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 -
You could turn this same argument around on every western ally justifying their fight against Nazi's. Don't forget the soviet forces had political commissars in their units.
"Justifying" their fight against Nazis? The nazis attacked the allies and countless neutral countries first, that's all the justification needed to fight.
I'm not going to get dragged into a justification debate on WW2. You will clearly stick to the usual normie narrative so it's not worth the reddit style back and forth.
Retreating because you can't back it up. The "normies" are far more correct than the neo-nazis on this topic. The Gleiwitz incident was a false flag attack ordered by Hitler; the nazis attacked first and did so after years of other powers making nonaggression pacts, trade deals, territorial concessions, lifting Versailles treaty enforcement, and other negotiations in an attempt to avert another war. All of that amounted to a big waste of time, because the nazis were just acting in bad faith stalling to arm up and backstab everybody.
A bunch of my family died fighting in the Wehrmacht, then even more when Hitler in his incredible arrogance and egomania refused to allow civilians to evacuate as the front lines crept closer and closer. The region they were from doesn't even exist any more. Know who the survivors blame? Not the Allies, not even the Red Army, they place it squarely on Hitler and Nazism for starting the war then refusing to surrender when it was clearly lost.
I don't really understand why you feel the need to argue something I didn't even bring up. I'm not a "neo-nazi", merely trying to understand the time and motivations of the men that fought there, especially the eastern front.
My point, which I should have spent more time on, was that communists committed atrocities in these areas before the nazi's showed up. So it stands to reason that some men in the Waffen-SS, volunteered for retribution or to fight against a fear of spread throughout Europe. Which IMO is a valid reason.
To answer:
Yes justifying, as in the common narrative of the western soldier going off to fight the Nazi's but ended up just fighting normal German people. This was in response to sun's comment.
I don't appreciate your emotional appeal in your argument, and nowhere did I defend Hitler, his strategies, or motivations. I'm not a Nazi, however I also don't think the narrative that is so common in regards to WW2 is 100% correct. In order to find out the truth I read first hand accounts and other history in order to form my own opinion. I'm also not an expert on the subject and freely admit that. Sorry to trigger you I guess.
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