or "Lillian Harveys" according to their physical attributes. These girls could be ordered by phone and delivered by taxi to the client. There were also so-called minettes, who acted out S/M fantasies, and "demi-castors" (French slang for "half-beavers"), young women from good families who made extra cash by hooking part time.
...so, uh, yeah. Recent years have seen people comparing modern times to the Weimar era, and there's a very good fucking reason for it.
Of course, they try to deny just that;
But if "Voluptuous Panic" enhances Weimar Berlin's reputation as a 20th century Sodom and Gomorrah unlike any other, its author does take issue with the popular notion that the era's dissolution led inevitably to the rise of the Nazis and Hitler's appointment as Reichschancellor in 1933.
"The reality is that Hitler came to power for all kinds of magical reasons. Hitler's nationalist partners brought Hitler into government to humiliate the Nazis and prove they couldn't govern, and the opposite happened. If you look at the week-by-week or day-by-day description of how the Nazis came to power, it had nothing at all to do with the social life of Berlin. It had to do with all these economic factors and political maneuverings that even the Nazis couldn't foresee," Gordon says.
"It was important to me to disprove this idea that decadence leads to fascism."
Hah. Color me fucking skeptical.
This is the sucky part of scrounging up references; a part of me wants this book just for offline archival/historical purposes, but holy hell would I probably get put on a watch list for ordering the damn thing.
The noticers, anti-zionists, and third way people always like to push wherever they see an opening. There have always been people saying we fought the wrong enemy (see Patton), or "Hitler did nothing wrong". Actual neo-nazis are a tiny minority of those. Muslims and operations from Arab states are more common. The only kinda new element would be the psy-ops trying to take down twitter by giving ammunition to media and "research groups".
But none of that is surprising. Highlighting the weakness of community notes is more interesting IMO.
Its also just a terrible fucking source. Its just a list of sexual violence committed against Jews and others during the Holocaust, which tells you nothing about what they were doing prior.
Its entire purpose is to shut you down with immediate panic about how bad the Holocaust was, pure guilt tripping to end the topic.
Also you can tell it was likely one man's one handed project because the entirely page is littered with typos and grammar mistakes like it was written frantically and with heavy sexual breaths. Handmaid's Tale for Jews.
Anyone remember teachers telling you to not use Wikipedia back in the day? Today, especially seeing how biased it is and how forgetful it gets about some topics I don't trust it in any way if it's anything that can be political. If it's about I dunno titanium or something it might be more useful.
That's basically the first thing that comes to mind whenever Wikipedia is even mentioned.
titanium or rape?
Then you have the fucking midwits who claim "it's a great jumping off point" and "just use Wikipedia's sources" despite being shown time and time again that Wikipedia is heavily biased in who they consider a credible source and how they prioritize secondary sources over primary sources.
Probably not. Look up any popular board or card game, even those taught to young children.
The articles never actually explain the rules or how to play, ever. How could an informational resource fail to convey the most basic aspects of a topic?
Pick anything you know well, and it will be mostly trash on wiki.
Wikipedia used to have decent sources at the bottom of the article, I doubt that's the case anymore
They still have sources, just some of them are super biased. No matter the language I speak weirdly enough they have some not so credible sources. Websites known for biases and outright lefty shithole pages. Not trustworthy.
Community Notes should have to link those sources then.
The original post and that absolute non-sequitur aside, I find it interesting the way this part of the note is phrased:
Makes it sound less about evidence and more like no “valid” source would dare to say anything so positive about anything Hitler did even if it’s true.
How appropriate for a wikipedia citation, considering that wikipedia itself is built upon the fake and gay REPUTABLE/RELIABLE qualifier, which should have never become a thing. A claim is either true or not and needs to stand on its own merits, whether it comes from Alex Jones or the WHO.
They should probably ban secondary or tertiary sources from being cited in community notes in the first place.
Twitter should disallow any community note that cites Wikipedia. If you have a twatter account go to it and rate the source as "unreliable".
context aside, does anyone know if there's any validity to the claim in the original post? it would make sense to me seeing that the Nazi party was in many ways a reaction to the degeneracy of Weimar Germany. but I don't know of any sources that specifically state that there was child prostitution running rampant.
I mean, it's impossible to end all of pretty much any crime, but I'm sure a police state also cracked down hard on it just like they cracked down hard on all crime. Police states are good at that, just not all their laws are particularly good.
Just a little bit.
And yes, the article in question does have sources, oddly enough. This article (From Salon, of all places!) goes more into direct references detailing child prostitutes;
...so, uh, yeah. Recent years have seen people comparing modern times to the Weimar era, and there's a very good fucking reason for it.
Of course, they try to deny just that;
Hah. Color me fucking skeptical.
This is the sucky part of scrounging up references; a part of me wants this book just for offline archival/historical purposes, but holy hell would I probably get put on a watch list for ordering the damn thing.
of course comunity notes is a mixed baggage
I was afraid this would happen sooner or later. Community Notes was bound to eventually be gamed and weaponized by the usual suspects.
Apparently Elon saw that coming and is working on it. Without gatekeeping this will go to shit.
A more pressing question is why some people are trying to rehabilitate Hitler's public image.
The noticers, anti-zionists, and third way people always like to push wherever they see an opening. There have always been people saying we fought the wrong enemy (see Patton), or "Hitler did nothing wrong". Actual neo-nazis are a tiny minority of those. Muslims and operations from Arab states are more common. The only kinda new element would be the psy-ops trying to take down twitter by giving ammunition to media and "research groups".
But none of that is surprising. Highlighting the weakness of community notes is more interesting IMO.