4 ms·

> it is clear that your hatred for the 'barbarity' of a nation I do indeed hate the barbarity of Nazi Germany, as do most civilized people. Hardly surprising

> it is clear that your hatred for the 'barbarity' of a nation I do indeed hate the barbarity of Nazi Germany, as do most civilized people. Hardly surprising you'd be upset by that, since you're a Nazi sympathizer who has made it quite clear in this thread how much you hate the WW2 Allies, dismissing Allied casualties, claiming the Allies were worse than the Japanese, and lying about Allied atrocities that no history book mentions (for obvious reasons). > But calling out anyone who simply asks "What about German civilians killed?" as neo-Nazis and Nazi sympathisers is, well, simply bloviating hysteria. Remembering Germans who were killed is one thing. Focusing on nothing but German casualties, ignoring the vast majority of victims because they were not German (and were in fact victims of Germany), and criticizing and smearing the Allies is what outs you as a neo-Nazi. Who do you think you're kidding here? > You seem to be getting really upset about the downvotes you are getting "But the downvotes that my comment above (and no doubt this one) gets...". Your words, not mine. Not only complaining that your post with false information was (quite rightly) downvoted, and complaining about downvotes you hadn't even received, but even unhappy that an informative post about horrific Allied casualties was (according to you) upvoted. Unbelievable. > I will be civil enough to stop short of actually labelling you as anything though, because I have no other knowledge about you to make such a judgement call. Having no knowledge didn't stop you posting this crap: "You probably have an 'acceptable number' of women and children that can be destroyed" "You seem to be equating all the German population in WWII as Nazis" "You seem to think that they need to be punished with extreme prejudice" "you are probably OK with the fact that my parents could have easily been unimportant 'collateral damage'" > I don't think that derailing this thread any further with our discussion will be of benefit to anyone. What was the benefit of derailing it in the first place? What was the benefit of your other posts here, in a thread about heroism and bravery against one of the most evil regimes in history, repeatedly criticizing the Allies? If you're going to deny being a Nazi, as Nazis are prone to do when outed, try not quack so loudly in future.

Tomte 10y ago
Calling other posters "Nazi sympathizer" is totally unacceptable here. You might want to edit your comment.
- quirkafleeg 10y ago
  You might want to ask that within the time limit that editing is possible, if you sincerely want someone to do it. I'll retract "you're a Nazi sympathizer" simply because that much is obvious already by his posts, repeatedly criticizing the Allies and highlighting Allied "atrocities", openly supporting Nazi ally Japan and claiming it was more humane than the Allies, being dismissive of Allied casualties while grossly exaggerating German victims of the Allies, while also ignoring victims of the Nazis (who made up the bulk of the dead in this raid). Just as Holocaust denial isn't literally saying the Holocaust didn't happen, being a Nazi sympathizer is not about shouting Sieg Heil, it's about picking away at small things here and there. Minimizing or ignoring the crimes or victims of the Nazis (which he did), emphasizing the offences of the Allies (which he did), posting misinformation and/or lies (which he did). All textbook far-right/neo-Nazi tactics. I don't expect much from far-right members of HN, but the double standard here couldn't have been made more obvious to me in the past week. The other day a post of mine was flagged simply because it mentioned an undisputed fact of history that the far-right don't like people to know about, and it had so many upvotes it could not be buried in downvotes. So it was (abusively) flagged. This guy makes a false claim about the Dam Busters raid (claiming thousands of German civilians were killed) - meaning he either did not read the link he Googled just before posting (it's simply the first result for "German victims of Dam Busters raid") or he did read his link, and did have a clue about this topic he was trying to pontificate on, and decided to lie about it anyway - and not only was that false version of history upvoted by certain people here, my correction of it, quoting the actual article he posted and accurate facts, was downvoted, because those facts don't align with the far-right bias of some people at HN. Maybe Trump's victory and the rise of fascism in Europe has made right-wing extremists here bolder, as they are elsewhere on the internet, or maybe HN has always been a haven for ultra-right tendencies, but it's turning HN from a site that supposedly emphasizes factual information into just another far-right propaganda site.
sctb 10y ago
Even given a retraction of “you're a Nazi sympathizer”, this comment qualifies as a personal attack and those are not OK on Hacker News. Further, ascribing the downvotes, flags, and overall behavior of other community members to the causes of your choosing isn't substantive and forms a poor basis for the civil discussion that this site is here for.
- quirkafleeg 10y ago
  > Even given a retraction of “you're a Nazi sympathizer”, this comment qualifies as a personal attack and those are not OK on Hacker News. Ah, whereas his comments about what I "think", and my "agenda", and how I believe "women and children" should be "destroyed", and how I'd be "OK" with the death of his parents are perfectly fine and not personal attacks at all? How about his whining about downvotes in order to get upvotes? Let me guess, that's somehow fine too; it's only a problem when I bring the subject up when I get downvoted for correcting the false claims in his post? Am I to take it that if someone in future is making obvious and offensive far-right arguments here on HN they should be tolerated and allowed to get away with it, without comment, otherwise it's considered a personal attack? Because, aside from the Nazi references (retracted), everything I wrote in that post was simply a criticism of what he wrote and/or the offensive opinions he expressed, and no comment about him personally. > Further, ascribing the downvotes, flags, and overall behavior of other community members to the causes of your choosing isn't substantive and forms a poor basis for the civil discussion that this site is here for. If my complaint is so unsubstantive, give one good reason why a post (with numerous upvotes) simply stating "Maybe we should also remember that most of the people who signed this document owned slaves" should be flagged.

Tomte 10y ago

Calling other posters "Nazi sympathizer" is totally unacceptable here. You might want to edit your comment.

quirkafleeg 10y ago
You might want to ask that within the time limit that editing is possible, if you sincerely want someone to do it. I'll retract "you're a Nazi sympathizer" simply because that much is obvious already by his posts, repeatedly criticizing the Allies and highlighting Allied "atrocities", openly supporting Nazi ally Japan and claiming it was more humane than the Allies, being dismissive of Allied casualties while grossly exaggerating German victims of the Allies, while also ignoring victims of the Nazis (who made up the bulk of the dead in this raid). Just as Holocaust denial isn't literally saying the Holocaust didn't happen, being a Nazi sympathizer is not about shouting Sieg Heil, it's about picking away at small things here and there. Minimizing or ignoring the crimes or victims of the Nazis (which he did), emphasizing the offences of the Allies (which he did), posting misinformation and/or lies (which he did). All textbook far-right/neo-Nazi tactics. I don't expect much from far-right members of HN, but the double standard here couldn't have been made more obvious to me in the past week. The other day a post of mine was flagged simply because it mentioned an undisputed fact of history that the far-right don't like people to know about, and it had so many upvotes it could not be buried in downvotes. So it was (abusively) flagged. This guy makes a false claim about the Dam Busters raid (claiming thousands of German civilians were killed) - meaning he either did not read the link he Googled just before posting (it's simply the first result for "German victims of Dam Busters raid") or he did read his link, and did have a clue about this topic he was trying to pontificate on, and decided to lie about it anyway - and not only was that false version of history upvoted by certain people here, my correction of it, quoting the actual article he posted and accurate facts, was downvoted, because those facts don't align with the far-right bias of some people at HN. Maybe Trump's victory and the rise of fascism in Europe has made right-wing extremists here bolder, as they are elsewhere on the internet, or maybe HN has always been a haven for ultra-right tendencies, but it's turning HN from a site that supposedly emphasizes factual information into just another far-right propaganda site.

sctb 10y ago

Even given a retraction of “you're a Nazi sympathizer”, this comment qualifies as a personal attack and those are not OK on Hacker News. Further, ascribing the downvotes, flags, and overall behavior of other community members to the causes of your choosing isn't substantive and forms a poor basis for the civil discussion that this site is here for.

quirkafleeg 10y ago
> Even given a retraction of “you're a Nazi sympathizer”, this comment qualifies as a personal attack and those are not OK on Hacker News. Ah, whereas his comments about what I "think", and my "agenda", and how I believe "women and children" should be "destroyed", and how I'd be "OK" with the death of his parents are perfectly fine and not personal attacks at all? How about his whining about downvotes in order to get upvotes? Let me guess, that's somehow fine too; it's only a problem when I bring the subject up when I get downvoted for correcting the false claims in his post? Am I to take it that if someone in future is making obvious and offensive far-right arguments here on HN they should be tolerated and allowed to get away with it, without comment, otherwise it's considered a personal attack? Because, aside from the Nazi references (retracted), everything I wrote in that post was simply a criticism of what he wrote and/or the offensive opinions he expressed, and no comment about him personally. > Further, ascribing the downvotes, flags, and overall behavior of other community members to the causes of your choosing isn't substantive and forms a poor basis for the civil discussion that this site is here for. If my complaint is so unsubstantive, give one good reason why a post (with numerous upvotes) simply stating "Maybe we should also remember that most of the people who signed this document owned slaves" should be flagged.