site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   6209 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for December 2022

This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).

As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.

A few comments from the editor: first, sorry this is a little late, but you know--holidays and all. Furthermore, the number of quality contribution nominations seems to have grown a fair bit since moving to the new site. In fact, as I write this on January 5, there are already 37 distinct nominations in the hopper for January 2023. While we do occasionally get obviously insincere or "super upvote" nominations, the clear majority of these are all plausible AAQCs, and often quite a lot of text to sift through.

Second, this month we have special AAQC recognition for @drmanhattan16. This readthrough of Paul Gottfried’s Fascism: Career of a Concept began in the Old Country, and has continued to garner AAQC nominations here. It is a great example of the kind of effort and thoughtfulness we like to see. Also judging by reports and upvotes, a great many of us are junkies for good book reviews. The final analysis was actually posted in January, but it contains links to all the previous entries as well, so that's what I'll put here:

Now: on with the show!

Quality Contributions Outside the CW Thread

@Tollund_Man4:

@naraburns:

@Bernd:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@RandomRanger:

@Iconochasm:

Contributions for the week of December 5, 2022

@zeke5123:

@ymeskhout:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@gattsuru:

@Southkraut:

@Bernd:

@problem_redditor:

@FCfromSSC:

@urquan:

@gemmaem:

Sexulation

@RococoBasilica:

@problem_redditor:

Holocaustianity

@johnfabian:

@DaseindustriesLtd:

@SecureSignals:

Coloniazism

@gaygroyper100pct:

@screye:

@urquan:

@georgioz:

Contributions for the week of December 12, 2022

@SecureSignals:

@Titus_1_16:

@Dean:

@cjet79:

@JarJarJedi:

@gattsuru:

@YE_GUILTY:

@aqouta:

@HlynkaCG:

Contributions for the week of December 19, 2022

@MathiasTRex:

@To_Mandalay:

Robophobia

@gattsuru:

@IGI-111:

@NexusGlow:

Contributions for the week of December 26, 2022

@FCfromSSC:

@gattsuru:

@LacklustreFriend:

@DaseindustriesLtd:

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When historians say that the Germans had a plan to exterminate the Jews, what they mean is that the Germans secretly decided that the final solution to the Jewish Question was to murder them all. It is claimed that this murder took place mostly with gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. These are the core claims that Revisionists contest.

It is strange to accuse Revisionists of "moving the goalposts" when you refuse to defend the core elements of the mainstream narrative. You are of course free to not take the mainstream position and propose your own historical interpretation, and that makes you a Revisionist. Congratulations.

You are trying to say "the concentration of Jews in labor camps is an extermination plan". You are free to say that but it has no relation to what the "Holocaust" actually is. The translation I am reading says:

The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)

This passage clearly means that they are not to be allowed back into Europe, but it is obviously vague on how this is supposed to happen. Given the continuity of the Wannsee Protocols with the Havaara Agreement and Madagascar Plan, it is clear that that "treated accordingly" would mean "moved away and not allowed back in." You are free to use your imagination for what "treated accordingly" is supposed to mean, but you are only proving how weak your case is for using the most vague parts of the document as the best evidence for your claims.

Obviously this question was not even in the scope of the conference.

You all rely on:

  • Desperately avoiding debate for the physical evidence of what you claim happened.

  • Assuming euphemism and coded language in hundreds of documents across a sprawling bureaucracy with an extremely impressive compliance... not to mention the confusion that would be caused by using "resettlement" as a code word when even historians admit there were all kinds of resettlements of people that were not euphemism.

  • Citing a few sentences from a document, where the document as a whole supports the Revisionist case, take something vague like the words "treated accordingly" and use that as the best evidence you can come up with for your interpretation of the document.

This is one of the reasons the mainstream has generally moved away from emphasizing Wannsee Protocols so much... when you actually read it and consider the context then you're just left desperately pointing to something like "look, it says 'treated accordingly'!" while the document as a whole is simply a verification of what Revisionists are claiming.

You are evading again. I am not interested in discussing gas chambers. I am interested in your claim that there were no genocidal plans. Which is clearly wrong. What was planned at Wannsee (working Jews to death and "treating" the survivors) is also not incompatible with systematic extermination, by what means whatsoever.

This passage clearly means that they are not to be allowed back into Europe

It clearly doesn't mean that, given that the first part of the document discusses how the expulsion from Europe plan is to be abandonded in favour of "evacuation" to the East. You yourself quoted to me correspondence showing that the Madagascar option was off the table by 1942.

"Evacuation" means that victims were to be systematically rounded up, moved to the East, worked to death and minority of survivors "treated". The only parts of the document describing moving anyone out of Europe are those in the first part describing the approach that is to be abandonded. Nowhere in the documents is there any mention of moving the survivors out of Europe.

You also realise that this claim of yours is wholly incompatible with your other claim, that the Endlösung means resettlement to the East. There is no evidence for this in the documents other than the word "evacuation" which refers to what happens to the Western occupied territories, not what will happen to the victims after evacuation. There is also no physical evidence of resettlement efforts in the East.

Now, you could claim that "the East" is not Europe (which would be ridiculous, given, e.g. camps in Poland), and that therefore the victims were in fact moved out of Europe. But why then the preoccupation with "treating" the survivors as not to serve as the gamete of a new Jewish revival if those people were already deported to places of no concern to the Nazis?

You are free to say that but it has no relation to what the "Holocaust" actually is.

and then you quote

The possible final remnant

I think that you found the genocide confirmation that you were looking for?

It is strange to accuse Revisionists of "moving the goalposts" when you refuse to defend the core elements of the mainstream narrative.

Personally I am not familiar with gas chambers details and I am unwilling to spend 20+ hours on research just to debate with neonazi on the internet on some obscure forum. Sorry SS if you are not a neonazi but I asked you multiple times about that and about origin of your username and you never responded so I assume that you are.

But I am far more certain that Germans murdered millions of people, many of them for being Jews. And that part is much, much easier to defend without spending overly long time to research this things.

So if you deny that Nazis murdered millions of people that is much easier thing to discuss for me, and if you do not deny then you would become more interesting to debate details. If you would deny that Germans forced Jews into ghettos then things would get even more obvious.

But I am far more certain that Germans murdered millions of people, many of them for being Jews.

Where did they kill them? How? When? What is the physical evidence for the crime you are alleging at those locations? Where are all the bodies?

Can you reply to:

  • do you deny that Nazis murdered millions of civilians in areas they occupied

  • are you a neonazi

  • is SS as acronym deliberate

?

Where are all the bodies?

What you claim to happened with people who were transported into for example Auschwitz?

Sorry for imposing on you, but please say again where to find this "treated accordingly" passage. I'd like to take a look at the German version.

I was surprisingly not able to find a PDF of the Protocols in German, but I found scans and this is the page.

entsprechend behan, clearly vague, but implies that the question was simply not dealt with in the conference and was a question for a later time- probably after the war. It is said that this entire conference only lasted 90 minutes, which doesn't exactly live up to the weight it's given in historiography.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats